Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
My Militia

The Corrupt Culture In The FBI – DOJ (Part: 1 of 3)

Recommended Posts

The following are excerpts from the book, Department of Justice (DOJ) Corruption-Enabled al Qaeda Successes, authored by Captain Rodney Stich, one of over 20 books in the Defrauding America book series.


History of Corrupt Culture In the FBI – DOJ


The greatest threat to the people of the United States is the deep-seated culture of the lawyers in the United States Department of Justice (DOJ). It adversely affects national security and the lives of America’s people. No form of reorganization will correct this problem without exposing the pattern of criminal and even subversive activities that I and my dozens of government insiders discovered during hundreds of years of cumulative experience.


Forget everything you were taught or felt about integrity, honesty, guilt or innocence in the FBI and other divisions of the U.S. Department of Justice. Forget everything you may have heard about people sentenced to prison deserving what they got. The integrity of many who have been sentenced to federal prison is far greater than many Justice Department prosecutors whose misconduct constitutes major crimes and would be punishable if they were ordinary citizens.


Deeply Embedded Justice Department Culture


The Justice Department culture is political, corrupt, and extremely dangerous to the people. The people in control of the awesome Justice Department power are responsible for human tragedies far beyond anyone’s comprehension. The Justice Department, under the U.S. Attorney General, includes the Solicitor General, Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), the U.S. attorneys, Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS), U.S. Marshals (USMS), and Bureau of Prisons (BP).


The Justice Department is a political animal and covers up for the crimes of presidents who appoint many of its top officials and for the president’s allies. The crimes of Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush in the October Surprise and Contra gun and drug smuggling activities were covered up and not prosecuted. The crimes of federal judges and top government officials are routinely covered up. The consequence has been great harm to national security and the lives of countless numbers of people.


In 1989, when U.S. Attorney General Edwin Meese was testifying in a criminal trial, he was asked, “Is it not true that your focus was not the focus of an attorney general wearing the attorney general’s hat but basically to gather information to protect the President and deal with the political problem brewing in Congress?” Meese replied, “Yes.” As usual, the Justice Department’s 1986 probe into the sale of arms to Iran was not to find the facts but to protect President Reagan who appointed him. This is the normal Justice Department obstruction of justice, which is kept from the public by a compliant media that aids and abets the obstruction of justice.


When the Justice Department investigates itself or political allies, it usually selects “investigators” who are politically appointed staff members. It diffuses congressional investigations by stating the matters are under Justice Department investigation—which never comes to fruition and eventually the matter passes on.


Since attorney generals are political appointees, it would be unrealistic in light of the complicity of the government and media checks and balances to expect them to honestly investigate the corrupt activities of the people who are responsible for their high position!


The prosecutor in the Justice Department has more control over the amount of human tragedies that the government can inflict upon America’s men, women, and families. He can file false charges, pay for informants to provide perjured testimony, release to the media information about people or corporations being investigated, interview friends and neighbors seeking information, determine who to be arrested and who to be protected, and use one-sided information to get a grand jury to indict a person or corporation.


There are reported 3,000-plus criminal offenses on the books. They can be used against anyone as a tool by the Justice Department to silence any criticism or exposure of high-level corruption in government. Under the creative Justice Department, almost any act can be made into a criminal act, including the conspiracy statute and the mail and wire fraud statutes. Prosecutors have a virtual unlimited authority to determine who will or will not be investigated, who will or will not be called before a grand jury, who will or will not be prosecuted. Prosecutors will frequently ignore serious criminal activities for political considerations or favoritism.


Raw Power That Controls Media and Corporate Silence


Any corporation, including broadcast and print media, can be seriously harmed and even put out of business by a unit of government that is easily controlled by Justice Department lawyers. The great number of regulations affecting a corporation can be the basis for false or even real but minor charges, putting them at risk. An airline, for instance, with thousands of records and hundreds of requirements, can easily be charged with record violations and fined huge amounts of money. Or put out of business. The public perceives such charges as indicative of serious safety problems. But similar violations in thousands of required records could be found at any airline and are often of minor consequence.


Members of Congress are especially prone to misuse of Justice Department power. Leaks to the press that a particular member of Congress is being investigated can have a devastating influence on his reelection. The influence would be even worse if false charges were filed against the member of Congress. With the vast amount of political donations that is a part of their daily life, it is not difficult to find a basis for conducting an investigation.


Organized Crime in the U.S. Justice Department


“Organized Crime in the U.S. Justice Dept” was the heading in the Forum section of the Sacramento Bee (October 27, 1991), accurately reflecting the decades of criminality in the most misnamed agency of the federal government:


“Indications…point to a widespread conspiracy implicating government officials in the theft of Inslaw’s technology.” Inslaw, bad as it was, constituted only the tip of the iceberg.


Inslaw is described in detail in Defrauding America, and consisted of Justice Department attorneys forcing a company into bankruptcy so they could steal its computer software called PROMIS. The attorneys had an interest in a company that would be bidding on a lucrative government contract worth a half-billion dollars to install a computer program in Department of Justice offices.


DOJ Blocked Every Effort to Halt Crash-Related Corruption in the Aviation Field


For 30 years, Justice Department attorneys blocked every attempt I and other government agents made to report high-level corruption that we discovered as part of our official duties. If my reports, or those by other government agents, of criminal activities had received the reaction required by law, there would not have been the extent of government corruption that now exists (and which is largely unknown to the majority of the public).


Responsibilities of Justice Department Employees


Under federal law, the responsibility for ensuring that the laws of the United States are properly enforced belongs to the United States Department of Justice, which is under the control of the U.S. Attorney General, and in turn, the President of the United States. In practice, the politically appointed Attorney General routinely has used the Justice Department to cover up corrupt and criminal acts involving high-level government personnel or corrupt covert activities of the CIA and other covert agencies—including CIA drug trafficking.


These problems occurred during the Reagan and Bush administrations and were especially prominent during the Clinton presidency, as Attorney General Janet Reno protected him and the Democratic Party. Occasionally the checks and balances work as intended, and the person in that position of trust goes to prison. Attorney General John Mitchell, for instance, went to prison, as did Webster Hubbell and other attorney generals. Subsequent attorney generals have committed federal offenses involving far more serious crimes, and were never prosecuted or called to task by the poorly functioning checks and balances in government and the media.


Responsible for Protecting the Civil Rights of American Citizens


Within the U.S. Department of Justice are numerous divisions. These include, for instance, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, responsible for investigating the many crimes that I reported to it; the civil rights division, with the responsibilities to investigate the civil rights violations that I reported to them; the criminal division, responsible for preventing the many criminal activities that I reported to them (including those perpetrated by Justice Department personnel seeking to block my reports); the U.S. Trustee, who is responsible for preventing the rampant fraud in bankruptcy courts that I and others reported to that office; the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), responsible for preventing the massive drug trafficking, including that committed by the CIA and DEA.


This is the Justice Department that has persecuted me continuously since mid-1987, retaliating against me for reporting the federal crimes that I uncovered; who retaliated against me for exercising lawful and constitutional protections to halt the barrage of civil and constitutional (and criminal) violations inflicted upon me. Every one of these divisions has been routinely used to commit the federal crimes that they have a duty to prevent.


Succession of Corrupt Attorneys General


A succession of Attorneys General have been implicated in corrupt acts and federal crimes, but have escaped prosecution because they held the highest law enforcement position in the United States. Subsequent Attorneys General have committed federal offenses involving far more serious crimes, and were never prosecuted or called to task by the checks and balances in government.


Attorney General Edwin Meese, a former California lawyer and Alameda County District Attorney, was prominently associated with an escalation of the sleazy and corrupt activities in government. He was implicated in the 1980 October Surprise scheme that helped bring the Reagan-Bush team into power. As a reward, or to protect the Reagan-Bush team from prosecution in that scandal, the Reagan-Bush Administration appointed Meese U.S. Attorney General. Meese was then used to protect Reagan and Bush from the October Surprise scandal and others that followed.


When the stench from Meese’s activities forced him to resign, he was replaced by Richard Thornburgh, who continued the criminal activities of Inslaw, the obstruction of justice activities, and the persecution of whistleblowers and informants. Thornburgh left the Attorney General position in 1991 to run for the Senate seat vacated by the death of Senator John Heinz in a plane crash in Philadelphia. A Pennsylvania newspaper identified Thornburgh as the “Harrisburg Mafia.”


President George H.W. Bush, who had a long-time relationship with the CIA, then appointed[1] William P. Barr as U.S. Attorney General. Barr was General Counsel of the CIA while Bush was Director of the Agency. From the very beginning, Barr blocked investigations into the major scandals that were surfacing almost daily, including those that directly involved the Justice Department and the CIA. Barr has a long history of CIA relations.


Barr blocked an investigation of the part played by Justice Department officials in the Inslaw affair, denying the request by the House Judiciary Committee for an Independent Prosecutor.[2] Barr refused to appoint a special prosecutor to investigate the White House’s funding of Iraq’s military build-up. Barr refused to appoint an independent prosecutor to investigate the White House’s role in the Bank of Lavoro scandal. He refused to appoint an Independent Prosecutor to investigate Inslaw. The House and Senate Judiciary committees had requested the Attorney General to request appointment of an independent prosecutor in each of these matters.


Decades of Obstruction of Justice


It has been a common practice to appoint someone to the highest law enforcement position in the United States who has been involved in criminal activities, and act as damage control. Before William Barr was appointed U.S. Attorney General by President George Bush, he was legal counsel for the CIA’s Southern Air Transport, and former CIA operative Terry Reed said that he personally saw Barr in drug-related activities. Another source, Gene Tatum, also personally encountered Barr in similar activities.


This same general practice is applied to the political selection of federal judges who then act to block any prosecution or revealing civil actions. Bush was heavily involved in the overall drug smuggling activities, acting with Oliver North and other drug traffickers, and it would be only “normal” to put one of their own at the head of the nation’s top law-enforcement agency. Further, U.S. Attorneys are selected to insure that this plan works. This problem reflects one of the major flaws in our constitution. It was visibly reflected during the presidency of Ronald Reagan, George Bush, and Bill Clinton.


Threat to Any Member of Congress


The mere investigation by the FBI arm of the Justice Department can cause a member of the U.S. Senate and House to lose an election. The Justice Department can easily fabricate charges, especially conspiracy or misprision of felony offenses, by stretching facts clearly out of proportion to reality. Possibly the fear of what the Justice Department can do was one of the reasons every member of the U.S. Senate from 1991 to 1993 refused to respond to my multi-page petition to investigate the corruption I brought to their attention. But this was no excuse for them aiding and abetting the criminal activities. They had a duty to perform. When they accepted their position, they assumed the responsibilities that went with the pay, the perks, and the prestige.


Pattern of Criminal Activities by Justice Department


For thirty years I have been intimately connected with the criminal acts committed by Justice Department officials and their various divisions. Their misconduct in the 1960s, which I initially discovered while a federal investigator, had devastating consequences in the aviation areas that I brought to their attention. Since then, as these pages reveal, the criminality in the U.S. Department of Justice has increased many times over, very possibly making it the key cog in the pattern of racketeering activities against the American people.


If Justice Department personnel did, in fact, do any of the acts described within these pages, these same personnel would have to misuse the power of the federal government and of the Justice Department to block the reporting of these crimes.


These Justice Department lawyers have made it standard practice to misuse Justice Department facilities to falsely charge dozens of informants and whistleblowers with federal offenses to block their reporting of crimes implicating federal officials.


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, which may arguably share a greater blame than the person responding to the demand.


These outrageous prison sentences are legislated by the same members of Congress who have committed crimes associated with their cover-up of the criminal activities described within these pages. These congressional felonies are often worse than the offenses that place thousands of people in prison for years of confinement.


Army of Informants Looking for Victims—


Another Growth Industry


Government agencies, and especially the various divisions of the Department of Justice, have thousands of agents and informants who must find offenses committed by people. They search public and financial records looking for technical errors that they can charge as federal crimes—and the list is endless, including matters committed by almost any adult.


They set up elaborate pseudo criminal enterprises and look for people they can entice into them in such a way that criminal charges can be filed. The coalition of government agents, informants, and prosecutors are quite imaginative. Anyone trapped into one of them doesn’t stand much of a chance against this coalition with unlimited funds and juries that will believe virtually anything the “government” charges.


One example: a government informant may induce a “patsy” to assist him in undercover work, falsely encouraging him to assist in bringing about the arrest of alleged drug traffickers. The patsy is told to contact certain people—who are actually undercover government agents—and to gain their confidence by bragging about past drug trafficking activities. The patsy doing the bragging may never have been near drugs or involved in any drug offense, but he is told it is a chance to work for the government and be well paid.


Unknown to the patsy, he is telling these tall tales to government undercover agents who arrest him after his fabricated drug-trafficking statements are recorded. Based simply upon these statements—no drugs are involved—the patsy who is no match for this government conspiracy, is charged, tried, and then naive jurors find him guilty.


Chalk up another “win” for the public and Congress’ tough-on-crime stance. The jurors have a “feel-good” attitude, and government agents receive bonuses. Oh yes, the patsy may get life in prison with no chance of parole.


Agents Transferred to Undesirable Locations if No Arrests


During an April 1999 phone call with a former ATF and DEA agent, Michael Don Stewart, he described the quota-system that requires ATF agents to fabricate cases against innocent people. “If you go two months without making an arrest, a search warrant, a seizure, or open or close an investigation, you are transferred to some place where they need you, and where you don’t want to go, such as Detroit, East LA, little Cuba—Miami.”


I responded, “This practice encourages agents to file sham charges, doesn’t it.” Stewart replied, “You are exactly right; most people aren’t aware of that.” He said that agents, to avoid being transferred, look for technical paper violations to justify opening an investigation. The agents go to pawnshops, gun shops, and other places looking at records and seeking some technical mistake—no matter how innocent or minor—which permits them to conduct an investigation and make sham charges against the person.


Searching Records for Targets to Destroy


A practice similar to that had been described to me many years ago by CIA asset Gunther Russbacher. CIA and other government personnel look for people and companies that can be forced into involuntary bankruptcy. Then, the rampant corruption in bankruptcy courts seizes and loots the assets. (Details in Defrauding America.)


Adding Conspiracy Laws to Feel-Good Tough-On-Crime Self-Serving Legislation


Not to be outdone by the other political party, politicians pushed through—just before election time—another law showing them as being tough on crime: the drug conspiracy statute. The conspiracy statute greatly expanded the number of people ensnared by the draconian minimum sentencing law. Now, almost anyone can be sentenced to a long prison term—or even life without parole; no drugs even need be present to convict as a major drug kingpin.


In real life, as applied by Department of Justice prosecutors, men and women have been sent to prison with long prison sentences—even life in prison—who were guilty of no crime, and who are in prison because of the fertile imagination of career-obsessed attorneys in the United States Department of Justice. This law, as members of Congress knew, targets innocent people who have no connection to drugs, who had never entertained any drug-related thoughts, and to this day can’t understand why they are in prison.


American men and women in prison now exceed the combined population of Alaska and Wyoming. In 1998, for instance, a dozen European countries making up the European Union, whose population exceeds the United States’ by over 100 million, had only one third as many people in prison (San Francisco Examiner, May 10, 1999).


The Catchall Conspiracy Charge That Can Put YOU in Prison


Congress’ drug conspiracy laws have put more people in prison than any other statute. A man or woman doesn’t even need to possess drugs, handle any drugs, or play any role in any drug transaction. For the prosecutor and informant, the “beauty” of it is that they can send someone to prison for years or for life who doesn’t even know what he had done!


A “Dry” Conspiracy


A “dry” conspiracy or “no drug conspiracy” is the name given to a conspiracy where there is no evidence of any drugs. All it requires for conviction is a government-paid witness testifying to something that he claims you said. You might have even been bragging, without ever having done anything you claim, but you end up with a long prison sentence. Thousands of men and women are serving long prison sentences because they talked about importing or selling drugs or were present when others did, and which never occurred.


How DOJ Attorneys Improve Their Performance Record


The conspiracy legislation permits a prosecutor to sit behind his desk and let his imagination wander. With a little mental calculation, he can concoct the type of conspiracy to charge against our Joe or Jane target, which needs no relationship to reality. Great business for defense attorneys! Almost any business person or someone active in the business world can be charged with some type of conspiracy. Anyone can be approached by a government informant and sucked into a conspiracy scheme concocted by your friendly government agents. No evidence is needed!


A Conspiracy of One—Another DOJ Trick to Imprison People


Attorneys in the Department of Justice have even expanded on the conspiracy statute. A conspiracy requires two or more persons. No problem; Justice Department prosecutors now charge single persons with a conspiracy when there is no other person involved.


Very Few Countries Have Conspiracy Laws


Former counsel to the U.S. House committee on the Judiciary, Eric E. Sterling, said that very few countries have conspiracy laws as exist in the United States because “they can be so badly abused.” He added:


Our conspiracy law is such that long after you’ve dropped out of the conspiracy, you’re still responsible for things that you may have done way in the past. The criminal organization marches forward. You’ve gone straight. But when the chain gets connected all the way to the back, you can still be held liable for things that you had no responsibility for and you could not foresee. It’s a terrible problem, the way in which conspiracy is being used in these cases.


Another Growth Industry — DOJ’s-Paid Perjurers


Perjury-for-sale is the type of growth industry that an insider could associate with the culture in the Department of Justice. This practice greatly increases the number of people sent to fill new prisons or crowded into old ones. DOJ prosecutors routinely compensate witnesses who testify before grand juries and trial juries, as they want the witness to testify.


Some of them are paid on an occurrence basis. Others are on a monthly salary. Some are in prison, willing to say anything to bring about their release. Others may be charged with a criminal offense and are offered to have charges dropped for parroting what the prosecutor wants said. And they have another advantage: they have the Department of Justice protecting them against being charged with criminal perjury, regardless of the extent of their lying under oath.


The Liars Club


Another name for this group is “Liars Club.” Some are professional perjurers who travel around the country testifying for DOJ prosecutors. The Liars Club includes prisoners, some with life sentences, who read newspapers to learn or fabricate facts about people recently arrested, most of whom they had never seen, heard of, or dealt with. Their expertise at fabricating testimony to use before grand juries and during trial is their greatest value.


“Jumping on the Bus”


A term defining the process is “jumping on the bus.” Prisoners obtain information from other prisoners—even buy the information—and then contact DOJ prosecutors and offer their services to testify against a person prosecutors want arrested, or who had just been arrested and is waiting for trial.


The best liars for DOJ prosecutors are prisoners and people charged with criminal offenses. The longer their sentences, the more willing they are to fabricate testimony exactly as requested by the DOJ attorneys. They also know the lingo and the ropes.


A release-from-prison promise in exchange for perjured testimony does not take into account the crime for which the person is in prison. He may be a brutal murderer, a major drug kingpin, and someone who will return to his prior crimes once he is released.


And even more bizarre, there is no limit to the bizarre angles involved. The target against whom testimony is being “paid” may be guilty of a very low offense, or even no offense. One answer is that the new conviction increases the prosecutor’s conviction record; the hell with justice!


Working the System


The real hard-core incarcerated drug trafficker works the system. He thinks to himself, “What do I have to do to get out of prison?” He asks the prosecutor, “What do I have to say? Who do I have to testify against? How much drugs do I have to say that he discussed?” With the government backing the liar, most naive jurors believe the witness called by the government.


The liar is sitting with the government at his side. The government presents the liar in the court. Is the average juror going to doubt the integrity of the United States? Surely you can believe your own government! [Forget again the history of government lying for the past 50 years.]


Another problem facing the defendant is that judges will often bar a lawyer from presenting a certain defense, the very one most applicable to show the person’s innocence.


Major Drug Kingpins Get Released


Through Fabricated Testimony


Often, a high-level drug kingpin will give testimony against a low-level participant in a drug operation—or someone totally innocent—and the drug kingpin gets released from prison. “Big fish” are given their freedom to provide testimony against minor offenders. It’s like the food chain; major drug dealers snitch on low-level dealers and go free, while innocent or low-level people end up with long prison sentences.


Like Crooked Cops Holding the People Hostage


Other criminal statutes are often simultaneously violated when this crime occurs, including falsely accusing a person of a crime, conspiracy, and obstruction of justice, among others. But who is going to prosecute the prosecutor? It’s like having a department of crooked cops holding the citizens hostage.


Worse than Hitler’s Gestapo


When I was growing up in the late 1930s, as Hitler came to power, I remember the many media articles decrying the culture of informants or neighborhood spies that Adolph Hitler’s Gestapo used to get neighbors to spy on neighbors. The United States Congress and Department of Justice have gone far beyond what Hitler initiated. Now, family members testify against each other, children testify against their brothers or sisters, children testify against parents. This is what the attorneys in the Department of Justice have brought upon America as their slime permeates throughout government, industry, and society.


Encouraging Someone to Give False Testimony is a Crime


Under federal criminal statutes, the prosecutor is guilty of a crime if he procures another person to commit perjury. When a law-enforcement officer commits this crime, it is far worse than when done by someone else. The law says:


Title 18 U.S.C. § 1622. Subornation of perjury. Whoever procures another to commit any perjury is guilty of subornation of perjury, and shall be fined… or imprisoned…


The evidence is overwhelming that Justice Department attorneys responsible for prosecuting people for subornation of perjury routinely perpetrate this crime. They hold themselves above the law, with one standard for the people, and another for themselves.


Compensation for Testimony is a Federal Offense


Under federal criminal statute, Title 18 USC Section 201, it is a criminal offense for anyone to give any form of compensation to a person providing testimony, whether it is before the fact or after the fact. Title 18 USC § 201©(2) says:


Whoever…directly or indirectly, gives, offers or promises anything of value to any person, for or because of the testimony under oath or affirmation given or to be given by such person as a witness upon a trial, hearing, or other proceeding, before any court…authorized by the laws of the United States to hear evidence or take testimony…shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for not more than two years, or both. That statute does not require that the testimony be proven false; only that some type of compensation be promised for a witness’s testimony.


Section 201(b)(3) of the same title addresses the matter of compensation given to influence the testimony. DOJ prosecutors have been violating both of these statutes for years and continue to do so.


American Bar Association Rules of Professional Conduct (Section 3.4(b) says: A lawyer shall not (b)… offer an inducement to a witness that is prohibited by law. The theory against paying for testimony was reflected in a Florida case (The Florida Bar v. Jackson, 490 So.2d 935 Fla. 1986):


The very heart of the judicial system lies in the integrity of the participants. Justice must not be bought or sold. Attorneys have a solemn responsibility to assure that not even the taint of impropriety exists as to the procurement of testimony before courts of Justice. It is clear that the actions of the respondent in attempting to obtain compensation for the testimony of his clients…violates the very essence of the integrity of the judicial system and the disciplinary rule and the code of professional responsibility, the integration rules of the Florida Bar and the oath of his office.


In another example, the lawyer who paid $50 for a police officer to testify truthfully for his client was suspended from practice for 18 months. (In re Kien, 372 N.E.2nd 376 (111.1977))


Legal Challenge to DOJ Compensated Testimony


Such bribery is common and was challenged during a 1998 trial in Denver. DOJ prosecutors charged Sonya Singleton and Napoleon Douglas with money laundering and conspiracy offenses. Before trial, DOJ prosecutors offered to drop charges against Douglas if he testified against Singleton as they wanted him to testify. This offer was made despite the statute barring payment for testimony. With this compensation and freedom against perjury, Douglas accepted the prosecutor’s offer. Singleton was convicted solely on the basis of this compensated testimony.


It is possible neither one was guilty of the charges. But for one of them to be assured freedom from prison, maybe from a life-in-prison sentence, it paid Douglas to fabricate lies, especially when the prosecutor protected him against criminal perjury charges. It was another “he-said she-said” type of trial, with Douglas having the benefit of the government of the United States alongside him. The naive jurors received the impression that he was probably telling the truth, despite the fact that DOJ prosecutors routinely solicit and pay for perjured testimony.


Denver attorney John “Val” Wachtel appealed Singleton’s conviction based upon the fact that the sole witness against Singleton was paid to testify, and that this violated the clear wording of the federal statute. Three judges[3] in the Court of Appeals Panel at Denver heard the appeal.


OK for DOJ Prosecutors But Not for Defendants’ Lawyers


Justice Department prosecutors argued that it was legal for them to pay or compensate people for testimony during grand jury and trial jury proceedings even though it was not legal for defense lawyers to do so. The prosecutor has the advantage of being able to free a prisoner or drop charges; the defense lawyers cannot do that. The DOJ attorneys argued that Title 18 USC § 3553(e) permitted them to request a reduction of sentence or dropping of charges for those who provide testimony that prosecutors wanted. That section says:


Upon motion of the Government, the court shall have the authority to impose a sentence below a level established by statute as a minimum sentence so as to reflect a defendant’s substantial assistance in the investigation or prosecution of another person who has committed an offense. Further, USSG § 5K1.1 provides for reduction of sentence. They also sought support in Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure Rule 35(b):


The court, on motion of the Government made within one year after the imposition of the sentence, may reduce a sentence to reflect a defendant’s subsequent, substantial assistance in the investigation or prosecution of another person who has committed an offense…


The three-judge Court of Appeals decision denied the government’s position, holding that assistance did not include purchasing testimony. They held that reduction in sentence could be provided for information, but not for sworn testimony:


Each of these provisions of law authorizes only that substantial assistance can be rewarded after it is rendered; none authorized the government to make a deal for testimony before it is given, as the government did with Mr. Douglas. [The paid witness against Singleton.] However § 201©(2) prohibits even the rewarding of testimony after it is given; it prohibits anything of value to be given, offered or promised because of “testimony” given. 18 U.S.C. § 201©(2). The sentencing provisions may thus appear to conflict by authorizing something of value (a motion for and grant of sentence reduction) to be given because of testimony rendered.


We believe the statutes can be read together in this way: in light of § 201©(2), “substantial assistance” does not include testimony. Congress enacted the sentencing provisions against the backdrop of its general prohibition against giving anything of value for or because of testimony… Our reading of the statutes will not impair the substantial assistance provisions, because a defendant can substantially assist an investigation or prosecution in myriad ways other than by testifying…. In the circumstances before us, the appropriate remedy for the testimony obtained in violation of § 201©(2) is suppression of its use in Ms. Singleton’s trial.


The appeal panel held that the statute’s plain words barring any type of compensation for testimony meant what it said, and applied both to government agents and the public. The Court of Appeals decision reversed the conviction of Singleton, requiring the prosecutor to retry the case without using compensation-tainted testimony. (U.S. v. Singleton, 144 F.3d 1343 (1998)) The decision made sense.


A similar district court decision was made in Miami on August 4, 1998 by U.S. District Judge William J. Zloch in the case of U.S. v. Lowery. In that decision, Judge Zloch held that the deal for a co-defendant’s testimony gave him “every reason to fabricate, falsify or exaggerate his testimony in an attempt to curry favor.”


Motion for En Banc Rehearing by All 12 Judges


After the three-judge Court of Appeals panel overturned the Singleton dismissal, Department of Justice attorneys filed a rarely used motion for the entire 12-judge Court of Appeals to hear the matter en banc, which it did. On January 8, 1999, the 10th circuit Court of Appeals rendered a decision overturning its three-judge panel, holding that the word, “Whoever,” in Title 18 USC § 210, applied only to the public and did not apply to DOJ prosecutors!


Therefore, DOJ prosecutors continue paying compensation to their witnesses, even though the statute clearly prohibited it. Defense attorneys were barred from doing the same, and innocent people could continue to be imprisoned in this manner. (Many of the Court of Appeals judges were former Department of Justice attorneys.)


Forfeiture Laws, Another Feel-Good Self-Serving Tough-On-Crime Legislation That Boomeranged on the Public


Another feel-good legislation passed by members of Congress that destroys previous constitutional safeguards is the forfeiture statute. Members of Congress passed the forfeiture statute in 1976 and broadened it in 1984, making it possible to take anyone’s property without charges and without a hearing. The wording appeared innocent enough, as it states the right to seize “all real property which is used, or intended to be used, in any manner or part, to commit, or to facilitate the commission of a violation of the act.” However, as usually occurs, the application of that statute is outrageously unconstitutional, and as usual, no reaction from the victimized public.


As applied, the seizure laws inflict serious financial losses upon people who are innocent of any crime, who are often never charged, or the seizure of assets whose values are often totally out-of-proportion to the real or imaginary offense. The seizure of assets has been expanded to include those who have never been charged with any offense and who don’t get the property back. Rather clever, don’t you think!


Property that had been loaned, or rented to someone else, may be seized for an offense that the owner could not foresee or have any control over. An example of this occurred to an elderly couple in their eighties, whose home in Hamden, Connecticut was seized and sold because a grandson staying in the house had marijuana and cocaine in his possession.


For some people, the loss of the asset may be that person’s primary asset. The property may have been accidentally seized, or seized without justification. The value of the property seized could be totally out of proportion to the offense. An aircraft worth many millions of dollars can be seized and forfeited if a few marijuana seeds are found—or planted by government agents or informants.


A couple of drinks before or with a meal may have raised your blood alcohol level to the legal level of as low as .08. In some jurisdictions, this relatively low blood-alcohol level results in seizure of your car. For some people barely surviving financially, this seizure can be catastrophic.


Many asset seizures can occur from even minor technical violations, and the list of offenses is growing as government personnel continue to take away rights that had existed for the first 200 years of this country’s existence. A passive public makes this possible.


Representative Henry Hyde wrote a book about the constitutional outrages arising under the forfeiture statute in which he wrote:


Federal and state officials now have the power to seize your business, bank account, records and personal property, all without indictment, hearing or trial. Everything you have can be taken away at the whim of one or two federal or state officials operating in secret. The more they seize, the more they get for their own official use.”


License to Steal Approved by Supreme Court Justices


“License to Steal” was the heading on an article in San Francisco’s legal newspaper, Daily Journal (March 18, 1996). The subtitle said, “In Supreme Court Ruling, Rights of the Innocent Are Forfeited.” The article made reference to the Supreme Court’s March 1996 decision upholding the right of government agencies seizing property from innocent people. The article stated in part:


The U.S. Supreme Court has given its stamp of approval to states that steal property from innocent people. Such forfeiture doesn’t violate the constitutional protections of due process, the high court said… Chief Justice William Rehnquist…writes opinions as if he were writing algebraic formulas—they make no reference to the lives they affect…The high court just issued Michigan and other states a license for theft…Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote a concurring opinion that in effect apologizes for the decision—yet supports it.


A Wall Street Journal article (December 29, 1997), titled, “The Dangerous Expansion of Forfeiture Laws,” stated:


Asset forfeiture laws have been spreading like a computer virus through the nation’s statute books…. more than 100 federal laws authorize federal agents to confiscate private property allegedly involved in violations of statutes on wildlife, gambling, narcotics, immigration, money laundering, etc. The vast expansion of government’s forfeiture power epitomizes the demise of property rights in modern America.


Federal agents can confiscate private property with no court order and no proof of legal violations. Law-enforcement officials love forfeiture laws because a hefty percentage of the takings often go directly to their coffers.


A federal appeals court complained in 1992: “We continue to be enormously troubled by the government’s increasing and virtually unchecked use of the civil forfeiture statutes and the disregard for due process that is buried in those statutes.”


A September 1992 Justice Department newsletter noted: “Like children in a candy shop, the law enforcement community chose all manner and method of seizing and forfeiting property, gorging ourselves in an effort which soon came to resemble one designed to raise revenues.”


[innocence is Irrelevant in Forfeiture of Property]


In many forfeiture cases, innocence is irrelevant. The Supreme Court further tilted the legal playing field against ordinary people last year in a decision in a case involving the innocent co-owner of confiscated property. John Bennis stopped on his way home from work to dally with a prostitute in his Plymouth; Detroit police descended on the scene and seized the car, whose co-owner was Mr. Bennis’s wife, Tina. The court ruled 5-4 that the seizure did not violate the wife’s constitutional rights even though she clearly was not complicit in her husband’s illicit behavior.


Chief Justice William Rehnquist wrote:


“The government may not be required to compensate an owner for property which it has already lawfully acquired under the exercise of government authority.” By asserting that the government had already “lawfully acquired” the Bennises’ car simply because it had a law authorizing seizure of the car, Justice Rehnquist basically granted government unlimited power to steal: If it wants to “lawfully acquire” private property without compensation, all it needs to do is write more confiscatory laws.


The article, written by James Bovard, author of Lost Rights: The Destruction of American Liberty, described how Justice Department employees strip a defendant of the funds needed to defend himself or herself. Referring to a bill pushed by Representative Henry Hyde, chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, said:


The new bill greatly expands the power of the prosecutor to seize people’s assets before trial (thereby potentially crippling a person’s ability to hire defense counsel), makes it much more difficult for citizens to get summary judgments against wrongful seizures, and greatly increases the number of crimes for which government can seize a person’s or a corporation’s assets…. “Virtually any business that has any substantive inventory and is extensively regulated by the government is in danger of having its goods seized—even for non-criminal regulatory infractions.”


Your Property is Seized, Now What?


After seizure, government employees don’t have to tell you how to get it back. And major steps must be taken to even try to get it back. The time limit for taking these steps is usually very short, sometimes only ten days after seizure, before the average person even recognizes what happened. Then, the person must find an attorney to take the case, have the money to pay the attorney, and post a bond. Many people cannot meet these requirements, or find the legal costs too expensive to bother.


Who Benefits by Seizing Your Property?


In many cases, property seized by a government agency remains the property of that agency. Government agents sometimes occupy homes that are seized. Cars or airplanes that are seized are often used by the seizing agency. Or the proceeds from the sale of the assets go to the seizing agency. Where government informants are involved, they get a percentage of the asset value. The more assets that a person has, the greater the incentive for government agents and government informants to file sham charges and seize the assets. Even though innocent, failure or inability to promptly take the necessary legal steps means the assets are lost. The following cases are examples of people who suffered the consequences of the tough-on-crime legislation that can happen to almost any man or women in the United States, including you.


Make A Casual Drug-Related Remark—Go to Prison!


Someone in your group says, maybe in jest, “Let’s get some cocaine and sell it; we’ll make a lot of money.” Nothing else may ever be said or done. But by being present when that statement was made, criminal charges can be filed against you or anyone else who was present. The person being charged may not have done a thing after that statement was made. The charge is conspiracy to engage in drug trafficking. Your length of imprisonment depends upon how boastful the drug statement was.


The person making that casual statement may be a government informant and looking for a target—it could be you. The next step, a paramilitary group breaks down the door to your home several days later, with guns drawn, hollering obscenities, slams you and your wife to the floor, holds a large-caliber gun to your heads that could at any moment accidentally—or purposely—discharge. After you are arrested, your assets are seized. If you have a business, that is shut down. If you have a job, you lose it. If your wife is also charged, your children may end up in foster homes. Surprise; this is part of Congress’ tough-on-crime laws.


These attacks clearly violate Fourth Amendment protection which states: “The rights of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated.” But this protection is openly violated every day of the week as paramilitary forces break down the doors of homes and threaten and even kill innocent people.


Exercise Your Legal and Constitutional Defenses And Be Charged with Obstruction of Justice


Your assets are seized, so you have to rely upon a government-provided attorney—who doesn’t want to offend the government people who hired him—and he raises a lackluster defense; or is incompetent. A naive jury believes the prosecutor and believes the “government” would not make these charges against you if they were not true. It finds you guilty. In addition, since you were uncooperative by insisting on a trial, the judge adds years to your sentence for alleged “obstruction of justice” or perjury.


The jurors usually have no idea what their guilty decision means for the defendant in length of imprisonment. Maybe you are lucky, and it may only be ten or twenty years. Your children are placed in foster homes. Think it can’t happen to you? Think again; many others felt the same way. You become another victim who ignored warnings about government corruption.


Offer Merchandise for Sale—Go to Prison


How many people would suspect that offering merchandise—a car or real estate—for instance, could result in a long prison term? Tens of thousands of government agents and informants are looking for victims to carry out this next trick. Let’s look at a few examples. Understanding how this is done can save you from a prison sentence


In 1989, German citizen Helmut Groebe, wanted for crimes in four countries, was hired by Department of Justice personnel as an informant. At that time, he had defrauded his new wife, defrauded several other women, and even defrauded his daughter and her husband by stripping their company of its assets. Just the type of person compatible with DOJ culture!


Because of his criminal convictions in other countries, Groebe was not eligible for citizenship in the United States. DOJ personnel offered him citizenship in the United States and then set him loose to prey upon individual Americans. DOJ personnel eventually paid him over $600,000 for perjured testimony that was used against the victims.


Wolfgang von Schlieffen —one of the victims of this DOJ-inspired conspiracy—told me in 1996, while he was in prison, what happened. Groebe, looking for his next victim or prey, contacted Von Schlieffen, who owned a car dealership in Miami. Groebe, knowing that Wolfgang had a Rolls Royce car and a condominium for sale, falsely told Wolfgang that he had two friends interested in buying his automobile. This was a Justice Department-approved lie.


During a meeting to close the deal, Wolfgang concentrated on describing the car. The pseudo buyers periodically interjected that they were drug dealers. Not being familiar with this, Wolfgang didn’t know he was being set up for prison.


A tape of the conversation showed Wolfgang telling them he had no interest in drugs and what they were doing was wrong, that this meeting concerned a car deal. Caught off-guard and not familiar with this common Justice Department entrapment scam, Wolfgang didn’t know he was in a trap. The government agents put $10,000 on the table as a down payment, and when Wolfgang picked it up, government agents pulled out their guns and arrested him.


DOJ prosecutors charged Wolfgang with conspiracy to launder drug money through the sale of the car and the condominium. He was guilty of nothing except being the prey in another Justice Department scam, far worse than a financial scam that merely strips a victim of money.


During the subsequent trial, the unsophisticated jurors believed the charges by the prosecutor and the perjured testimony of the professional con artist, finding Wolfgang guilty. The years of work acquiring a business were all lost. Groebe, who had a history of swindling innocent people, was paid a tidy sum by the Department of Justice for carrying out this DOJ scheme.


“How could something like this occur in America?”


From prison, after losing his business, his assets, his freedom, and his good name, Wolfgang wrote, “How could something like this occur in America?” He didn’t know the America that once existed is now in an advanced stage of corruption, with the DOJ culture spreading like a cancer through government and society.


After Wolfgang was released, he filed a lawsuit against the Justice Department on the basis of the false charges. Justice Department prosecutors turned around and filed other criminal charges against Wolfgang, and he ended up back in prison. What a system!


Groebe and DOJ Preying on a Lonely Widow


During the trial against Wolfgang, DOJ prosecutors withheld from the defense several important facts about Groebe’s background. In one case, Groebe defrauded a woman, Elena Abuawad, who he had promised to marry. After defrauding her, he set her up for prison as part of a DOJ scheme by promising to repay her in cash. She was trying to sell a condominium, and Groebe said he had someone who would buy it, and the purchase price would be paid in cash.


DEA Special Agent Lucas, along with several other DEA agents, all part of the scheme against this lady—unsophisticated in the undercover tricks of the Department of Justice—then arrived to pay her cash. Lucas casually told her the money came from drug deals; the legal implications of that statement were far beyond her understanding—as it would be to 99 percent of the public. That statement didn’t mean anything to her. She knew nothing about drugs, and was simply trying to sell a piece of real estate.


Within minutes, DEA agents arrested her, handcuffed her, and put her in a jail cell. DOJ prosecutors then charged this twice-defrauded woman with a drug-related conspiracy, using the con artist that defrauded her earlier to carry out the scam! She had no criminal record and probably never would have thought of doing anything illegal. The only participants were government agents and the professional con artist hired and paid by the government agents who set up and carried out the scheme.


Would you, your wife, or your parents, have been sophisticated enough, and quick-witted enough, to have known what to do if such a statement was casually made out of the blue?


Again, a dim-witted jury held her guilty while approving the conduct of the Justice Department-con artist conspiracy.


“I was in love,” the Victimized Widow Later Said


The woman later said: “I was in love. I wanted to get married, and I wanted to have a home again. If he asked me to do something, I was going to do it because I didn’t want to lose him.” The woman’s attorney later filed an appeal, stating in it:


It is difficult to imagine misconduct more egregious, more immoral, more unfair or more improper than that of the government using and paying an informant to falsely profess his love to a woman with no prior criminal record, to violate her person by making love to her, under the pretense that he has romantic feelings for her to become involved in a criminal offense by playing on and with her emotions and taking advantage of her psychological vulnerability.


America’s Gun Owners Beware — Prison May Be Your Next Stop


Millions of gun owners who purchased guns that were legal at the time of purchase can end up in prison and be financially destroyed, solely at the whim of a bureaucrat from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) or Justice Department. I first heard from W.J. Chip Stewart in 1997, whose home was Springdale, Arkansas, after he had been charged with a federal offense by the ATF for having in his possession two semi-automatic handguns.


The guns were legal to own when he purchased them, a small 22 caliber and a 45 caliber semi-automatic pistol made by the Holmes Firearms Company, similar to those owned by millions of other people. ATF bureaucrats decided, after many of these guns were sold, that the widely sold semi-automatic guns could be converted by a gunsmith to become an automatic weapon and were therefore illegal.


Government agents had gotten Stewart’s name from the gun manufacturers’ registration records. ATF agents notified Stewart that the (legally purchased) guns were now unlawful. Stewart voluntarily turned the guns over to them. Eight months later, Justice Department prosecutors obtained a grand jury indictment against him.


Stewart, who owned an auto wrecking business and was a permanent member of the community, could have been served peacefully with the warrant for his arrest. Instead, sixteen heavily armed ATF and FBI agents and local sheriff’s department personnel converged upon his home, breaking down the door. Fortunately for Stewart, he wasn’t home. Otherwise, he could have met the deadly fate of Scott, the Weavers, the Branch Davidians, or the many others who were killed by the “brave” men of ATF and FBI.


ATF and Justice Department attorneys assisted by the typical naive jurors, unsophisticated to the corrupt culture in the Department of Justice, caused Stewart to be sentenced to federal prison for twenty-seven months. As a result of his imprisonment, Stewart lost his business, his wife (who didn’t wish to be inconvenienced by his imprisonment), his credit worthiness, and his money.


Imprisoning a Doctor on Perjured Testimony


In 1997 I started receiving information from a physician who had been targeted in a similar gun-charge. Dr. Jed Cserna was an MD with a private practice in Ely, Nevada, and a Lt. Colonel in the Idaho National Guard, with 16 years of military service behind him. His problems started in Ely, Nevada, where he was a physician. Cserna told me that while he was treating a patient, Doris Gratzer, she told him, “If I’m ever shot, Steve [her husband] did it.” Dr. Cserna told this to the hospital staff and they said that she always had problems, and this occasion was no different than others. A week later, she was found dead, killed by a bullet wound to the head.


Cserna said her husband, Steve Gratzer, was influential in the town, especially with the sheriff, who was responsible for conducting an investigation into his wife’s killing. Cserna was now a danger to Gratzer. According to Cserna, false statements were made by a government informant seeking to justify his informant’s pay and for government payments that resulted in a raid by ATF agent Doreen on his doctor’s office. His home was broken into and possessions disappeared. Participating in the ATF raid was the sheriff who he referred to as Burnie (Ronero), who would soon participate in sham charges filed against the doctor.


Government agents arrested Cserna a short time later and charged him with possession of a machine gun and a short-barreled rifle. The guns in question were an AR-15 that was not an automatic, and a Uzi 9 mm that had been sold to him with a folding stock and various barrels. He had used both guns two and three times a week at the local police firing range and was never questioned about their legality.


Inflammatory Statement by DOJ Prosecutor


Witnesses testified that the guns were legal and in common use by gun hobbyists. By misrepresenting the facts, the prosecutor convinced a jury that the doctor did in fact commit a federal offense and that it was their duty to find him guilty. Inflaming the jury in his closing argument, the prosecutor said, just before the jurors recessed, “Either this gun nut will take his machine gun and kill you and your kids or he’ll sell it to someone who will.”


The jury came back in 21 minutes with a guilty verdict. With that verdict, Dr. Cserna, an MD who spent nearly ten years to get his license and who had devoted long hours to his medical practice in a small town, lost his right to practice medicine in the United States.


DOJ Retaliation Because of Refusing Ruby Ridge Participation?


Cserna told me about an event that happened in Idaho while he was the physician assigned to the Idaho National Guard air wing holding the rank of Lt. Colonel. During the Ruby Ridge attack that killed Mrs. Weaver and her son, ATF agents had gone to the Idaho National Guard base and told the Commander of the helicopter division, “We are ordering you to activate your choppers to go north and strafe Ruby Ridge.” The Colonel refused, stating, “This is against the law, the constitution. And finally, Randy Weaver is an Idaho citizen. Either you get out or I’ll have you thrown out.”


According to Cserna, the ATF wanted to take out their frustration on any high-ranking Idaho Guard member. Everyone of rank who lived in Idaho was fairly well secure in the state. But Cserna lived in Nevada and didn’t have the long-standing connections the other officers had. Cserna thought this could have played a role in why the ATF then went after him. The charges against Cserna were similar to what I learned over the years from other gun owners who were also falsely charged under similar circumstances. Cserna’s evidence relating to Doris Gratzer’s murder was blocked by filing false charges against him.


“I was guilty of believing in the United States”


Upon release from prison in 1998, Cserna left the United States and settled in Switzerland. In one of his letters he wrote, “I was guilty, not of the charges, but instead, of believing in the United States.”


Decades earlier I first learned the frustration of the corroding of quality of life in California by the legal and judicial fraternity, and how I thought about what a group, in control, can do to corrupt an area. The same legal and judicial fraternities are now corrupting life on a national scale. Over the years a number of my sources have left the United States because of this same pattern of corruption.


Tsunami Expert Set Up as Patsy: Goes to Prison


George Pararas-Carayannis was known for his expertise on major tidal waves known as tsunami that are triggered by earthquakes. He was director of the Tsunami Information Center in Hawaii. He also had a small jewelry store as a side business to his government job. He would shortly be one of the thousands of victims of Department of Justice fraud who was put in prison without having committed any offense, another victim to a DOJ-con artist conspiracy.


Federal agents had earlier arrested a Canadian, Lauri McEwen, in Honolulu on drug charges, and offered to drop charges if she could get evidence against others. McEwen carried out the fraudulent sting operation by becoming friendly with Pararas, falsely representing herself as an interior decorator and head of an escort service.


The young and attractive McEwen, wearing stunning clothes, feigned a love interest in Pararas. After getting into his confidence, she asked Pararas to run credit card charges from her “escort” business through his credit card machine at the jewelry store. He made no money out of it and was simply doing a favor for someone he thought was his girl friend. He promptly turned the money over to her after it was credited to his account.


Federal prosecutors then accused Pararas of money laundering resulting from processing money from a prostitution ring through his merchant credit card account. When Carayannis next saw his lady friend, she no longer had the low-cut dresses and loving smile.


Federal prosecutors offered to reduce the charges if he pled guilty to one of them. He refused. He wasn’t guilty of anything. Fighting the power of the government with its unlimited funds and ability to intimidate jurors, Carayannis lost everything after a jury decided he was guilty and the judge sentenced him to three years in prison. As a result of the false charges, he was fired from his government job in 1995. He later said, “I had faith in this system. I thought with this kind of evidence and due process, I would be acquitted.” Having already suffered several heart attacks, prison was difficult for him.


Apply for Loan: Be Charged with Drug Money Laundering


Beryle Johnston, from Papillion, Nebraska, was offered a deal by undercover government agents to refinance his farm. They instructed him to meet the lenders in Florida to complete the transaction. During the discussion, government informant Jerry Woody told Johnston that the people putting up the money for the loan were members of the Cali Cartel. That did it. Johnson, like most people, didn’t know the significance of that DOJ statement, that it was a standard trick used by Department of Justice attorneys to incarcerate another victim. What came next? You guessed it; DOJ prosecutors charged him with drug money laundering.


During the trial, FBI agents perjured themselves, falsely stating that Woody owned a bank and had handled billions of dollars. The truth was, Woody didn’t have any bank. He didn’t have any money. He was living off his girlfriend’s credit cards. The government agents knew this. Based upon the DOJ perjury, a jury convicted Johnston. Woody later admitted his testimony was perjured. But it was too late to save Johnston or the farm the government seized. The legal and judicial system has made government agents immune from suit to where neither they—nor the government—could be sued for their criminal misconduct.


Hire A Lobbyist—Go to Prison


Lobbyists and bribery go hand in hand when dealing with members of Congress. But it is a different scenario for non-government small fry, even when they are innocent. For example, William Moore‘s company developed an optical scanning device that he tried to sell to the U.S. Postal Service. He publicly criticized the postal service for sticking to an inferior product. A government undercover agent advised Moore to seek a lobbyist to promote his device with the postal service. He hired lobbyist John R. Gnau, Jr., who, unknown to him, had been passing bribes with William Spartin to a member of the Postal Service’s board of governors, Peter E. Voss. All three of them were being investigated by the DOJ. All of this was unknown to Moore.


Tearing Up Immunity Agreement for Refusing to Lie


DOJ employees had made a written agreement with Spartin that if he cooperated in the prosecution of Gnau and Moore he would not be prosecuted. Spartin was willing to testify about Gnau’s bribing, but said that Moore knew nothing about it. For refusing to commit the requested crime of perjury, the DOJ prosecutor tore up the immunity agreement and said he would prosecute Spartin.


Spartin’s attorney then asked the prosecutor for another chance, after which Spartin “refreshed” his memory and stated that Moore did know about the bribes, which everyone knew was a lie. The prosecutor then marched Spartin into the grand jury room and asked Spartin if he had told postal inspectors that Moore knew about the bribes. Spartin replied in the affirmative. The corrupt prosecutor never told the jurors that Spartin had said over a dozen times in earlier questioning that Moore did not know.


DOJ Requesting Others to Commit Perjury


That was not the end of the prosecutor’s misuse of prosecutorial power. He prepared a statement for one of Moore’s employees, Frank Bray, to sign, stating that Moore knew about the bribes. When the employee refused to sign, the DOJ prosecutor threatened to charge him with perjury.


Moore, one of America’s naive public, said: “I did not believe this could happen to somebody like me in America. I’m a patriot, businessman. I got to the pinnacle of my success and these guys used criminal statutes to bring me down when I hadn’t done anything.” Moore lost his company and was put into a state of poverty.


True to form, the DOJ Office of Professional Responsibility held that the prosecutor’s conduct was acceptable. Robert Bennett, one of Moore’s attorneys (who later represented President Bill Clinton ) called the DOJ conduct “an outrageous and shameful exercise of prosecutorial power, frighteningly abused.”


Moore’s Attorney Sued the Government


Moore was fortunate in finding a law firm that was willing to sue the government on a contingency fee basis. The Cleveland firm of Jones, Day, Reavis and Pogue agreed to file suit on a contingency basis, filing the case in a Texas court seeking $30 million in damages. The lawsuit charged that the DOJ prosecutor, Valder, brought the suit because Moore had criticized the government.


The lawsuit charged the DOJ prosecutor and postal inspectors with multiple offenses: pressured witnesses to give perjured testimony; withheld evidence showing Moore’s innocence; provided false, misleading, or incomplete evidence to the grand jury, and concealed or destroyed exculpatory evidence. The lawsuit charged that the federal prosecutor told postal inspectors he didn’t care if Moore was guilty or not, and wanted to obtain a high-profile indictment to further his own career.


In response, the DOJ argued that the government was absolutely immune for its conduct, no matter how illegal or corrupt. This argument was upheld by the judge protecting the system.


I think back to how I offended powerful people in government. First, as an FAA inspector I tried to expose a pattern of criminal misconduct at United Airlines and within the FAA related to a series of fatal airline crashes. Later, as I sought to expose other criminality documented in my other books, raw government power was criminally misused against me to silence me and to retaliate against me for exposing the crud.


Preying on Financially Strapped DeLorean


DOJ personnel use these corrupt schemes to prey on those vulnerable due to severe financial problems. They did this with financially ailing carmaker, John DeLorean. DeLorean had no interest in drugs, but government agents set up a scheme and then induced or pressured him to cooperate. At one point, when DeLorean did not want to go along with the government’s scheme, one of the Justice Department’s agents seeking to induce him to continue, said, “John, I want you to understand something. If you don’t cooperate, your daughter’s head will be brought to you in a paper bag!” (Attorneys in the Department of Justice were never known to have any recognizable finesse.)


Fortunately for DeLorean during the 1986 trial, the jury recognized the scheme and acquitted him on the basis that he would not have considered committing a drug offense if government agents had not induced him into it. The jury felt that government agents went after a desperate man to commit an act that he would not otherwise have committed. Bravo for a rare intelligent jury!


Introduce Two People to Each Other—Go to Prison


For arranging a meeting between a drug supplier and a drug dealer, Clarence Aaron was arrested and sentenced to three consecutive life-in-prison sentences. Aaron had no drugs. He had no money. He simply arranged a meeting. For giving testimony against Aaron, DOJ prosecutors dropped charges against the people actually dealing in drugs. If DOJ prosecutors had filed charges against the actual drug traffickers and none testified for the government, they might have been acquitted. But by having the real drug traffickers testify against an innocent person, at least the Justice Department employee could get a guilty verdict that improves his status and pay.


Watch Your Friends


A drug sting instigated by a friend who faced federal prosecution for another drug offense caused an 18-year-old boy, Joey Settembrino —who had never committed an offense—to be sentenced to ten years in prison without parole. His friend had been arrested earlier, and the DOJ prosecutor offered reduction in charges if he would implicate others. Settembrino became the target. The friend asked Settembrino to get him LSD, which was done, and a DEA agent was waiting to arrest him. The joint conspiracy using the DEA agent worked: Settembrino went to prison, the DEA agent got his reward, and the friend who was into drugs had charges dropped.

DOJ Paying Witnesses to Engage in a Conspiracy to Lie


DOJ agents paid former lobbyist Ron Cobb, who had been arrested on drug charges in 1989, $4000 a month and a $150,000 bonus if he could assist in targeting state legislators in South Carolina. Cobb then lied in an effort to bring about the conviction of several targeted legislators. Cobb lied to a federal grand jury with full knowledge of Justice Department prosecutors. U.S. District judge Falcon Hawkins dismissed the charges in 1997, stating:


The breadth and scope of the government’s misconduct and the involvement of the FBI during this entire incident was and is shocking. Most offensive to this court is that the government sat silent when it knew that its silence would not only fail the efforts of the defendants to fully develop defenses to which they were entitled, but would misrepresent facts to both the grand jury and the trial court, and mislead the court to such an extent as to affect its rulings. This silence is subornation of perjury.


Violate a Technical Business Requirement—Go to Prison


Anything placed in the mail invokes the mail fraud statute if any of the thousands of government technical requirements are violated. Eugene Kent learned about this the hard way. Mail fraud charges were filed against him for co-mingling money in a self-insurance fund his insurance company had set up for a number of South Dakota banks. No money was lost or misplaced; it was technical violation. Kent hadn’t done anything vicious or with the intent to defraud. Company funds were casually placed in the same account as the reserve funds. The jurors acquitted Kent of all charges except the mail fraud, and this opened the door for a prison sentence.


He might not have been indicted except for the fact that during grand jury testimony a government agent gave perjured testimony. The lying government agent did not suffer any consequences. When Kent later discovered this fact and filed a motion for a new trial, the judge refused to grant it, stating that the information withheld from him by the DOJ should have been raised during the trial. Kent went to prison, and this was followed by the usual financial and personal tragedies, including family breakup.


Employee Charged for Crimes Committed by Boss


Another way that your world can come tumbling down is to be an employee in a business where, unknown to you, there is drug activity. The boss is arrested and given a chance to implicate others, thereby giving the prosecutor a witness to back up the charges. Suddenly, you are charged with being a drug kingpin based upon the perjured testimony of the real drug kingpin!


Here is another example. Norberto Guerra and Ramon Jimenez worked on a boat that brought drugs into the United States. They suspected something like that was going on but had no role in it. DOJ prosecutors first charged their bosses—who were bringing in the drugs—with drug-related offenses. When the evidence against the real drug traffickers was difficult to track down, DOJ prosecutors made the real drug traffickers a deal. Justice Department prosecutors used the known perjured testimony of the actual drug traffickers—Raul Sanchez who brought tons of cocaine into the United States and also confessed to two murders, and convicted murderer, Leonardo Alvarez—against the two employees. They were charged with being the kingpins responsible for bringing almost four tons of cocaine into the United States.


DOJ Fraudulently Withholding Exculpatory Evidence


Despite repeated requests by defense attorneys to turn over information about their witnesses, the requests were improperly refused. DOJ attorneys fraudulently stated they had no information. Sanchez failed a lie-detector test, which was withheld from defense attorneys. It was later learned that DOJ agents and prosecutors had destroyed hundreds of pages relating to interviews and data on their key witness, Sanchez. During trial, Sanchez falsely stated that he had not received any promise of leniency in return for his testimony. That was perjury, and the DOJ personnel hearing it aided and abetted it by remaining silent.


Don’t Anger Department of Justice Employees


Lawyer Patrick Duffy said, as he defended archaeologist Peter Larson in South Dakota, “Don’t anger the Department of Justice.” Larson had obtained authorization from a property owner to search for what he found, the skeleton of a fossil. He had paid the ranch owner for the find and then donated it to the Black Hills Institute of Geological Research. DOJ prosecutors then stepped in, claiming the person who gave Duffy permission to search for fossils had placed his property in trust with the federal government and the government agents now claimed the fossil belonged to the government.


That fossil would never have been found except for the diggings by Duffy. Duffy appealed this claim to federal courts, without success. For having fought the matter in court—which Duffy warned could result in DOJ retaliation—DOJ prosecutors charged Larson with a federal offense that ended up with a two-year prison sentence. For a fossil!


facebook.png googleplus.png twitter.png


The post The Corrupt Culture In The FBI – DOJ (Part: 1 of 3) appeared first on Militia News.


Continue reading...

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

  • Create New...