|
Banned
|
I'm not going to just walk away from this. The DOJ and it's Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) have made no public comment of this travesty of justice conspiracy, apparently committed by high government officials. It cost Edwin O. Wilson, 22 years of his life as a potentially unincarcerated man.
Here is a more recent reference:
Quote:
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/pr...139812,00.html
Monday, Dec. 12, 2005
A Rogue's Revenge
Disavowed by the CIA and jailed for 22 years, an ex-spy now wants someone to pay
By ADAM ZAGORIN
At the peak of his notoriety, some folks called him, inevitably, an international man of mystery; others, the death merchant. He was the subject of the 1986 best seller Manhunt: the Dramatic Pursuit of a CIA Agent Turned Terrorist, by Peter Maas. The former Marine, 77, stands 6 ft. 4 in. tall and was someone to be reckoned with. But Edwin Wilson's roller-coaster ride as a freelance spy flew off the rails in 1982, when he was lured out of Libya in a sting operation conducted by U.S. marshals. He then was convicted in a series of sensational trials for gunrunning, selling 20 tons of C-4 plastic explosives to Libya and conspiring to murder two of his prosecutors. After that, Wilson was sentenced to 52 years' hard time in maximum-security prisons.
For the past year, Wilson has been quietly plotting his vindication, and he is about to make a big splash again. Released on parole in 2004 after a federal judge overturned his conviction on the Libya charges brought in Texas, Wilson, who had credit for time served on the other counts, has not been content simply to breathe the fresh air of freedom. Instead he has filed a lawsuit in a Houston federal court against his prosecutors that will probably embarrass the CIA and Justice Department at a time when both are struggling to uphold their credibility as they work to combat terrorism. At issue is his consistent claim that his foreign crimes were committed at least implicitly under the direction and authority of the CIA. In two trials, the government introduced a statement, signed by a senior CIA official, denying that Wilson had any "direct" or "indirect" contact with the agency at the time of his alleged criminal activity, which occurred after he left the CIA in 1971 and formed a private consulting company. But that was untrue, as Wilson aims to prove with government documents that are now attached to his lawsuit and were referred to by the judge who overturned his conviction.
Largely using the Freedom of Information Act to compel the government to turn over papers, Wilson has dug up official records of more than 80 contacts he had with CIA officials--many of them high ranking--during the period in question. Those documents show that prosecutors and the CIA officials assisting them were aware of the contacts. The foreman of the jury that found Wilson guilty of selling C-4 to Libya, which was subject to a total U.S. arms embargo at the time, told ABC News earlier this year, "If we had known [of Wilson's CIA links], I could say unequivocally that there would not have been a guilty verdict." It was on the basis of the newfound evidence that District Court Judge Lynn Hughes threw out Wilson's conviction, saying from the bench, "One would have to work hard to conceive of a more fundamentally unfair process ... than the fabrication of false data by the government ... presented knowingly by the prosecutor in the courtroom with the express approval of his superiors in Washington."
In his lawsuit Wilson is going after a bevy of prominent onetime Justice Department officials, including two who are now federal judges. He is seeking unspecified compensatory and punitive damages for his wrongful conviction. "I am a CIA mercenary who was betrayed by the legal system and a government that approved my actions," he told TIME. His legal documents, which were obtained by TIME, do not show that the sale of C-4 explosives for which he was charged was CIA approved. There is evidence that the agency in another instance used Wilson to barter weapons or explosives with Libya for Soviet military equipment that the U.S. wanted to study. His lawyers have offered evidence that the agency, among other things, proposed that Wilson use his consulting firm to help transport handguns and submachine guns to Saudi Arabia. They also say it arranged the testing of body armor for the Shah of Iran and that Wilson kept in almost daily touch with senior CIA officials, proposing agents for recruitment and informing on attempts by Libya to purchase weapons and nuclear technology.
Wilson does not go so far as to claim it was the CIA that asked him to conspire to kill two of his prosecutors, a charge that stands. One of them, Lawrence Barcella, whom Wilson names as a defendant, says, "His latest claims are groundless." As with similar cases in the past, the defendants will probably ask for a dismissal on the grounds that they were acting in their official capacities, for which the law provides immunity in certain cases. Some may argue that Wilson's sale of explosives to Libya was illegal, regardless of whether the CIA was involved. But if the case moves forward, it could force into the open thousands of old and secret government records, which would embarrass the CIA all over again.
|
Here is an 2003 opinion of where the Edwin Wilson case puts "justice" today:
Quote:
http://www.abanet.org/irr/hr/winter04/casualty.html
Is Criminal Justice a Casualty of the Bush Administration's "War on Terror"?
By Michael Greenberger
On October 27, 2003, Judge Lynn N. Hughes of the Southern District of Texas overturned a 1983 conviction of a U.S. citizen and alleged terrorist, Edwin P. Wilson, for selling explosives to Libya. United States v. Wilson, No. 4:82-CR-139 (S.D. Tex. Oct. 27, 2003), available at http://www.txs.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/...no=4:82-CR-139 Judge Hughes's opinion focuses extensively on the high level of deceit in certain Department of Justice (DOJ) trial practices during those early days of the fight against terrorism. The opinion should be highly instructive to today's DOJ, which has employed a host of extraordinary prosecution tactics in fighting its current "War on Terror," all of which may very likely aggravate the constitutional problems identified in the Wilson decision, rather than effectively combat terrorism.
Wilson's conviction occurred at the height of American outrage against the Libyan government for its support of terrorist organizations. Wilson, a former CIA officer, was convicted of betraying the United States by selling explosives to Libya after his retirement, despite his assertion, both before and at the time of his conviction, that he had been acting under the direction and authority of the CIA in his dealings with Libya. In Wilson's recent motion to overturn his conviction, he compellingly demonstrated that at his initial trial, the government had withheld records within its possession documenting at least forty occasions where Wilson had worked for the CIA in a capacity completely consistent with his defense. Reviewing the evidence, Judge Hughes, a Reagan administration appointee, concluded that a continuing relationship between Wilson and the CIA did exist after Wilson's retirement, and that federal prosecutors knowingly failed to disclose material and exculpatory information and otherwise used false testimony to undermine Wilson's defense.
Judge Hughes commented:
In the course of American justice, one would have to work hard to conceive of a more fundamentally unfair process with a consequentially unreliable result than the fabrication of false data by the government, under oath by a government official, presented knowingly by the prosecutor in the courtroom with the express approval of his superiors in Washington.
This "fundamentally unfair process" was successfully employed against Wilson at his trial, despite his entitlement to all constitutional protections inherent in a federal criminal trial. Wilson should serve as a warning to those examining the Bush administration's manifold efforts under the guise of Presidential War Powers to block many of the protections that ensure just trial results.....
......Denial of Access to Exculpatory Evidence
The final DOJ practice addressed here has shades of United States v. Wilson, supra: whether the president, acting pursuant to his Article I War Powers, may deprive a defendant accused in a federal court of capital crimes of access to exculpatory evidence to which he would otherwise be entitled under the Sixth Amendment. United States v. Moussaoui, 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17253 (E.D. Va. Oct. 2, 2003), notice of appeal filed, No. 03-4792 (4th Cir. Oct. 7, 2003). .......
......A Lesson in Time
Judge Hughes's order vacating a two-decade-old wrongful conviction in United States v. Wilson demonstrates the dangers of overzealous prosecution under the guise of fighting terrorism. In spite of having representation of counsel and complete access to the panoply of constitutional rights afforded criminal defendants, including judicial review, Wilson was otherwise unable to prevent the DOJ's use of deceitful tactics to gain a questionable (but at the time highly popular) conviction. Now the DOJ is seeking to separate detainees from counsel, process, and judicial review or, otherwise, to imprison them indefinitely and coercively without probable cause. The government thereby makes it more likely that injustices will be perpetuated in its zeal to find terrorists. Wilson is a warning that, if unchecked, the denial of fundamental constitutional protections not only increases the potential for injustice but also renders our criminal justice system itself a casualty of the "War on Terror."
|
<b>What you should know....the DOJ OPR is still 2 years behind in posting it's investigations report on it's website:</b>
http://www.usdoj.gov/opr/reports.htm
....so no disclosure there on what became of the OPR investigation of what Judge Lynn Hughes descibed in 2003 as,
Quote:
http://216.239.51.104/search?q=cache...s&ct=clnk&cd=6
(page 15)
The court has identified about two dozen government lawyers who actively participated in the original non-disclosure to the defense, the false rebuttal testimony, and the refusal to correct it.
Governmental regularity—due process—requires personal and institutional
integrity. CIA attorneys told Assistant U.S. Attorney Ted Greenberg that the Briggs affidavit should not be used as evidence, as then written, and asked him not introduce it. He did.
CIA General Counsel Stanley Sporkin advised that, at minimum,the word
“indirectly” should be removed from paragraph four. Deliberately, knowing the
facts, Greenberg ignored the CIA attorneys' requests and used it. (Wilson Mot. to
Vacate, Ex. 98 ¶¶ 3-5.)
Although it admits that it presented false evidence at Wilson’s trial and
now lists solicitations and services he performed post-termination, the
governmentsaysthat Wilson has not proved that the prosecutors knew that it wasfalse. Persistence in this contention reveals that consistency is valued higher thanfidelity at the Department of Justice.
First, the government says that the prosecutors meant “taskings related to
the gathering of intelligence” where Briggs’s affidavit reads, “asked or requested directly or indirectly to perform or provide services.” (Gov't Answer at 54.)...
|
In 2004, Stanley Sporkin was hired by Fannie Mae to conduct an internal investigation:
http://whereisthemoney.org/hotseat/stanley/#FannieMaeQ1
http://whereisthemoney.org/hotseat/stanleysporkin.htm
....and last month, BP hired Sporkin as an "ombudsman"
http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2006/09/05/...its-ombudsman/
<b>Stanely Sporkin, and 9th District Senior Judge Stephen Trotta, et al, are accused of knowingly withholding evidence that could have prevented Edwin Wilson from serving some...or all of 22 years that he spent in prison.....If democrats win control of the house or of the senate, a high priority should be put on finding the status of the OPR investigation, reported by WaPo's Susan Schmidt, nearly three years ago (see image of article in previous post:
http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/washingt...+Of+Arms+Deale
The integrity of our justice system was identified by Texas federal judge, Lynn Hughes, 41 months ago as broken, and he referred to "about two dozen government lawyers who actively participated in the original non-disclosure to the defense, the false rebuttal testimony, and the refusal to correct it."
Damn it.....the current DOJ, by 35 months of it's OPR's silence, is now implicated in this travesty of justice, and coverup. I want to see subpoenas issued to Sporkin, Trott, et al, and I want to see them give testimony, or take the 5th, in a public, congressional hearing....ASAP....while 77 year old Edwin Wilson is still alive, and before any other current or former CIA operatives, or anyone else prosecuted by DOJ for any offense, is fucked over.
</b>
Last edited by host; 10-16-2006 at 01:09 AM..
|