May 6, 2013

PJ-91

CHAPTER 9

 

REC #2    HATONN

 

MON., APR. 4, 1994     11:28 A.M.     YEAR 7, DAY 231

 

MON., APR. 4, 1994

 

CONTINUE AT SECOND PARAGRAPH UNDER

"PLACING A YOUNG LADY IN PRISON" OF PART 13.

 

Continuation: DEFRAUDING AMERICA, Part 14

by Rodney Stich

 

QUOTING:

 

The young woman suffered the indignities accompanying federal imprisonment, including frequent transportation with leg irons, handcuffs, and body cavity searches. Lisa Jones joined the many thousands of citizens who became victims of Justice Department and judicial corruption, and understandably, developed psychological problems.

 

After all this, Drexel's attorneys sued the young lady for payment of legal fees that Drexel had agreed to pay. In response to Drexel's claim that they would sue Ms. Jones for the amount of money that they had advanced, San Francisco attorney Daniel Bookin stated: "It is inconceivable to me that Drexel would sue Lisa after all that she's gone through, and in view of compassion and decency aside, however, one simple fact seems certain: Lisa has virtually no assets; she could never even begin to repay the cost of her legal representation."

 

SENDING SENIOR CITIZENS TO PRISON

 

Justice Department prosecutors charged Leona Helmsley with evading income taxes, and sentenced the 72-year-old woman to four years in federal prison, leaving behind her 81-year-old husband, who could be expected to be dead before she would be released. [H: On the other hand Clifford Clark was absolved of ALL possible charges against him in the BCCI scandal wherein these ones had criminally taken billions upon billions of dollars from YOU--because of his age!! A very interesting judicial system indeed!]

 

Helmsley's accountants had claimed as business expenses, charges that Justice Department attorneys considered personal items. [H: It seems they had claimed some of her underwear. I speak of this because didn't Bill Clinton overdeduct for charitable contribution, some of his underwear? Ah yes, indeed interesting...] Helmsley's income tax forms were made out by professional tax preparers, who determined that the deductions were business related. The accountants who made that determination were never charged with any wrongdoing. Helmsley paid over $4 million federal income taxes in the disputed tax year and the amount owed by the disputed charges was a very small percentage of that amount.

 

Seeking to show that the judge who sentenced Helmsley to prison did himself commit a serious federal crime,  I mailed to the federal judge on April 25, 1992, a list of the criminal activities that my CIA informants and I were trying to report, and demanded that he receive our testimony and evidence. I reminded him of the mandatory requirement that we give our evidence to a federal court and that the court receives it. (Title 18 U.S.C. sub. 4) He refused to receive our evidence, making possible the continuation of the epidemic corruption that we discovered.

 

While aiding and abetting, and covering up for the serious crimes described within these pages, and sending informants to prison, Justice Department prosecutors found time on December 15, 1992, to indict [Bobby] Fisher for playing a chess game in Yugoslavia, charging him with violating the presidential order barring business relations with Communist countries. Fisher violated a June, 1992 executive order by President George Bush restricting commercial relations with Yugoslavia. The indictment subjected Fisher to ten years in prison and a fine of as much as $250,000. Is it any wonder the United States has the highest percentage of its citizens in prison?

 

TEN YEARS FOR A TELEPHONE

CONVERSATION

 

On December 7, 1990, Judge Samuel Conti sentenced a young black girl from Oakland, California, the mother of two infants, to ten years in prison on a conspiracy charge. The young girl had a telephone conversation with another person concerning the sale of drugs. The conversation never went any further but federal agents, monitoring the phone call, charged the girl with conspiracy. She was in tears when U.S. Marshals drove her back from the federal court house in San Francisco to the Dublin Federal Detention Center after Judge Samuel Conti sentenced her to ten years in a high security prison. This same judge played a major role in blocking my exposures of the criminal activities and in protecting the many people that were implicated in the attacks upon me. He, as with many other federal judges named in these pages, should be impeached and sentenced to a long prison term. But this will never happen because crooked federal judges and Justice Department attorneys have a strangle-hold on the justice system.

 

PRISON FOR REFUSING TO

COMMIT PERJURY

 

Justice Department prosecutors charged a Sacramento area real estate developer, Marcel Cordi, with a federal offense for refusing to testify falsely against a bank official whom Justice Department prosecutors wanted to convict. U.S. Attorney David Levi of Sacramento wanted Marcel to testify against a bank official and alter the facts in his testimony. Marcel was willing to testify, but would not commit perjury to enable Justice Department prosecutors to falsely convict the person. In retaliation for refusing to commit perjury, U.S. Attorney Levi charged Marcel with fraud, based upon an incorrect statement on a prior loan application relating to his length of employment.

 

Levi was the U.S. Attorney who charged me with criminal contempt of court when I filed federal actions reporting the criminal activities implicating federal officials, including his Justice Department employer. In retaliation for reporting the crimes, and for exercising federal defenses, Levi charged me with criminal contempt of court. Levi was appointed in 1992 to a federal judgeship in Sacramento. It is standard practice to appoint Justice Department officials to the federal bench. This plan insures that Justice Department prosecutors are successful in federal court.

 

Another example of how the public is victimized by the mindset in the Justice Department: a woman in Texas with five children drove her boyfriend's van into Mexico and was arrested at the border when she was returning home, having no idea cocaine had been hidden in her van. The jury, assuming that Justice Department officials would not prosecute an innocent woman, rendered a decision holding her guilty, causing her to receive a 10-year mandatory minimum sentence. She knew nothing about having been used as a "mule".

 

Making these outrages even worse is the fact that their sufferings are shared by thousands of others who become forgotten victims of corruption by Justice Department attorneys.

 

Cases have been cited, including a December 26, 1990 article by Harry Hellerstein, Assistant Federal Public Defender in San Francisco, in the Wall Street Journal, where major criminals are not charged by Justice Department prosecutors on the basis of information that they gave relating to other drug operations, often enabling Justice Department prosecutors to obtain many other convictions of lesser figures. There are hundreds of peripheral drug players in prison, facing long mandatory prison terms, while those guilty of far more serious drug offenses are free, primarily because they were able to snitch on others.

 

Long prison terms for drug offenses become even more preposterous when it is realized that the CIA and DEA have engaged in large-scale drug trafficking operations into the United States for decades.

 

MISPRISION OF FELONY

 

A frequent charge for sentencing innocent people to prison is charging them with the federal crime, misprision of felony. Anyone who knows of a federal crime and who does not promptly report it to a federal judge or other federal tribunal is guilty of this crime. This statute has no exclusions, and applies to members of Congress, White House officials, Justice De­partment personnel, the media, all of whom have committed this crime. In practice, punishment for this crime is limited to citi­zens, and not to those in government who hold a far greater re­sponsibility to act on the crimes described within these pages.

 

An example of the misuse of this criminal statute occurred when a Memphis aircraft broker sold a used aircraft to a cus­tomer, who later used it in drug-related operations. The aircraft broker had no way of knowing how the plane was to be used, nor is he required to become an investigator. Later, when fed­eral authorities were building a case against the suspects, they requested that the aircraft broker fabricate testimony in order to assist in obtaining convictions.

 

The broker was willing to testify, but refused to lie. Justice Department attorneys then retaliated against him, charging him with misprision of a felony on the basis that he failed to report to federal authorities that the aircraft was to be used in unlawful activities. The aircraft broker was subsequently put on trial with 32 other defendants, who apparently were guilty of drug-related offenses. Without competent legal counsel to protect his interests, the unsophisticated jury accepted the prosecutors' charges as true, and held that he was part of the drug trafficking opera­tion. He was then sentenced to five years in federal prison, even though he never committed a single offense.

 

SUICIDE INDUCED BY

CORRUPT FEDERAL CORRUPTION

 

Another example of the harms inflicted upon innocent people was related to me by the aircraft broker in the preceding exam­ple. The broker was in a county jail near Memphis waiting for trail when he witnessed the fatal consequences of arrogance by federal agents. His cell mate, Mike Scarlett from Texas, had been enticed by federal agents into making the controlled sub­stance "speed." (Speed had been prescribed for years by doc­tors for weight reduction, by decreasing a person's appetite. It is now a controlled substance for which prison terms are pre­scribed for its unlicensed manufacture or sale.) Knowing that Scarlett started to make it, these same federal agents arrested him, charging him with manufacturing amphetamines.

 

While in prison, Scarlett discovered that his wife was sleep­ing with one of the federal agents who had set him up. Al told me that his cell-mate, Scarlett, was very distraught-looking after phoning his wife. Al described to me how the inmate wrote what was later discovered to be a suicide note, and that Scarlett hung a bed sheet over the prison bars, as if he wanted privacy for sleeping, as is often done. Behind the sheet Scarlett stepped onto the rim of the toilet and tied a strip, torn from a bed sheet, to a grill near the ceiling. Scarlett then stepped off of the toilet and hanged himself.

 

PRISON FOR FILLING IN A

MOSOUITO-BREEDING MUD HOLE

 

Justice Department prosecutors sent Allen Kafkaesque to prison for filling in a mosquito-breeding low spot on his 103-acre ranch (Wall Street Journal, Nov. 18, 1992). He allowed two loads of dirt to be dumped in a low spot as a base for a shed. Federal officials then charged him with filling in "wetlands", which has been made a crime by Congressional legislation. Justice Department prosecutors sought to have him imprisoned for 27 to 33 months. When the judge reduced the sentence to six months in prison, Justice Department prosecutors appealed, seeking to have Kafkaesque imprisoned for almost three years, for filling in a low spot on his 103 acres! Simulta­neously, Justice Department prosecutors, protecting CIA assets involved in drug trafficking and looting of financial institutions, were themselves involved in the Inslaw scandal, and looting of Chapter 11 assets, among other crimes.

 

OUTRAGEOUS PRISON SENTENCES

 

America reportedly has the greatest percentage of its population in prison of any country in the world. Outrageous prison sentences are imposed for often minor offenses, such as filling in swamps on one's own property, or being found with small quantities of drugs. Minor drug offenders are sentenced to twenty or more years in prison for a one-time offense, while vicious killers are often released in a fraction of the time. Often the drug offender is a person simply filling the demand created by a drug-crazed society that may share a greater blame than the person responding to the demand. A person charged with a hand-full of drugs receives a far longer prison sentence than a person who brutally kills another.

 

THREATENING AN AGED PARENT

OR WIFE TO GAIN A CONFESSION

 

A favorite stunt of Justice Department prosecutors is to charge the wife or an aged parent with a crime. They had no part in the offense charged, and an offense may not have even been committed. In this way the brave attorneys in the Justice Department coerce defendants to plead guilty (who may be innocent), or to plead guilty to charges greater than what were committed. Justice Department prosecutors threatened to charge Russbacher's wife with a crime if he did not plead guilty to mis-using government fuel and aircraft when he had the CIA Learjet fly him to Seattle and then to Reno in 1989. Numerous inmates described to me how they were forced to plead guilty to something they hadn't done, or to plead guilty to a greater offense than they were guilty of, after Justice Department prosecutors threatened to imprison their parents or wives.

 

BLACKMAILING MEMBERS OF CONGRESS

 

It is well known that FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover was skilled at obtaining incriminating and embarrassing information on political figures, and had a file on almost every member of Congress. In From the Secret Files of J. Edgar Hoover, by Athan Theoharis, the author describes Hoover's interest and ability in gathering scandalous information about prominent political figures. The book describes FBI reports on John F. Kennedy's affair with Inga Arvad, Robert Kennedy's affair with Marilyn Monroe, Eleanor Roosevelt's affair with Joseph Lash, homosexual activities, and other activities.  The CIA does the same thing to exert control over members of Congress. The CIA reportedly threatened Senator Boren in 1981 with exposure of his alleged pedophile activities after Boren initially stated he would not vote for Robert Gates as CIA Director. The book shows that Hoover's activities did not die with him, but continue to this date. Other intelligence agencies have similar activities. The U.S. Army has a surveillance and blackmail program called Operation Orwell, which is described in earlier pages.

 

BUYING AND SELLING HUMAN LIVES

 

Judges, prosecutors and attorneys sometimes buy and sell cases and human lives as if they were commodities. Judges are paid off to rule favorably on particular cases. A clerk can lose a key file or piece of evidence. The court reporter can change the transcript to indicate the reverse of what is actually in the record.

 

Attorneys often sabotage their own clients, allowing them to be convicted, to satisfy a debt to his adversary's legal counsel, or to placate a judge who may want the other party to prevail. Trading of human life, in court, or in the air safety environment, is like kids trading marbles. Prosecutors will let a defendant go free, in exchange for the life of another man. Criminal attorneys will plead a man guilty just to pay back a prosecutor for not prosecuting another client. Prosecutors will lie to imprison an innocent person, or to cause his incarceration for years longer than the law provides for the offense that was actually committed. Cases are fixed by paying judges, prosecutors, police, and others.

 

Some Justice Department attorneys justify their lying, using the argument that the defendant lies, so why shouldn't they lie. But a defendant may lie to avoid prison. Prosecutors lie to imprison innocent persons, or to greatly increase the length of sentence for the purpose of making their record look good, re­gardless of the human tragedy it brings.

 

The public doesn't perceive this misconduct as a threat to themselves. When the Justice Department prosecutes a party for an alleged crime, the average person, including unsophisticated members of the grand jury, assumes that the party is guilty. Otherwise the accused would not be charged, or so they think. I fell into that trap in the past, until I learned that Justice Depart­ment attorneys lie and cheat as a standard tactic. Unfortunately for the victims of this prosecutorial misconduct, as a Wall Street Journal article once stated, the grand jury would indict a ham sandwich if the prosecutor told them to do so.

 

Justice Department attorneys win year-end bonuses and per­sonal-recognition awards for putting people in prison, guilty or not.

 

DISMISSING INVESTIGATORS WHO

EXPOSE HIGH LEVEL CORRUPTION

 

A common method for covering up evidence of the ongoing criminal activities described in these pages is to dismiss investi­gators who report evidence of the crimes. For instance, when the investigative activities of the U.S. Attorney in Philadelphia threatened too many politicians involved in political corruption, President Carter reportedly pressured the Justice Department to remove U.S. Attorney Martson from office.

 

Speaking before the Washington National Press Club on Jan­uary 25, 1978, Martson stated:

 

If a single Congressman can remove his home-town prose­cutor who's actively investigating public officials, with a sin­gle call to the President--if that can happen, and that's what did happen--our federal criminal-justice system won't work. No amount of rhetoric will ever convince the bagmen and the fixers that they can't pull strings in Washington, because they're sure that strings got pulled in Washington.

 

The Justice Department--controlled by the United States At­torney General, who is appointed by the President of the United States--investigated President Carter and his political friend, Attorney General Griffin Bell, for possible obstruction of jus­tice. Is it any wonder the Justice Department cleared their boss of any wrongdoing?

 

The same tactics were used by Justice Department officials against Assistant U.S. Trustee Gregg Eichler in the San Fran­cisco area when his investigations exposed the part played by federal judges and Justice Department officials in the corrupt Chapter 11 courts. I had given Eichler information on the criminal activities I experienced in Chapter 11, implicating fed­eral judges, federal trustees, and law firms. Eichler was dis­missed from government service in late 1991 after he had ex­posed the corruption by CIA-related trustee Charles Duck, and as Eichler was going after the judges.

 

Justice Department officials fired one of their investigators in retaliation for testifying in the Inslaw affair. Justice Department officials arranged for the removal of Chapter 11 Judge George Bason from the District of Columbia bench after he ruled in fa­vor of Inslaw, and then arranged for the Justice Department's attorney defending against the Inslaw charges to replace Judge Bason. By packing the courts in this manner, corrupt Justice Department officials gain control over the judicial process, wherein they protect themselves.

 

Investigator Lloyd Monroe quit the Justice Department after he discovered connections between the Savings and Loan scan­dal and the CIA-related Southmark Corporation in Dallas.

 

Justice Department officials reprimanded assistant U.S. At­torney Dave Howard in the San Francisco office after he filed a highly sensitive eleven-page report on July 11, 1990, describing the judicial corruption in Chapter 11. Howard recommended the appointment of a special counsel to investigate corruption by federal judges and trustees in Ninth Circuit Chapter 11 courts. Instead of acting on the report, Justice Department officials cen­sored Howard for preparing the report.

 

Jack Blum, on Senator Terry Sanford's committee, was forced to resign when he pursued the investigation of BCCI corruption when the committee wanted to drop it. After Sanford's committee blocked the investigation into BCC, Blum went to Manhattan's District Attorney Robert Morgenthau with his evidence, resulting in criminal prosecution against powerful attorneys who sold their country down the river for financial wealth. Justice Department officials repeatedly blocked the exposure of BCCI corruption, just as they blocked the exposure of every other scandal described in these pages.

 

The FBI has its own way of dealing with whistleblowers. The former head of the Los Angeles FBI office, Ted Gunderson stated that he had been harassed by the FBI to suppress his reports of drugs smuggled into the United States in the bodies of dead GI's sent back from the Vietnam War (United Press, Feb. 22, 1986)[H: Still think the possibility of shipping in drugs in a cow's second stomach is far fetched?] Gunderson retired from the FBI in 1979, becoming a private investigator, during which time he obtained evidence of widespread drug dealings at Fort Bragg, North Carolina. Numerous CIA assets have given me data confirming this sordid practice. Gunderson told the United Press reporters that the FBI and Justice Department had tapped his business phone and smeared his name.

 

DEATHS OF THOSE EXPOSING

JUSTICE DEPARTMENT CORRUPTION

 

Mysterious deaths of people exposing Justice Department and CIA corruption have been repeatedly reported throughout these pages. One of the main murders, closely associated with the Justice Department's criminality in the Inslaw matter, was the widely publicized death of Danny Casolaro. The September 10, 1992, Congressional Inslaw report addressed this link, reporting that there was a need for a further investigation into Casolaro's death and the link to the Justice Department officials.

 

INTERNATIONAL ARROGANCE

 

The mindset rampant in the Justice Department has no bounds. Justice Department attorneys have sanctioned and ordered the seizure in foreign countries of foreign citizens, who had never been in die United States, for the Justice Department to have jurisdiction over them. In one instance involving a resident of Mexico, Dr. Humberto Machain, Justice Department personnel paid bounty hunters $50,000 to kidnap him and bring him into the United States to stand trial. He had allegedly assisted in torturing a U.S. DEA agent in Mexico. Civilized international law procedures require that extradition be requested of Mexican officials.

 

Applying this tactic to other nations, there is far more "justification" for other nations to kidnap American citizens, based upon the crimes inflicted in their country by the CIA and other U.S. dirty-trick squads. Using this reasoning, hundreds of federal officials, especially those in the CIA, could be seized for the crimes that they caused to be inflicted as they invaded the sovereignty of foreign countries.

 

Iranians could justifiably sneak into the United States and abduct American citizens to stand trial in Iran for having committed crimes under Iranian laws, including interference in Iranian governmental activities, or the shooting down of an Iranian airliner by a trigger-happy U.S. Navy crew that had invaded Iranian waters.

 

The Vietnamese government could sneak into the United States and abduct American officials for their part in causing the deaths of tens of thousands of Vietnamese in the Phoenix program. [H: That seems like a rather interesting idea to me....]

 

The U.S. invades Panama, killing hundreds of Panamanian citizens, to capture the head of a foreign country who has never committed a crime in the United States for having trafficked in drugs in Panama [H: WITH YOUR GOVERNMENT AND CIA.]. Making the seizure of Manuel Noriega more bizarre, he was formerly on the payroll of the same CIA, engaging in drug trafficking in partnership with the Central Intelligence Agency's sanctioned operations. [H: Now here is where you could REALLY get some inside information on the whole affair-- FROM ONE COLONEL JAMES "BO" GRITZ. This is not a slam of any kind (I like Bo Gritz more than you might realize) for HE WAS MORE INFORMED ABOUT THAT AND THE ORDER FOR NORIEGA'S ASSASSINATION AT ONE TIME--THAN ANY OTHER ONE PERSON IN SPECIAL FORCES!]

 

STOP PART 14

http://www.fourwinds10.net/journals/pdf/J091.pdf