|
USA:
Procès de onze dirigeants de la scientologie
La plus importante affaire d'espionnage interne qu'aient
jamais connu les Etats-Unis
Une démonstration de la
perpétration systématique de crimes, mêmes après avoir été déjà inculpé et
condamné; une démonstration des méthodes de "gibier de potence" (ruiner et
détruire ses ennemis etc); une démonstration du cynisme extraordinaire dont sont
capables les dirigeants scientologues. Cambriolage, subornation de témoins,
conspiration gigantesque, méthodes élaborées, parjures, plans de meurtre,
diffamation, rumeurs malveillantes, espionnage , infiltration, vol,
fausses informations, faux en écritures publiques et privées etc.
Ici, ce sont les deux derniers inculpés du
procès contre 11 des principaux dirigeants, dont la femme d'Hubbard, son
adjointe la plus directe, et le directeur juste en-dessous dans la hiérarchie,
car ce procès s'est déroulé en deux temps.
LES PASSAGES TRADUITS SONT EN BRUN. Tout le
texte anglais a été laissé en place.
- UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF
COLUMBIA
- TRIBUNAL DE DISTRICT DES ETATS UNIS
POUR LE DISTRICT DE COLUMBIA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
v.: Criminal No.
78-401(2)&(3)
(24 novembre 1980)
JANE KEMBER:
MORRIS
BUDLONG
a/k/a MO BUDLONG:
- SENTENCING MEMORANDUM OF THE UNITED
STATES OF AMERICA
- MEMORANDUM DE SENTENCE DES ETATS UNIS
D'AMERIQUE
The
United States of America respectfully submits this Sentencing
Memorandum
to aid the Court in imposing sentence in this
case.
I.
Introduction
The defendants, Jane
Kember and Morris Budlong, were each found guilty, following a jury
trial, of nine counts of aiding and abetting burglary in the second
degree. The evidence which led the jury to return these guilty verdicts
revealed that during the years 1973 to 1976 the defendants ordered the
commission of brazen, systematic and persistent burglaries of United
States Government offices. Their purpose was to ransack these offices of
all documents of interest to the organization which they led -- the
Guardian's Office of the Church of Scientology -- in order to secure
total exemption from taxation and to protect Scientology's founder,
L. Ron Hubbard. In the process, from their headquarters in
East Grinstead, England, they challenged and attempted to undermine
the judicial and governmental structure of the United States. They
did so by fraudulently using the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA)
in a manner never intended by the Congress of the United
States.
Les inculpés Jane Kember et Morris Budlong ont été
estimés coupables, après jugement du jury, chacun de 9 chefs d'accusation de
complicité de cambriolage au second degré. Les preuves ayant conduit le jury au
verdict ont révélé que de 1973 à 1976, les défendants ot ordonné la commission
de cambriolages cyniques, persistants et systématiques de bureaux du
Gouvernement des Etats-Unis. Leur but était de vider ces offices de tous
documents intéressant l'organisation qu'ils menaient - l'Office du Gardien de
l'église de scientologie - afin de parvenir à exemption totale d'impôts et
protéger le fondateur de la scientologie, L. Ron Hubbard. Durant cette activité,
depuis leurs quartiers généraux d'East Grinstead, Angleterre, ils ont combattu
et tenté de miner la structure judiciare et gouvernementale des Etats-Unis. Ils
l'ont fait en se servant du FOIA (loi sur la liberté d'information) d'une façon
qui n'était pas du tout dans l'intention du Congerès des USA.
As this Court heard, these defendants set about filing
FOIA requests with various Government agencies in order, _inter_alia_,
to cause these agencies to gather all the requested documents in
a central repository for the review process mandated by the
FOIA. Once the Guardian's Office discovered where these documents
were located, they began a systematic pillaging of that office
--
repeatedly
Le Tribunal a entendu que ces deféndants ont
déposé des requètes FOIA auprès de duiverses agences gouvernementales afin,
entre autres, de faire rassembler à ces agences tous les documents requis
dans un dépot central en vue du processus de révision exigé par le FOIA. Une
fois que l'office du Gardien (GO) sut où ces documents étaient entreposés, il
commença à piller systématiquement l'office, de façon répétée,
_ 2 _
and surreptitiously breaking into that
office, taking the documents, photocopying them with Government equipment
and supplies, and replacing them in the Government files so that, in the
words of defendant Budlong, these thefts would not be
uncovered.
y pénétrant par fraude, prenant les documents, les
photocopiant au moyen des appareils et fournitures gouvernementales, les
replaçant dans les dossiers afin que, selon les termes du défendant Budlong, ces
vols ne soient pas découverts.
Notwithstanding
the fact that they had obtained _illegally_ all the documents they were
seeking, they proceeded to file FOIA suits in the courts of this country,
complaining that the particular Government agencies had not given them
all the documents to which they were entitled. Thus, they perpetrated a
fraud upon the American judicial system. They came into the American
courts with unclean hands, seeking documents which they had already
obtained by violating the laws of the United States. After abusing the
trial courts, they proceeded to abuse the apellate courts never
disclosing that they were engaged in litigation in bad faith, totally
heedless of the waste of judicial resources involved. Such conduct,
which strikes at the very heart of the judicial system, cannot
be tolerated.
Nonobstant le fait qu'ils avaient illégallement obtenu
tous les documents qu'ils recherchaient, ils procédèrent au dépôt de plaintes
FOIA devant les tribunaux de ce pays, se plaignant que des agences
gouvernementales ne leur avaient pas communiqué tous les documents auxquels ils
avaient droit. Ils ont donc escroqué le système judiciare américain. Ils sont
arrivés devant les tribunaux américains les mains sales, cherchant des documents
qu'ils avaient obtenus en violant les lois des Etats-Unis. Abusant des
tribunaux, ils procédèrent à abuser des cours d'appel en ne divulgant jamais
qu'ils étaient déjà impliqués dans une litigation de mauvaise foi, se moquant
tout à fait du gaspillage des ressources judiciaires engagées. Une telle
conduite, qui frappe au coeur même du système judiciaire, ne peut être
tolérée.
These defendants additionally ordered
the theft of documentsand memoranda of attorneys representing the United
States Government, a party against whom they had instituted a variety of
lawsuits. They did so to discover the attorney's legal strategy and gain
an unfair strategic advantage in the courts. In effect, they
violated the attorney-client privilege of every litigant who opposed
them, a fact which they seek to obfuscate by complaining in bad faith,
that their own attorney-client privileges were violated. Such
conduct cannot be permitted in our judicial system.
Ces défendants ont par ailleurs ordonné le vol de
documents et mémoranda d'avocats représentant le gouvernement des Etats-Unis,
qui étaient partie contre laquelle ils avaient lancé diverses poursuites
judiciaires. Ils le firent pour découvrir la stratégie légale des avocats et
acquérir un avantage indu devant les tribunaux. En effet, ils violaient ainsi le
privilège client-avocat de chaque partie opposée, fait qu'ils paraissent tenter
de voiler en se plaignant de mauvaise foi, que leur propre privilège
avocat-client était violé. Une telle conduite ne peut être permise dans notre
système judiciaire.
Once their emissaries were
caught in the midst of one of their criminal acts, the defendants
orchestrated from England a massive obstruction of the due administration
of justice. Such outrageous conduct, which, we submit, this Court can
consider under standards recognized by the Supreme Court, strikes at the
very heart of our judicial system -- a system which has often, at crucial
times in our history, been the savior of our institutions.
Une fois que leurs
émissaires furent pris en plein acte criminel, les défendants orchestrèrent
depuis l'Angleterre une obstruction massive de l'administration normale de la
justice. Une conduite à ce point outrageuse, que, nous le soumettons à cette
Cour, qu'elle peut considérer selon les normes de la Cour Suprème, frappe
directement au coeur de notre système judiciaire -- système qui a souvent, à des
périodes cruciales de notre passé, été le garant de nos
institutions.
_ 3 _
Moreover, a review
of the documents seized from the two LosAngeles, California, offices of
the Guardian's Office -- including log books of messages from these two
defendants -- show the
incredible and sweeping nature of the criminal
conduct of these defendants.
Indeed, Guardian Program Order 158, and some
of the other orders in evidence, have already provided the Court with a
glimpse of this conduct. These crimes included: the infiltration and
theft of documents from a number of prominent private, national, and
world organizations, law firms, newspapers, and private citizens;
the execution of smear campaigns and baseless law suits for the
sole purpose of destroying private individuals who has attempted
to exercise their First Amendment rights to freedom of expression;
the framing of private citizens who had been critical of
Scientology,including the forging of documents which led to the
indictment of at least one innocent person; and violation of the civil
rights of prominent private citizens and public officials. These are but
a few of the criminal acts of these two defendants which, we
submit, give this court a glimpse of the heinous and vicious nature of
their crimes.
En outre, une révision des documents saisis aux
deux offices du Gardian Office de Los Angeles, Californie, y compris un fichier
des messages de ces deux défendants -- démontre l'incroyable et fluctuante
conduite criminelle des défendants.
En effet, un ordre de Pogramme du gardien n°
158, et certains autres fournis en preuves, ont déjà donné au tribunal un aperçu
de cette conduite. Les crimes incluent: infiltration et vol de documents dans
quantité d'organisations proéminentes privées, nationales ou mondiales, dans des
cabinets d'avocats, des journaux, et auprès de citoyens privés; l'exécution de
campagnes de diffamation, de plaintes sans fondement, dans l'unique but de
détruire des individus privés ayant tenté d'exercer leur droit du Premier
Amendement à la Liberté d'Expression; le fait de s'être fait passer pour des
citoyens privés qui avaient critiqué la scientologie y compris en fabriquant des
documents ayant mené à l'inculpation d'au moins un innnocent; et la violation
des droits civils de citoyens proéminents et d'autorités officielles. Il ne
s'agit que de quelques-uns des actes criminels commis par les deux défendants,
aperçu que nous soumettons à la Cour pour qu'elle mesure l'étendue de la nature
vicieuse et haineuse de leurs crimes.
In view of the
severity of the crimes of which the defendants Kember and Budlong were
convicted, the high level of their positions in the organizational
hierarchy of the Guardian's Office, compared with the positions held by
their nine co-defendants who were convictedafter a non-jury trial
based on an uncontested stipulation of evidence, as well as the
additional information which we now bring to this Court's attention, we
submit that the public interest demands the imposition of substantial
terms of incarceration. This Court must make it clear beyond peradventure
that the criminal conduct of these two defendants cannot be countenanced,
and that anyone who sets about masterminding and executing the crimes
of which they were convicted, uses and then tampers with the
judicial
En raison de la gravité des crimes dont les
défendants Kember et Budlong ont été inculpés, le niveau élevé de leurs
positions dans la hiérarchie organisationnelle du Gardian Office (GO), en
relation avec les positions tenues par leurs neuf co-défenseurs inculpés après
un procès hors jury basé sur la stipulation incontestée des preuves, ainsi que
sur l'information supplémentaire que nous soumettons à l'attention de la Cour,
nous soumettons que l'intérêt public exige l'imposition d'une incarcération
substantielle. Le Tribunal doit indiquer très clairement au delà de tout doute
que la conduite criminelle de ces deux défendants ne peut être sous-estimée, et
que quiconque met en oeuvre l'exécution des crimes dont ils sont inculpés,
utilise et truque le système judiciaire
_ 4
_
system as they have, will be dealt with in the most severe
terms provided by the law.
- comme ils l'ont fait, doit être puni avec la plus
grande sévérité possible de par la loi.
II.
The Law
The right of this court
to consider evidence of other crimes prior to imposing a sentence has
long been recognized. It is well settled that "before making [a
sentencing] determination, a judge may appropriately conduct an inquiry
broad in scope, largely unlimited either as to the kind of information he
may consider, or the source from which it may come."
United States v.Tucker, 404 U.S. 443, (1972). Courts have a duty to
obtain as much information as they can about a convicted defendant's
background, character, and conduct, criminal or otherwise, so that they
can impose a sentence to fit the circumstances of the case and
the individual defendant. See United States v. Grayson, 438 U.S.
41 (1978); 18 U.S.C. sec 3577 (1976). Thus, hearsay assertions
are admissible, Williams v. Oklahoma , 358 U.S. 576 (1959), as
is information about prior crimes committed by the defendant, even
if the indictments for those crimes are pending,
United States v. Metz , 470 F.2d 1140 (3d Cir. 1972), cert denied,
411 U.S. 919 (1973); or the defendant was never tried for the other
crimes, Williams v. NewYork, 337 U.S. 241, 244 (1949); or the charges
were dismissed without an adjudication on the merits,
United States v. Doyle, 348 F.2d 715 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 372
U.S. 919 (1963); United States v. Cifarelli, 401 F.2d 512, 514
(2d
Cir.), cert. denied, 393 U.S. 987 (1968). Even facts developed
in prosecutions where the defendant was acquitted can be considered
by the sentencing judge. _United_States_v._Sweig_, 454 F.2d 182
(2d
Cir. 1972).
[passage moins
important sauf d'un point de vue esssentiellement technique, non
traduit]
_ 5 _
In addition, the Court can
consider all the circumstances surrounding a defendant's conviction for
the present crime. A court is also warranted in increasing the sentence
when it believes that the defendant has undermined the judicial system
through repeated perjury. _United_States_v._Grayson_, _supra_.
- De plus, la Cour peut considérer toutes les
circonstances entourant l'inculpation d'un défendant pour le crime présent. Un
tribunal a aussi le droit d'augmenter la sentence lorsqu'il croit que le
défendant a miné le système judiciaire grâce à des parjures répétés.
[réf...]
- III.
The Charges on Which The
Defendants Were Convicted and the
- Continuation of the Burglaries after
Meisner and Wolfe Were Caught.
-
- La base des inculpations de ces defendants et la
continuation des
- cambriolages après que Meisner et Wolfe aient été
pris
Each of the
two defendants now before the Court were found guilty of nine counts of
aiding and abetting second degree burglaries of government offices at the
Internal Revenue Service, the Department of Justice and the offices of an
Assistant United States Attorney in this very courthouse. The evidence at
their trial proved beyond any doubt that the defendants not only
commanded and directed these burglaries but also received the fruits of
the burglaries -- copies of the stolen Government documents -- and that
they commended and awarded their subordinates for their success in these
criminal endeavors. Based on this overwhelming evidence, with which
this Court is intimately familiar, a jury returned unanimous verdicts
of guilty against both defendants.
Chacun des deux défendants présents devant cette
Cour a été jugé coupable de neuf chefs d'inculpation pour complicité au second
degré de cambriolage d'offices du gouvernement au Service du Revenu
Intérieur (IRS - le fisc
US), au ministère de la justice et aux
offices d'un avocat assistant des Etats-Unis, au sein même de ce tribunal. Les
preuves fournies lors du procès ont prouvé sans le moindre doute que les
défendants ont non seulement commandé et dirigé ces cambriolages, mais qu'ils
ont aussi reçu le fruit du crime -- des copies des documents volés au
gouvernement -- et qu'ils ont félicité et récompensé les subordonnés pour leur
réussite lors de ces actes criminels. Se basant sur des preuves submergeantes,
que cette Cour connaît bien, un jury a rendu un verdict unanime de culpabilité
contre les deux défendants.
The evidence further
shows, however, that the defendants did not stop their elaborate schemes
on June 11, 1973 when they were informed that Michael Meisner and Gerald
Bennett Wolfe had been confronted by the Federal Bureau of Investigations
in this very courthouse during one of their attempted burglaries. Indeed,
to the contrary, the evidence overwhelmingly demonstrates that
the defendants continued to issue Guardian Orders and
directives commanding crimes identical to those for which they have
been convicted. We submit that such evidence is probative at a sentencing
because it brings into focus more than anything else the refusal by
the defendants to live by the law -- their apparently
intractable
Les évidences montrent en outre, cependant, que
les défendants n'ont pas cessé leurs schémas élaborés le 11 juin 1973,
lorsqu'ils furent informés que Michael Meisner et Gerard Bennett Wolfe avaient
été pris par le FBI dans ce tribunal même, durant l'une de leurs tentatives de
cambriolage. En effet, au contraire, l'évidence démontre de façon plus que
certaine que les défendants ont continué à publier des ordres du Gardien et
directives ordonnant des crimes identiques à ceux pour lesquels ils avaient été
inculpés. Nous soumettons que cette évidence soit prise pour preuve lors de la
sentence car elle montre mieux que tout autre chose le refus des défendants de
vivre en accord avec la loi -- leur postulat apparamment irréversible
_ 6 _
conviction that they are somehow above
the law. This is illustrated by Mrs. Hubbard's statement on the witness
stand that she and her codefendants, including these two defendants, felt
they could do to others whatever they perceived, however
erroneously, others were doing to them. Thus, they created the
"Intelligence" or "Information" Bureau because they decided they had no
use for the lawful remedies provided by our legal system.
_See_e.g.: Government Exhibit No. 2 at trial. Such behavior, we
submit, cannot be tolerated in any civilized society.
étant qu'ils seraient d'une façon ou d'une autre
au-dessus des lois. Ceci est illustré lors de la déclaration de Madame Hubbard à
la barre des témoins, disant qu'elle et ses co-défendants, y compris ces
deux-ci, pensaient pouvoir faire à d'autres - pourtant par erreur - ce qu'ils
percevaient que d'autres leur faisaient. D'où la création du bureau
"Information" ou "Intelligence", puisqu'ils avaient décidé que notre système
légal ne leur offrait aucun remède. Voir par exemple la pièce 2 fournie par le
Gouvernement lors du procès. Nous estimons qu'une telle conduite ne peut être
tolérée dans aucune société civilisée.
The following
is a sampling of a few of the directives and orders which show that the
defendants continued their illegal activities beyond June
1976:
Date and Exhibit Order or Communication
31 July 1976 Compliance Report Re:
Guardian (Gov't Exh. No. 109) Program Order 3Q2 Operating Target (Exh. No.
1 hereto) 5. Lists of priorities for penetration of Government agencies.
Among agencies targeted for penetration: CIA, FBI, Defense
Communications Agency, Federal Protective Service, Federal Bureau of
Prisons, Office of the President and Vice President of the United States,
and the United States Senate, and the Administrative Office of the U.S.
Courts.
15 October 1976 Defendant Budlong to Richard Weigand: (Gov't
Exh. No. 107) "Attached is a project which can be (Exh. No. 2 hereto)
utilized to debug and accomplish any infiltrating target you may
havetrouble with in your area." Budlong demands that "[e]ach time it is
implemented... B 1 WW is to be notified." The attached project is
called WEAVER'S NEEDLE. Major Target: "To success- fully
infiltrate (name of agency or organization) to locate and obtain their
files on the C of S."
27 May 1977 Defendant Jane Kember reissues
Guard (Gov't Exh. No. 111) ian Program Order 158 as GPgmO 158 R (Exh. No.
3 hereto) (Reissue). While tracking the previous order of 5 December 1975
it re- fines and changes some of the targets. Defendant Budlong's title
appearsimmediately before Kember's name at the end of the order,
indicating he approved the order.
_ 7 _
3 June
1977 U.S. Secretary W.W. Hermann Brendel (Gov't Exh. No 112) in a
communication sent to defendants (Exh. No. 4 hereto) Kember and Budlong also
lists priorities for B 1 U.S., including obtaining all U.S. Government
files, and U.S. District Attorney, Los Angeles, files. It lists various
operations against private individuals and organizations
and state
agencies including getting: (1) Susan Monday "checked out;" (2) "Time-Life
Books discredited."
[divers détails des pièces
ne sont pas traduits]
Additionally, based upon the
correspondence between the defendant Jane Kember and Deputy Guardian U.S.
Henning Heldt, there is no question but that the defendant Kember
directed, encouraged, and personally monitored the Guardian's Office
attempt to attack and destroy Assistant United States Attorney Nathan
Dodell. Indeed on June 6, 1976, defendant Kember wrote to Heldt: "Have we
ever done a really thorough B1 investigation of Dodell ?... let
me know what B1 found on him ... want the intell[igence]
actions looked over." That directive was complied with on 29 June
1976.
See Exh. No. 6 hereto. Then on June 9, 1976 defendant Kember
telexed former co-defendant Heldt: "Re: Justice Dodell attack strategy
& yr desp[atch] 4 June. I consider that yr actions are
excellent and that you are holding the line beautifully. V[ery]
W[ell] D[one} and let me know how it goes." She was given the
information on 29 June 1976. See Exh. No. 7 hereto.
[non traduit]
We
submit that a mere sampling of the orders and communications emanating
from these defendants indicates their heavy involvement not only in the
criminal activities for which the were convicted but also in identical
criminal activities for at least the year following the FBI's
confrontation with Meisner and Wolfe in this courthouse. {1} Such a
pervasive pattern of conduct would indicate
- Nous soumettons le fait que quelques exemples des
ordres et ciommunications émanant de ces défendants indique leur implication
profonde, non seulement dans les activités criminelels pour lesquelles ils ont
été inculpés, mais aussi dans des activités criminelles identiques durant au
minimum l'année ayant suivi l'arrestation de Meisner et Wolfe dans ce
tribunal-même {1} Un tel comportement perdurant indiquerait
{1} While Kember and Budlong claim that
the burglaries were carried out solely to remove "false reports" from
Government files, the documents show otherwise. In fact, one of the
programs of the Guardian's Office called for the deliberate planting of
false reports in Government files. In a World Wide project issued 16
September 1975 by
(continued on next page)-- ici: ( {1} continued from
preceding page) aide David Gaiman, Deputy Guardian for Public Relations
World-Wide, an operation is ordered to plant false information in U.S.
Security agency computers, "to hold up the American security to ridicule,
as outlined in the GO by LRH." It describes the plan as "to take a
cat
with a pedigree name ... and to get the name into a computer file, together
with a record whether it be criminal, social welfare, driving, or whatever;
and to build the sequence of events to the point where the creature holds a
press conference and photographic story results." The project called for the
use of plants to place the false information into U.S. security agency
computers. See Exh. No. 5 hereto.
{1} Alors que Kember et Budlong prétendent que
les cambriolages étaient menés uniquement afin d'ôter de "faux rapports" des
ficheirs du gouvernement, les documents démontrent autre chose. En réalité, l'un
des programmes de l'Office du Gardien demandait la mise en place délibérée de
faux rapports au sein des fichiers gouvernementaux. Lors d'un projet "World
Wide" -Monde Entier- publié le 16 septembre 1975 par l'aide David Gaiman, député
Gardien aux relations Publiques pour le Monde Entier, une opération est ordonéne
pour insérer des informations fausses dans les ordinateurs de l'agence de
sécurité US, "afin de ridiculiser la sécurité américaine, comme l'a demandé LRH
au Gardian Office". Cela décrit un plan afin de "prendre un chat avec un nom de
pedigree... et de coller le nom dans un fichier d'ordinateur, dans un dossier
quelconque, criminel, ou social, ou de permis de conduire, et de construire une
séquence d'évènements dont on tirerait une conférence de presse et des photos de
la créature". Le projet demandait que des espions pour placer la fausse
information dans les ordinateurs de l'agence de sécurité de l'état. Voir la
pièce 5 jointe.
_ 8 _
that the only reason
our proof of these criminal ventures ends in June 1977 is that the
searches took place on July 8, 1977. One can only speculate as to whether
these illegal activities were ever terminated by these
defendants. que l'unique raison de preuves de la cessation de
ces crimes en 1977 est que les saisies eurent lieu à cet instant, le 8 juillet
1977. On peut spéculer qu'elles n'aient en fait jamais pris fin de la part de
ces défendants.
_ 9 _
IV.
The
Obstruction of Justice
The seized documents
demonstrate beyond peradventure that the two defendants before the Court for
sentencing, Jane Kember and Morris Budlong, from their secure haven in East
Grinstead, England, orchestrated a massive cover-up, obstructing the
administration of justice in the United States. They suppressed
and fabricated evidence go be presented to investigating authorities and
the grand jury in order to insulate themselves and Scientology from liability
for the crimes which they had ordered and committed, including the nine
burglaries of which they now stand convicted.
In doing so, they committed
crimes ranging from harboring a fugitive to suborning perjury. Not only did
they commit these crimes against the American judicial system, but they did
so with impunity. Examples from a few of the seized documents provide a
flavor of the brazenness and singlemindedness with which these two defendants
set about obstructing the American judicial system. We submit thatthis
Court not only can, but indeed should, consider this evidence in assessing
the culpability of these defendants and the likelihood of their
rehabilitation, or lack of such likelihood.
Les documents saisis démontrent au-deà du doute
que les deux défendants Jane Kember et Morris Budlong, avant la sentence de la
Cour, depuis leur retraite sûre d'East Grinstead, Angleterre, ont orchestré un
trafic de couverture massif, obérant l'administration de la justice aux
Etats-Unis. Ils ont supprimé des preuves et en ont fabriquées pour les présenter
aux autorités d'investigation et au grand jury afin de s'isoler eux-mêmes et
d'isoler la scientologie des crimes qu'ils avaient ordonné et commis, y compris
les neuf cambriolages pour lesquels ils sont présentement inculpés.
Ce faisant,
ils ont commis des crimes allant de l'hébergement d'un fugitif au parjure et
subornation. Non seulement ils ont commis ces crimes contre le système
judiciaire américain, mais ils le faisaient impunément. Les exemples tirés de
quelques pièces choisies parmi la saisie donnent un relent du cynisme et de la
direction exclusive donnée par ces défendants pour faire obstruction au système
judiciaire américain. Nous soumettons à la Cour qu'elle ne devrait pas seulement
se contenter d'examiner ces évidences, mais qu'elle doit le faire en estimant la
culpabilité de ces deux défendants et la probablilité de leur réhabilitation, ou
de leur absence.
[suivent une série de pièces en preuves, non
traduites]
A. As
to JaneK ember, the following are summaries of but a
few of her communications which show her clearly at the helm of
the conspiracy to obstruct justice:
Date and Exhibit
Communication
June 25, 1976 Jane Kember
sends telex to GWW Log Book, Hennning Heldt: p. 141 (Exh. No. "Re:
Guardian's Office D.C., 8, hereto) Evaluation. Leave Herbert
[Meisner] where he is. If Patsy [Meisner] not OK work out other
solution." [Complied to November 18, 1976]
October 29, 1976 Jane
Kember sends telex to Henning GWW Log Book, Heldt: p 149 (Exh. No.
"Henning. I am totally overrun
_ 10 _
9 hereto) on not getting
vital data from BI lines. I want the following data in full. Re: MM [Mike
Meisner] and your Boffin eval which has not even been received at WW.
Are you having trouble with MM [Meisner] and why ? I want full report and precise
details.
Whatare the possibilities of a Grand Jury investigation ?
I want full_details. Why does the CSG [Mary Sue Hubbard] ordered time
schedule have to be altered to await the outcome of the Silver [Wolfe]
trial. If MM pleaded guilty could he then just say nothing or appear to
be type 3 [crazy] ? Will you
please get me a full report on this whole scene without any
justifications as to security being the reason for withhold of vital
data. Much love, Jane."
November 1, 1976 Jane Kember sends telex to
Henning GWW Log Book, Heldt: p. 150 (Exh. No. 10
"Problems appear to be with MM hereto) [Meisner] (1) Overts [thoughts
against Scientology] have been pulled [i.e., drawn out of him in an
auditing session] ?; (2) Is he producin ?
(3) Anyone explained that cooperation out of the question; (4)
anyone explained why we want Silver's case handled first?; and (5)
anyone explained he will not open his mouth ?
..."
November 1,
1976 Jane Kember to Henning Heldt: GW Log Book, "D.C. MM [Meisner] Mess.
Please p. 151 (Exh. No. get BI data up the line fast and 11 hereto) also
data on urgent situations."
November 12, 1976 Jane Kember to Henning
Heldt: GWW Log Book, "Henning, Please send me a list of p. 162 Exh. No.
all the people who know about the 13 hereto) M [Meisner] cycle. Then
please report on how you are getting eyes only actually being duplicated
and all extraneous people off, repeat off the lines. Much love,
Jane."
April 20, 1977, Handwritten letter from Jane Kember Exh. No 14
to Henning Heldt: hereto) [Jane Kember sets out in detail the present
plans for the cover-up, and asks what is causing the delay in completion
of the cover-up. She concludes: _Please_write_a_detailed_
_ 11
_
report which actually answers these questions...
"].
B. As to Morris Budlong, the seized documents clearly
show that every detail of the cover-up had to receive his
specific approval.
For example:
Date and Exhibit
Communication
September 28, 1976 from
Mo Budlong to Dick Weigand, DGIUS, (Exh. No. 15 cc: to Jane
Kember:
hereto) Sets forth plan for harboring Meisner as a fugitive
(change his identity, go into hiding) and obstructing justice by having
Wolfe plead guilty, giving no details of the reaon for being in
the courthouse. Concludes: "If any of the above is not clear, please
ask immediately as I don't want any confusion on what has to be done."
November
2, 1976 Mo Budlong sends telex to Greg Willardson, (Exh. No. 16 DDGIUS,
criticising the Information
Bureau hereto) for handling the obstruction of
justice by itself without help from the
Legal Bureau. Concludes: "Rectifyt his immediately. BI
handles security and keeps M [Meisner] and Silver [Wolfe] cheered up.
Legal handles the cases and Legal handling. You will wrap all of BI
round a telegraph pole if you continue this
way. Send full explanation by telex, Love, Mo."
December 1, 1976
To Mo Budlong, cc: to Jane Kember, from (Exh. No. 17 Mitchell
Hermman: hereto) Sets out details on how the obstruction of justice is
being handled in the United States Guardian's Office. Concludes
by telling Mo Budlong that the overall cover story for Meisner and
Wolfe is being prepared _for_his_final_approval_.
January 24, 1977
Telex to Mo Budlong from Dick Weigand,(Exh. No. 18 DGIUS: hereto) "Re:
Silver [Wolfe]: Justice going for Grand Jury on Silver matter this month.
Also Justice wants to talk with Silver. Plan is to stall Grand Jury by
Silver promise of talking in end of January. Handling is to
get Silver briefed and drilled at US by BI and Legal to give Justice
admission of guilt and back-up story if needed from
Herbert [Meisner].Pjt currently at WW, specifically
Tgt. 4. Need your ok on use of Tgt. 4 to proceed.
_
12 _
Intention is with Silver drilled and briefed he can get Justice
to drop Grand Jury.
Grand Jury not wanted as Silver could be given immunity then made to give data
as no 5th Amendment rights after immunity. Then data from him
could be used to getu s or Herb [Meisner] or even used against
Silver if proved false. Can I get your telex OK or not OK on
Tgt. 4 so as to_proceed.
Love, DGIUS...
January 24, 1977 In reply to the above, Mo Budlong
sends (Exh. No. 19 hereto) telex to Dick Weigand, DGIUS: "Target 4 on
my copy is to brief Silver on story. This is OK but DGLWW requires more
data on grand jury's powers and has asked DGIUS for same [A] If
Silver [Wolfe] states that he will plead guilty will Grand Jury
proceed ? [B] Is Grand Jury going for indictment on Silver
or Murphy ? [C] If Silver is to plead guilty, why does he need a
story ? [D] Also per plan, if Murphy [Meisner] is to plead guilty, why does
he need a story? Surely sequence is he is arrested, goes to trial,
pleads guilty and is sentenced. Much love, MO."
January 24,
1977 In reply to the above, Dick Weigand telexes (Exh. No. 20 hereto) Mo
Budlong: "Re: Silver [Wolfe]. Reply to your Q's: (A) If Silver pleads
guilty, matter should not go to Grand Jury. This needs to be verified
by Legal. (B) Grand Jury is for Silver.
(C) Story for following: United States Attorney's Office District of Columbia
has theory that Silver and Herb [Meisner] after documents for
Church. They want to determine what Silver was_ up to and will
drop charges if they determine theory not true. A meeting with
them was set up at their request to go over this. Silvertory
for meeting. Purpose two fold: to
provide time for legal to
research and to see if U.S. Attorney's Office can be convinced to drop charges.
Silver attorney predicts Silver will be charged with impersonation and
forgery of I.D. and trespass. Silver has acknowledged doing
this. Difficulties would come if he were also charged with conspiracy and Grand
Jury was used to try to develop this charge aimed at Church.
(D) Murphy [Meisner] story would be needed for same sit....
May
3, 1977 To Mo Budlong from DGIUS, Dick Weigand and (Exh. No. 21 hereto)
Greg Willardson, DDGIUS; reports on
handling of Meisner due to his lack
of cooperation: "We went back to BI and organized a crew of guys to handle
the worst eventualities
_
13
_
by force if necessary (i.e., gag, handcuffs, etc.)"
"We
eventually got to [Meisner's] at about 2:15 a.m., 30 April, and Dick,
Brian (SE Sec) and I went in to see [Meisner] first with the three
guards... Herbert was quite upset about the guards initially... [H]e was
not going to allow guardsstaying with him. He then
threatened thatthen he would have to leave even if he had to make a
scene, including involving the police...
"At times throughout the
above conversations the guards and I were searching through his
belongings removing any materials connected with the Church or his
notes on the scene, and safeguarding dangerous implements like knives,
razors, etc. ...
"We then left at about 6-6:30 a.m. with the guards in
charge."
May 2, 1977 To Mo Budlong from DGIUS, Dick Weigand: (Exh. No.
22 hereto)"... The guards stayed with [Meisner] and are with him
now.
"Then on Saturday and Sunday I had people continue to look for a
better place to take him. Sunday a place was found and Brian and the
guards tried to move him. He refused and said he would pull in all sorts
of trouble if we tried to get him out the
door. He was physically removed from the building, and taken to the new place
where he iss till under constant watch. His auditing will hopefully
be started today as the auditor
is getting handled today..."
June 7, 1977 Letter (CSW) from DGIUS
to Mo Budlong (Exh. 23 hereto) containing handwritten approval
by Budlong: DGIUS proposes a slight change in the cover story to be
used by Meisner when he turns himself in after a year as a
fugitive. He is to claim that he found out he was wanted by calling
his wife, instead of by calling Wolfe, as was originally the
story. Mo approves the change in the cover story on June 15, 1977, writing:
"This change is fine. Love, Mo B"
June
22, 1977 To Mo Budlong, cc: to Jane Kember, from (Exh. No. 24 hereto) Cindy
Raymond: Mo (and Jane) are informed attached) that Meisner has escaped and
the B-I is developing programs, inter alia, to provide a cover for
"his turning."
_ 14 _
Thus, as the evidence shows, these
defendants orchestrated an elaborate cover-up, beginning in June 1976 and
continuing through June 1977 and, no doubt, thereafter. In fact, a
significant part of the defense they presented at trial -- their attack
on the integrity and reliability of Michael Meisner -- was foreshadowed
in the "obstruction documents." They presented this Court with
a shabby attempt at impeaching Meisner's credibility by claiming
that he stole money from the Church -- the same false claim they
made against another former Scientologist who had the courage to
expose their crimes and thus fell victim to their fair game
doctrine. Allard v. Church of Scientology of California, 58 Cal. App.
3d 439, 129 Cal. Rprtr. 797 (Ct. App, 1976), _cert_denied_, 97 S. Ct.
1101(1977).
Comme le montre l'évidence, ces défendants ont
orchestré une couverture élaborée, à partir de juin 1976, jusqu'à juin 1977 et
sans doute ensuite. En réalité, une partie significative de la défense qu'ils
ont présentée au procès -- leurs attaques portant sur l'intégrité et la
fiabilité de Michael Meisner -- se lisait dans les lignes des "documents
d'obstruction". Ils ont présenté à cette Cour une tentative minable d'attenter à
l'intégrité de Meisner en prétendant qu'il avait volé de l'argent à l'église --
même accusation qu'ils avaient déjà portée contre un autre scientologue qui
avait eu le courage d'exposer leurs crimes et donc, de tomber dans les rèts de
leur doctrine du fair-game. [réf]
It is the two
defendants before the Court for sentencing who, along with their already
convicted and sentenced cohort, Mary Sue Hubbard, bear the greatest
degree of responsibility for the massive conspiracy to obstruct justice
which they jointly directed. While the others already convicted of that
offense (Henning Heldt, Dike Snider, Gregory Willardson, Richard Weigand,
Cindy Raymond, and Gerald Bennett Wolfe) indeed deserved the punishment
they received, they acted under direct orders of Jane Kember and Morris
Budlong, a factor appropriate for consideration by this Court in
assessing the relative severity of the sentences that the defendants
Kember and Budlong should receive.
Ce sont les deux défendants présents au tribunal
qui, de concert avec leur cohorte déjà inculpée et condamnée Mary Sue Hubbard,
portent le plus fort degré de responsabilité dans la conspiration massive
d'obstruction à la justice qu'ils ont dirigée conjointement. Alors que ceux déjà
inculpés pour ce délit (Henning Heldt, Dike Snider, Gregory Willardson, Richard
Weigand, Cindy Raymond et Gerard Benett de Wolfe) méritaient en effet la
punition reçue, ils ont agi sous ordres directs de Jane Kember et Morris
Budlong, facteur approprié que cette Cour peut considérer avant d'estimer la
sévérité relative des sentences contre les défendants Jane Kember et Morris
Budlong.
_ 15
_
- V.
Other Crimes Committed by These
Defendants
- V. Autres crimes commis par ces
défendants
-
The defendants'
contention that they committed the crimes of which they stand convicted in
order to protect their Church from Government harassment collapses when one
reviews a sample of the remaining documents seized by the FBI during the
execution of the two Los Angeles search warrants. If anything, these
documents establish beyond doubt that the defendants, their
convicted co-defendants, and their unindicted co-conspirators, as well as
their organization, considered themselves above the law. They
believed that they had _carte_blanche_ to violate the rights of others,
frame critics in order to destroy them, burglarize private and
public offices and steal documents outlining the strategy of
individuals and organizations that the Church had sued.
These suits were
filed by the Church for the sole purpose of financially bankrupting
its critics and in order to create an atmosphere of fear so that
critics would shy away from exercising the First Amendment rights
secured them by the Constitution. {2} The defendants and their
cohorts launched vicious smear campaigns, spreading falsehoods against
those they perceived to be enemies of Scientology in order to discredit
them and, in some instances, to cause them to lose their employment. Their
targets included, among others, The American Medical Association (AMA)
which had branded Scientology's practice of "dianetics"as "quackery"; the
Better Business Bureau (BBB), which sought to
La prétention des défendants quant à dire qu'ils
ont commis les crimes pour lesquels ils sont incriminés, dans le but de protéger
leur église du harcèlement gouvernemental, s'effondre si l'on revoit un
échantillon du reste des documents saisis par le FBI durant l'exécution des deux
raids sur commission judiciaire à Los Angeles. Si ces documents prouvent quelque
chose, c'est bien que les deux défendants, leur co-défendants inculpés, et leurs
co-conspirateurs non poursuivis, ainsi que l'organisation, se considéraient
eux-mêmes au-dessus des lois. Ils croyaient avoir carte blanche pour violer les
droits des autres, pour se faire passer pour leurs critiques afin de les
détruire, pour cambrioler des bureaux publics et privés et voler des documents
soulignant la stratégie adoptée par des individus ou organisations que l'église
poursuivait.
Ces plaintes étaient déposées par l'organisation dans l'unique but
de mettre en faillite ses critiques, pour créer une atmosphère de peur afin que
les critiques n'osent plus exercer leurs droits du Premier Amendement accordés
par la Constitution. {2} Les défendants et leurs cohortes lançaient de vicieuses
campagnes de rumeurs, répandant des mensonges contre ceux qu'ils percevaient
pour ennemis de la scientologie, afin de les discréditer et, dans quelques cas,
de leur faire perdre leur emploi. Leurs cibles comprenaient entre autres:
l'Association Médicale Américaine (AMA), qui avait étiqueté la pratique de la
dianétique comme étant "de la fichaise", le Better Business Bureau (BBB), qui
tentait
------------------
{2} This is precisely
how Scientolgy's critics viewed Scientology's activities. Newsweek,
November 20, 1978 at 133: "The Church of Scientology relies on suits and
petty harassment to register its complaints. In August, the Scientologists
slapped a $1 million suit on the Los Angeles Times after it ran a series
about the Church. The Times wasn't accused of libel; rather,
the Scientologists claimed that the paper conspired with the FBI and
Justice Department to violate the church's civil rights by poisoning
the atmosphere before a trial" of the nine convicted co-defendants. See
also discussion, infra, regarding Scientology's lawsuits against its
perceived "enemy", Paulette Cooper
_ 16 _
respond to private citizens' inquiries
about the courses offered by Scientology, newspapers which merely sought to
report the news and inform the public, law firms which represented
individuals and organizations against whom Scientology initiated law suits
(often for the sole purpose of harassment); private citizens who
attempted to exercise their First Amendment rights to criticize an
organization whose tactics they condemned; and public officials who
sought to carry out the duties for which they were elected or appointed in
a fair and even-handed manner. To these defendants and their associates,
however, anyone who did not agree with them was considered to be an enemy
against whom he so-called "fair game doctrine" could be invoked. Allard
v. Church of Scientology of California, supra.
That doctrine
provides that anyone perceived to be an enemy of Scientology of a
"suppressive person" "[m]ay be deprived of property or injured by any means
by any Scientologist without discipline of the Scientologist. [He m]ay be
tricked, sued, lied to, or destroyed." Id., 58 Cal. App. 3d at 433 n.1,
129Cal. Rptr. at 800 n.1. {3}. This policy, together with the
actions of these defendants who represent the very top leadership of the
Church of Scientology, bring into question their claim that their
Church prohibited the commission of illegal acts.
de répondre aux questions des citoyens quant aux
cours offerts par la scientologie, contre les journaux qui essayaient seulement
de donner des nouvelles et d'informer le public, contre des cabinets d'avocats
représentant des individus et organisations contre qui la scientologie avait
déposé des plaintes; contre des citoyens individuels tentant d'exercer leurs
droits, accordés selon le Premier Amendement, de critiquer une organisation dont
ils condamnaient les tactiques; et contre des autorités cherchant à accomplir
leurs devoirs d'élus ou d'appointés de façon normale et équilibrée. Pour ces
défendants et leurs associés, cependant, quiconque n'était pas d'accord avec eux
était considéré ennemi contre lequel on pouvait invoquer la "doctrine du
fair-game". [fair-game se traduirait en
français par doctrine du gibier de potence: "Wanted - récompense X00000
dollars"]. cf. (ref).
Cette doctrine
demande que quiconque perçu comme ennemi de la scientologie, "une personne
suppressive" - peut être "privée de ses biens, ou blessée par tous moyens par
tout scientologue, sans que ce scientologue ne soit discipliné. On peut la
tromper, la poursuivre en justice, lui mentir ou la détruire. (réf). Cette
règle, de pair avec les actions des défendants qui représentent le top summum
des patrons de l'église de scientologie, amène à se poser la question que voici:
l'église interdit-elle tout acte illégal ?
The
United States submits that the activities outlined in this section show
the scope, breadth and severity of the crimes
committed
----------
{3} This led the California Court of Appeals
to state that "Any party whose tenets include lying and cheating in order to
attack its 'enemies' deserves the results of the risk which such
conduct entails." _Id._, 58 Cal. App. 3d at 452, 129 Cal. Rptr. at
805
Defendants, through one of their attorneys, have stated that the
fair game policy continued in effect well after the indictment in this case
and the conviction of the first nine co-defendants. Defendants claim that the
policy was abrogated by the Church's Board of Directors in late July or early
August, 1980, only after the defendants' personal attack on Judge Richey.
Transcript of September 5, 1980, at 14.
[3} Ceci a conduit la Cour
d'Appel de Californie à dire "Toute partie dont les tenants incluent tricherie
et mensonge pour attaquer ses "ennemis" mérite les risques qu'une telle conduite
amène. (réf).
Les défendants, par la voix d'un de leurs avocats,
ont dit que cette règle du fair-game continuait ses effets bien après
l'inculpation de ce procès et celle de neuf co-défendants. Les défendants disent
que la règle en question a été abrogée par le Conseil des directeurs de l'église
fin juillet ou début août 1980, seulement après l'attaque personnelle des
défendants contre le Juge Richey. Transcription du 5/9/1980, #14
_ 17 _
by the defendants in this case. It is
for this very reason that the United States believes that the defendants
must be sentenced to substantial terms of incarceration.
Les Etats-Unis soumettent que les activités
soulignées dans cette section démontrent l'étendue, l'ampleur et la gravité des
crimes commis dans ce cas par les défendants. C'est pour cette raison que les
Etats-Unis pensent que les défendants doivent être condamnés à une peine
d'incarcération substantielle.
[fin de
la traduction]
A. Private
Organizations
American Medical
Association-
In the early 1970's,
unindicted co-conspirator L. Ron Hubbard, founder of Scientology, issued
an order concerning the "Great Health Monopoly", which accused the AMA of
monopolizing health care to the exclusion of groups such as Scientology.
In this order, Hubbard called for the break-up of the AMA.
In
accordance with the Founder's policy, the AMA's Chicago headquarters were
first infiltrated by Scientology in 1972. Documents stolen during this
period were utilized in the publication of a book written by unindicted
co-conspirator Joe Lisa using a pseudonym. The book, entitled
In the Public Interest, was covertly published and distributed by the
Information Bureau of the Guardian's Office in order to discredit the
AMA.
In early 1974, Michael Meisner, then the Assistant
Guardian for Information in the District of Columbia, was ordered to
recruit and place an agent in the AMA's District of Columbia
office. Co-defendant Hermann, who was in charge of covert operations in
the District of Columbia, recruited June Byrne and assisted her
in infiltrating the local AMA office under the false name of
Lisa Gianotti. {4} Among the documents photocopied and stolen by
Byrne
{4} See Exh. No. 25 hereto, which
contains much correspondence among co-defendants Heldt, Weigand and Raymond,
with copies sent to defendants Kember and Budlong , concerining the use
of Ms. Byrne as a covert operative at the Clearwater Sun
newspaper, following her detection by AMA investigators in 1975. At page
4, co-defendant Heldt writes:
"P.S. We must get this reported to WW." At page nineteen, co-defendant
Raymond stated that June Byrne had been blown as a Scientology agent at the
Clearwater Sun. She added "that there is a chain of events leading up to
the base blown agents which starts in late 1974 when June (The CWSUN FSM) was
placed in (continued on next page)
_ 18 _
were
minutes of meetings between the AMA and the National Medical Association;
memoranda of discussions with the federal Department of Health,
Education, and Welfare; and memoranda regarding the Joint Commission on
the Accreditation of Hospitals (JCAH) and the Coordinating Committee on
Health Information (CCHI).
Another covert operative was placed in the
Chicago headquarters of the AMA in order to obtain all documents on the
CCHI. That agent, Sherry Hermann a/k/a Sherry Canavaro, a/k/a Sandy
Cooper, obtained all these documents and relayed them to her
husband, co-defendant Mitchell Hermann who was her case
agent. (Exhibit No. 26 hereto.)
In the Spring of 1975, Mr.
Meisner received an order to covertlyleak to the press the numerous AMA
documents which had been obtained
in the District of Columbia and
Chicago. That action was intended to provoke investigations of the AMA's
tax exempt status byCongressional Committees, the IRS, and the Federal
Trade Commission.
Pursuant to these directives, Mr. Meisner was to
anonymously contact reporters and send them copies of these stolen
documents. Newspapers subsequently referred to that anonymous source as
"Sore Throat".
Defendants Kember and Budlong were kept constantly
apprised of the operations concerning the AMA, and indeed encouraged
these activities. Thus, for example, on October 16, 1975, Jane
Kember told Henning Heldt, in response to a report of his on Octover
7, 1975: "AMA: SORE THROAT... Let me know how this goes."
GWW Log, p. 101, Exh. No 27 hereto. And again on October 21,
1975, defendant Kember telexed to Heldt the cover story to be used
by AMA infiltrators, if caught: Henning Re: Sore Throat... David
[Gaiman - DGPRWW] has laid down a strategy which is
to
{4} (continued from preceding
page) the AMA D.C." Co-defendant Raymond discussed the placement
of Jodie Gumpert as a second covert agent at the AMA in the District of
Columbia, her detection by the AMA, and her subsequent infiltration of the
Clearwater Chamber of Commerce.
_ 19 _
enable us to
contain the scene. Our plants when trapped are Freedom
investigative reporters just like any other newspaper. The plants
themselves do not have to confess or be named... We can undercut
AMA's continual effort to expose us by indicating it is a smokescreen to
prevent Freedom from publishing. ... MLV, Jane
GWW Log, p. 101, Exh.
No. 27 hereto. Likewise, on October 7, 1975, defendant Budlong telexed
Weigand, DGIUS: Dick, Sore Throat is an Intelligence matter. Nothing
in your data indicates a situation requiring other Bureau assistance. Send
full data on the scene before you hand Sore Throat matter over to anyone
else. Love, Mo
DGIWW Log, p. 27, Exh. 27-A hereto.
Better
Business Bureau
The infiltration of the Council
of Better Business Bureaus (CBBB) began on December 4, 1972, with the
placement of Sherry Canavaro (later Sherry Hermann, a/k/a Sandy Cooper)
as a covert agent within that organizationl. (Document No. 16727.)
Defendants Kember and Budlong were informed of Scientolgy's covert
operations within the CBBB and prospects that the covert agent might
become the CBBB's representative to the CCHI (Coordinating Conference
on Health Information). (Exhibit No. 28 hereto). {5}
Mental
Health Organizations
Guardian Order 121569
MSH (1) issued on December 15, 1969, directed the infiltration of all
mental health organizations both nationally and world-wide. Exhibit No.
29 hereto. This Guardian Order was carried out on a number of fronts by
operatives of the Information Bureau headed by defendant Budlong. Thus
local mental
{5} One of the functions of the CCHI was
to coordinate efforts against groups believed to promote quackery. The
defendants were successful in having their covert operative become the
CBBB's representative to two CCHI meetings, one of which she was able
to tape
_ 20 _
health organizations were
infiltrated by covert operatives in Las Vegas and St. Lois. Indeed, the
Assistant Guardian for Information in Las Vegas reported that "everything
possible was done to collect this data, everything from infiltration to
stealing to evesdropping, etc. ..." (Document No.
13336.)
Co-Defendant Sharon Thomas was recruited as a covert
operative in 1973 in the District of Columbia by co-defen- dant Snider,
the Assistant Guardian. She was later assigned to infiltrate
the American Psychiatric Association (APA). Beginning in January
1974, co-defendant Hermann supervised co-defendant Thomas' APA
thefts. While in the APA, co-defendant Thomas stole documents
regarding Scientology as well as confidential files of the APA's
Ethics
Committee concerning complaints against psychiatrists.
(Document Nos. 8804 and 8805.)
These stolen documents
were sent to defendant Budlon . Moreover,
Guardian Program Order 1238 (Exhibit No. 30
hereto), issued by the defendant Kember and approved by the defendant Budlong,
has as its "major target":
To obtain the information necessary
to take
over the control of the NIMH [National Institute of Mental Health] while at
the same time establishing the lines and resources to be used in taking
over NIMH.
Also included in that program were the infiltration of the
Public Health Service, the Food and Drug Administration, and the
Alchohol, Drug Abuse, and Mental Health Administration
(ADAMHA).
"Anti-Cult" Groups
The Los
Angeles-seized documents set out a variety of actions instituted by the
defendants and their organization against individuals and groups engaged
in so-called "anticult" activities. In February 1977,
Jane Kember promulgated Guardian Program Order 1017, entitled "ARM
(Anti-Religion Movement) Clean Sweep" (Document No. 13724),
which had been approved by defendant Budlong_. That
_ 21
_
Guardian Order called for the placement of "covert agents"
for "data collection lines" with anti-cult groups. (_Id._ at
1.)
B. Law Firms
As part of their criminal
activities the defendants actively encouraged burglaries and thefts of
documents from private law firms in Washington, D.C., and Los Angeles,
California, that represented private organizations sued by Scientology,
including the law firm of Arent, Fox, Kintner, Plotkin and Kahn, in
D.C.
At least three burglaries were committed during the
early months of 1976 at thge law offices of Arent, Fox, Kintner,
Plotkin and Kahn, who then represented the St. PetersburgTimes in
a Scientology-initiated law suit. Defendants Kember and Budlong
were regularly kept informed of the results. In February and
March 1976 three entries were made into the office of Jack Bray and
his secretary at the above-mentioned law firm, the first one by
Richard Kimmel, the acting Assistant Guardian for Information in the
District of Columbia, and the second one by Kimmel and Michael Meisner.
On each occasion, documents outlining the law firm's strategy
in defending the law suit brought agains the
St. Petersburg Times were taken. _See_ Exhibit No. 31 hereto, a telex
from defendant Duke Snider to the World-Wide Guardian's Office, dated 13
Feburary 1976, setting out information obtained by Kimmel from Mr.
Bray's office.
C. Private Individuals and Public
Officials
The defendants
directed and encouraged a number of covert operations against private
individuals and public officials to destroy and discredit these persons
because they had either attempted to exercise their First Amendment
rights by criticizing Scientology or by attempting to carry out their
duties as public officials. Here's the second
half.
_
22 _
Paulette Cooper
As early as February 29,
1972, defendant Kember had written the DGIUS (then Terry Milner)
directing that he find out information about Paulette Cooper so that she
could be "handled" (Exh. No. 32 hereto). Paulette Cooper is the author of
The Scandal of Scientology, a work highly critical of Scientology.
Kember's interest in handling Cooper continued, and her loyal workers in
the United States carried out incredible schemes pursuant to
Kember's directive. {6} In March 1976, Mo Budlong's deputy at
Word-Wide asked for details on an Operation Dynamite to be carried out
against Paulette Cooper. The operation was delegated to the
Northeast Information Bureau Secretary, with the directive to "Report
to WW." (Exh. No 33, DGIWW log book pp. 72 and 73.) Also in
1976, the highest ranking Scientologists in the United States,
including at least six of the co-defendants (Heldt, Snider,
Weigand, Willardson, Hermann, and Raymond), designed a series of plans
in furtherance of the directives of co-defendants Kember and Budlong,
which had as their goal Paulette Cooper's imprisonment or Commitment
to a mental institution. In the spring of 1976 six separate
schemes were devised with the express purpose
"To get P.C.
(Paulette Cooper) incarcerated in a mental institution or jail, or at
least to hit her so hard that she drops her attacks."
(See Operation
Freakout dated 1 April 1976, Exhibit No. 34 hereto; see also Exhibit
No. 35.) Their stated purpose was "[t]o remove PC [Paulette Cooper] from
her position of Power so that she cannot attach the C[hurch] of
S[cientology]." The six separate schemes
{6} In addition to
Kember's specific directive that Cooper be "handled," Mo Budlong and the
other World-Wide supervisors were under standing orders to see to it that all
attacks on Scientology occurring anywhere in the world were "reported and
handled properly, [or] both CSG [Mary Sue Hubbard] and
I will have your heads_for breakfast. ... love Jane." Order of Jane
Kember contained in Information Bureau Hat Pack, volume I, Exh. No. 37 hereto
(emphasis added).
_ 23 _
were jointly entitled
"Operation freakout." In its initial form Operation Freakout had three
different plans. The first required a woman to imitate Paulette Cooper's
voice and make telephone threats to Arab Consulates in New York. The
second scheme involved mailing a threatening letter to an Arab Consulate
in such a fashion that it would appear to have been done by Paulette
Cooper. Finally, a Scientology field staff member was to impersonate
Paulette Cooper at a laundry and threaten the President and then
Secretary of State Henry Kissinger. A second Scientologist would
thereafter advise the FBI of the threat.
Two additional plans
to Operation Freakout were added on April 13, 1976. The fourth plan
called for Scientology field staff members who had ingratiated themselves
with Cooper to gather information from Cooper so Scientology could assess
the success of the first three plans. The fifth plan was for a
Scientologist to warn an Arab Consulate by telephone that Paulette Cooper
had been talking about bombing them.
The sixth and final part
of Operation Freakout called for Scientolgists to obtain Paulette
Cooper's fingerprints on a blank piece of paper, type a threatening
letter to Kissinger on that paper, and mail it.
{7}
{7} The sixth plan bears a distict resemblance to a
scheme of Scientolgists in 1972 and 1973 against Paulette Cooper. In
1972Scientolgists obtained Paulette Cooper's fingerprints on a
blank sheet of paper, typed two bomb threat letters on that and
another piece of paper, sent the threats to Scientology offices in
New York, and then advised the FBI that they had received the threats and
that they may have come from Cooper. Paulette Cooper was
indicted in the
Southern District of New York in 1973 for making these threats. An order
Nolle Prosequi was filed on that indictment in 1975. As Bruce Raymond/Randy
Windment noted in his April 1976 "CSW" to Weigand, which Weigand approved,
the sixth plan of Operation Freakout was likely to prove effective since the
same kind of scheme against Cooper had worked in the past.
Attached is
approved Operation Freakout. This additional channel [the sixth
plan] should really have put her away. Worked with all the other channels.
_The_F.B.I., already think she did the bomb threats on theC of S
[Church of Scientology] (Document No. 11423)
_ 24
_
On March 31, 1976, defendant Kember telexed Henning
Heldt
concerning Ms. Cooper:
PC [Paulette Cooper] is still
resisting paying the money but the judgement stands in PT [present time]... {8} Have her lawyer
contacted and also arrange for PC to get the
data that we can slap the writs on her. If you want legal docs, from here
on we will provide. Then if she still declines to come we slap the
writs on her before she reaches CW [Clearwater] as
we don't want to be seen publically [sic] being brutal to such a pathetic victim
from a concentration camp. GWW
Log, p. 131 (Exh. No. 36 hereto.)
Gabriel
Cazares
When Scientology first decided to set up a
base in Clearwater, Florida, in late 1975, it did so using the cover name
of "United Churches of Florida" (UCF) with no outward connection to
Scientology.
Gabriel Cazares, who was Clearwater's Mayor,
campaigned for the disclosure of the true purposes of the UCF. When
UCF's connections to Scientology were uncovered, Mayor Cazares
became highly critical of Scientology. Because of his criticisms,
Mayor Cazares was targeted by the Guardian's Office and its
Information Bureau and covert operations designed to remove him from
office were ordered.
To tht end, in early March 1976,
co-defendant Hermann notified co-defendant Snider that Mayor Cazares was
about to attend a Mayor's Conference in Washington, D.C., on March 13-17,
and that Assistant Guardian for Information in Clearwater, Joe Lisa,
was formulating a covert operation to claim that Mayor Cazares had
a mistress. (Exhibit No. 38 hereto.) Shortly thereafter,
Hermann
{8} Cooper has been sued by the Church of
Scientology on numerous occasions and in many jurisdictions around the world.
since 1970 the Church of Scientology has filed six lawsuits in three
foreign countries and numerous lawsuits in the United States
against Cooper. As of December 1979, with the exception of three
foreign lawsuits and a counterclaim in an American lawsuit, all of
the actions had been dismissed.
_ 25 _
ordered
Mr. Meisner to carry out an operation on Mayor Cazares during his
Washington trip -- that operation was to involve a fake hit-and-run
accident. Sharon Thomas was to be the main participant in that operation.
She was to meet Mayor Cazares, drive him around town, and at a
predermined location stage a hit-and-run accident with Mr. Meisner as the
"victim".
On March 14, 1976, Thomas offered to show Mayor Cazares
the town. During that drive, Thomas, who was driving, staged her
fake hit-and-run accident in Rock Creek Park, hitting Michael
Meisner.
She drove on without reporting the accident to the police.
Of course, Thomas knew that no harm had been caused to the
"victim." (Exhibit No. 39 hereto).
In a report dated March 15, 1976, to defendant Morris Budlong, Weigand apprised
Budlong of the incident and discussed how Scientology could
use that "fake" accident against Mayor Cazares and
concluded that "I should think that the Mayor's political
days are at an end."
(Id. at
2.)
On June 6, 1976, Jane Kember promulgate Guardian Program Order 398,
entitled "Mayor Cazares_Handling Project." Its purpose
was "to remove Cazares from any position from which he
can inhibit the expansion of Scientology"
and called for, among other things: (1) carrying "out a covert campaign
to create strife between Cazares and the City Commission"; and (2)
placing a covert operative in his Congressional campaign organization,
getting the operative "as highly placed as possible. Use this operative
to collect data on planned activities and feed this to PR and
Legal to carry out operations to hamper the effectiveness of
the campaign... " (Exhibit No. 40 hereto.) On November 3,
1976, unindicted co-conspirator Joe Lisa informed co-defendant
Snider that Mayor Cazares had been defeated in the Congressional race
as a result of the implementation of the defendant jane
Kember's Guardian Program Order 398, and the other Scientology actions
which included "[p]hone calls... spreading rumors inside his camp,
contributing
_ 26 _
to disorganization in his
campaign... " (Document No.
1491.)
Celebrities
On January 4, 1976,
defendant Jane Kember issued Guardian Order 1361-3 which called for the
theft of Los Angeles IRS Intelligence files on "celebrities, politicians,
and big names." In complete disregard for the rights of these
individuals, Jane Kember directed tht the stolen information be
published. (Document No. 11513.) In fact, IRS files on former California
Governor Edmund Brown, current California governor Edmund Brown Jr., Los
Angeles Mayor Tom Bradley and his wife, and Frank Sinatra were stolen
from the IRS' Los Angeles offices and disclosed to the
press. (Document Nos. 11514, 1546, and 1548.)
D.
Newspapers
The defendants and their organization mounted a
head-on assault upon newspapers that had been critical of Scientology.
They infiltrated newspapers and, in other instances, without
disclosing that they were associated with Scientology, planted stories
of interest to their organization. For the sake of brevity, we will
cite just one example.
In November 1975, defendant Willardson
ordered Michael Meisner to send three District of Columbia covert agents
to Clearwater. One of the operatives sent to Clearwater was June Byrne,
the blown AMA
{9} These are but four examples of the
numerous operations conducted against private citizens and public
officials. A refvie of the documents seized in Los Angeles shows the
incredible scope of these operations.
In fact, in order to help
determine what individuals and groups to develop operations against, the
files of the World-Wide Information Bureau, which defense witness Sheil
Chaleff so fondly referred to as "Mo's Files," are divided into eight "enemy"
classifications, depending upon the particular degree of "suppressiveness"
which the Guardian's Office perceives in its "enemies." Amon the
eight classifications are "traitor," "enemy," and "international
enemy." The latter category includes such "treacherous" grups as
the European League for Human Rights, the World Council of Churches, the
United Nations, and the World Federation for Mental Health. Exh. No. 41
hereto.
_ 27 _
agent. In Clearwater, Ms. Byrne
infiltrated the Clearwater Sun and provided Scientology almost daily
reports on the activities of that newspaper, all of which were forwarded
to defendants Kember and Budlong (See e.g., Documents Nos. 17988,
17991, 17995, 17996, 18006 which cover less than a two-week period.) She
remained as
Scientology's covert operative at the Sun until late
1976 when she was withdrawn out of fear that her cover had
blown.
E. State and Local Government
Agencies
Numerous state and local
Goverment agencies throughout the United State were targeted for
infiltration by the defendants and the Guardian's Office. These
infiltrations and thefts were called for by two programs promulgated by
Jane Kember -- Guardian Program Order 302, which was also approved by
defendant Budlong, and Guardian Order 1080. Guardian Program 302,
Government Exhibit 67 at trial, ordered the infiltration of all
Governmental agencies that refused to acquiesce to Scientology's demand
for access to their files. {10}
On March 4, 1974, defendant
Jane Kember issued GO 1080, an umbrella program ordering the infiltration
of the California Attorney General's Office and all local district
attorney's offices in California. (Exhibit No. 42 hereto.) On January 13,
1976, a sub-project of GO 1080 regarding the Los Angeles Office of
the California Attorney General was promulgated. It directed that
that office be infiltrated "through any way or means and then locate
and obtain full copies of any and all files on the C of S, C of
S investigations, etc." (Document No. 1317 at 13-15.) On February
12
{10} Thus, pursuant to GPgmO 302, Deac Finn, the
Assistant Guardian for Information in New England (AGI NE), wrote on June 8,
1976, requesting Weigand's approval for Finn's project to infiltrate
the Suffolk County District Attorney's Office (Document No. 1535, p.
2). See also Document No. 21703 entitled "Project Owl" which sets
out co-defendant Hermann's plans for such infiltration in response to the
planned investigatoin of the Church for criminal fraud and of one of its
members for kidnapping.
_ 28 _
1976, it was reported
that keys to the Attorney General's office had been obtained. (Document
No. 1318 at 2.) Co-defendant Weigand also outlined for the benefit of
defendant Budlong the progress of GO 1080, appending excerpted stolen
data prepared by defendant Raymond. (Document No. 1323; Seealso
Document No. 1336 -- a similar letter from defendant Willardson to
defendant Kember, routed through defendants Held, Weigand, and
Budlong).
On August 10, 1976, compliance was reported to Guardian
Program Order 302 as it pertained to the Los Angeles District
Attorney's Office. (Document No. 149; Document Nos. 11591-11595 are
copies of documents stolen from that office.) On that same
date, compliance was reported with Guardian Order 1080 and Guardian
ProgramOrder 302 as far as the Yolo county District Attorney's Office
was concerned. (Document No. 813.)
F. Other Federal
Government Agencies and the United
Nations
Among other direct orders
issued by Jane Kember calling for illegal operations against other
Government agencies and international organizations, to be carried out by
Mo Budlong and his Information Bureau, are the following:
1.
Guardian Order 1344, issued October 10, 1974 (Exh. No. 43 hereto),
called for penetration of and theft of documents from the 11th District
Coast Guard Intelligence and the national Headquarters of Coast Guard
Intelligence, Washington, D.C. The program was carried out by,
inter alia, the placement of co-defendant Sharon Thomas as
Scientology's covert operative at the Coast Guard (prior to her
employment at the Department of Justice). Duke Snider makes the following
cryptic notation on the cover sheet of the G.O.: "Jane also telexed and
mentioned that the BI targets are to be done and not just left up in the
air." (Exh. No. 43).
2. Guardian Programme Order 283, issued
February 24, 1976
_ 29 _
(Exh. No. 44 hereto),
which was proposed by co-defendant Cindy Raymond, approved by Morris
Budlong, and issued by Jane Kember, had the following over all "Plan: To
penetrate the UN [United Nations] and establish lines for feedback data
so that we can predict and handle anything that may stop he acceptance of
our submissions to the U.N." Later documents indicate
Scientology recruited an FSM to apply for a job as a security guard at
the U.N.
3. _Guardian Programme Order 407, issued June 9,
1976 (Exh.No. 45 hereto), subtitled "Off the Hook", and issued by Jane
Kember two days before Meisner and Wolfe were confronted in
this Courthouse, called for getting "Scientology in all its aspects
'off the hook' with the IRS... " The means to be used included
"monitor IRS handling of audit on 1361 lines" and "ensure 1361
Collection Line keeps close watch on area of IRS concerned with LRH
tax returns ... "
_ 30
_
- VI.
Comparatative Roles of These Defendants
- and the
Previously Convicted
Co-Defendants
-
- The
defendant Jane Kember was, during the periods relevant to the charges of
which she was convicted, the Guardian World-Wide of the Church of
Scientology. Her principal role was to "protect" and "defend" Scientology
from all persons and organizations, private and governmental, whom
Scientology viewed or perceived as its enemies. As such -- after L. Ron
Hubbard (the Founder and Commodore), and Mary Sue Hubbard (the Deputy
commodore, Controller, and Commodore Staff Guardian) -- she was superior
in authority to everyone else within the Guardian's Office. By
the defense's own witnesses this court was told that the
defendant Kember ruled with an iron hand the whole Guardian's Office
network which stretched through dozens of countries in almost
every continent in the world.
Prior to assuming her position
as Guardian Word-Wide in the late 1960s, the defendant Kember served as
the Deputy Guardian for Intelligence (later renamed Information)
World-Wide -- a position assumed about 1967 by her loyal and hard working
deputy and now co-defendant -- Morris Budlong. Thus, both defendants
Kember and
Budlong are long-standing, committed and dedicated high
officials of the Guardian's Office. It was unchallenged at their
trial that these two defendants took a leading role in every
endeavor of the Guardian's Office. They drafted, reviewed and issued
every order which commanded the commission of criminal acts.
They demanded total and absolute loyalty and obedience from
their subordinates, awarded them when they obtained it, punished them
when they did not. They demanded to be kept informed of every
move made by their underlings through an elaborate system of
weekly reports and emergency telex messages when the need
arose.
_ 31 _
Everyone of the other defendants
previously convicted after a non-jury trial based on an uncontested
stipulation of evidence, with the exception of Mary Sue Hubbard, were
below them in the hierarchy of the Guardian's Office and carried out the
orders of these two defendants. Seven of the other eight
defendants subordinate to Kember and Budlong were convicted of one felony
count carrying a maximum term of incarceration of five years in
prison and a $10,000 fine. In December, 1979, five of them
received sentences of four years incarceration and $10,000 fines; the
other two received sentences of five years in prison and $10,000
fines.
The defendants Kember and Budlong, on the other hand,
were each found guilty following a five-week jury trial, of nine
counts of burglary in the second degree -- felonies each carrying
terms of incareration of "not less than two years nor mor than
fifteen years." 22 D.C. Code sec. 1801(b). We submit that the
sentences this Court will impose upon the defendants Kember and Budlong
must be both commensurate with their role in the crimes of which
they were convicted as well as with the sentences imposed upon
their previously convicted
co-defendants.
_ 32
_
-
VII.
Conclusion
The above recitation of
evidence establishes beyond dispute the massive and insidious nature of
the crimes these two defendants engaged in over the years. It also puts
to rest their protestation, articulated by Mary Sue Hubbard from the
witness stand, that they only burglarized Government offices and stole
Government documents because of some imaginary Governmental harrassment
campaign against them.
The brazen and persisten burglaries and
thefts directed against the United States Government were but one minor
aspect of the defendants' wanton assault upon the laws of this country.
The well-orchestrated campaign to thwart the federal Grand
Jury investigation by destroying evidence, giving false evidence
in response to a Grand Jury subpoena, harboring a fugitive, kidnapping
a crucial witness, preparing an elaborate cover-up story,
and assisting in the giving of false statements under oath shows
the comtempt which these defendants had for the judicial system
of this country. Their total disregard for the laws is further
made clear by the criminal campaigns of villification, burglaries
and thefts which they carried out against private and public
individuals and organizations, carefully documented in minute detail. One
can only wonder about the crimes set forth in the documents
secreted in their "Red Box" data. That these defendants were willing
to frame their critics to the point of giving false testimony
under oath against them, and having them arrested and indicted
speaks legion for their disdain for the rule of law. Indeed,
they arrogantly placed themselves above the law meting out ther
personal brand of punishment to those "guilty" of opposing their
selfish aims.
_ 32 _
The crimes committed
by these defendants is of a breadth and scope previously unheard. No
building, office, desk, or files was safe from their snooping and prying.
No individual or organization was free from their despicable scheming and
warped minds.
The tools of their trade were miniature transmitters, lock
picks, secret codes, forged credentials, and any other devices they
found necessary to carry out their heinous schemes. It is interesting
to note that the Founder of their organization, unindicted
co-conspirator L. Ron Hubbard, wrote in his dictionary entitled
"Modern Management
Technology Defined" that "truth is what is true
for
you," and "illegal" is that which is "contrary to statistics or policy"
and not pursuant to Scientology's "approved program." Thus, with
the Founder-Commodore's blessings they could wantonly commit crimes
as long as it was in the interest of Scientology.
These
defendants rewarded criminal activities that ended in success and sternly
rebuked those that failed. The standards of human conduct embodied in
such practices represent no less than the absolute perversion of any
known ethical value system. In view of this, it defies the imagination
that these defendants have the unmitigated audacity to seek to defend
their actions in the name of "religion." That these defendants now
attempt to hide behind the sacred priciples of freedom of religion,
freedom of speech and the right to privacy -- which principles they
repeatedly demonstrated a willingness to violate with impunity -- adds
insult to the injuries which they have inflicted on every element
of society.
These defendants, their co-conspirators, their
organization, and any other individual or group that might consider
committing similar crimes, must be given a clear and convincing
message: criminal activities of the types engaged in here shall not
be tolerated by our society.
Moreover, we submit that in
imposing any sentence upon these two defendants, the Court should
consider the deterrent effect which
_ 34 _
a
severe sentence will have upon others -- besides the defendant Jane
Kember who apparently remains the Guardian World-Wode, all other members
of the Guardian's Office, and L. Ron Hubbard himself, the ultimate
responsible authority. It is clear from the press releases issued by
Scientology following the jury's verdict, and their vicious actions
against another member of this Court, that they have yet to learn the
error of their criminal ways.
The United States submits that the only
appropriate punishment in this case, the only one that is in the best
interest of justice and the public, is a substantial term of
incarceration for each of the two defendants now before the
Court.
Moreover, we submit that there is no reason whatsoever
under 18 U.S. Code section 3148, why these two defendants should not
be denied bail pending any appeal they wish to take. Both
defendants are in this country solely for trial and the service of
any sentence imposed by this Court, pursuant to an extradition order
from the Government of the United Kingdom. Following the service
of their sentences, they will return to the United Kingdom.
They are not employed in the United States, and, indeed, in at
least the case of the defendant Kember cannot be so employed. Thus,
the only questions which remain are, in the words of 18 U.S. Code sec.
3148, whether [a] person... who has been convicted of
an offense and... has filed an appeal... [presents] a risk of flight or
danger... or if it appears that an appeal is frivolous or taken for delay...
We submit that in the instant case, any appeal taken by
these two defendants will be frivolous and taken only for the purpose
of delaying the ultimate day of judgement. The only real issues
raised by the defendants involved the challenge to the jurisdiction of
this
Court over the burglary charges, and whether they had standing
to challenge the searches of the two Guardian's Office premises
in Los Angeles, California. The Court of Appeals has already, for
all
_ 35 _
practical purposes, resolved against
them the former issue.
In Re: United States v. Kember (Mary Sue Hubbard, et. al., appellants),
D.C.
Cir. Nos. 80-2329 to 80-2332 (decided November 24, 1980), slip op. at 11.
As for the standing issue, it has been conclusively resolved against the
defendants, as this Court pointed out, by the
Supreme Court.
Additionally, the defendants, international criminals, whose danger to
the community the evidence overwhelmingly bears out, have been convicted
of serious charges carrying severe penalties and no present a great risk
of flight. Thus, we submit, defendants should be denied bail pending
appeal.
Respectfully
submitted,
<signature>
-------------------------------
CHARLES
F. C. RUFF
United States
Attorney
<signature>
-------------------------------
RAYMOND
BANOUN
Assistant United States
Attorney
<signature>
-------------------------------
Judith
Hetherton
Assistant United States
Attorney
<signature>
-------------------------------
Katherine
Winfree
Assistant United States Attorney
|
