Evidence of cover up by the judicial system

[Sharing Lights]

What happened? Our complaint was improperly dumped as "merits-related" in a conclusory order which itself was a prime example of a dishonest decision. For this reason, we sought review by the Circuit Council. Our petition demonstrated that the dismissal order was legally and factually unsupportable, and that it contemptuously disregarded the National Commission's recommendation that dismissal orders be reasoned and non-conclusory and that the circuits resolve ambiguity in the interpretation of the 1980 Act. We pointed out that the Judicial Conference had endorsed each of these recommendations and that our complaint was ideally suited for building interpretive precedent to make clear, once and for all, that complaints alleging biased, bad-faith conduct are not "merits-related" and additionally that even "merits-related" complaints are not required to be dismissed under the statute. The Circuit Council's response? It denied our petition in one sentence. The cover letter informed us that, under the Act, there was no further review.


But the Judicial Conference has oversight responsibility -- and we turned to it. The Assistant General Counsel to the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts is the liaison to the Judicial Conference's disciplinary committee. His refusal to take any steps on our documented showing that the circuit is subverting the Act and the recommendations of the National Commission and Judicial Conference bears directly on the integrity of the National Commission's review of §372(c) complaints, since he was one of the two court-connected researchers who examined those complaints for the National Commission. He was not Assistant General Counsel at the time he examined complaints for the Commission. He was promoted to that position afterwards, presumably because the federal judiciary liked his conclusions so well.


In the end, we have empirically proven more than the "inadequacy of the 1980 Act" resulting from an over-expansive judicial interpretation of "merits-relatedness." We have demonstrated that the 1980 Act is a facade behind which the federal judiciary dismisses fully-documented complaints of dishonest judicial decisions by decisions which are themselves dishonest and which properly should be the subject of disciplinary review -- if there were any place to go for redress.


That's yet another reason why we are trying again with the House Judiciary Committee. We are now preparing a formal presentation to it based on our §372(c) complaint as well as the §372(c) complaints of our members. These, likewise, have been dishonestly dismissed as "merits related" in conclusory orders which similarly misrepresent the serious misconduct issues presented. Based on this evidence and the first-hand testimony of people who have brought complaints, the House Judiciary Committee will get a good look at what the federal judiciary, working through the National Commission, did not want it to see: flagrant judicial misconduct and corruption which the federal judiciary was able to cover-up when it made §372(c) complaints confidential. We believe it will be the basis for ending that confidentiality and for creating an alternative disciplinary mechanism, one outside the federal judiciary, to review judicial misconduct.
— END —


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Author: Elena Ruth Sassower is co-founder and coordinator of the Center for Judicial Accountability, Inc. (CJA), a nonprofit, nonpartisan citizens' action organization (http://www.judgewatch.org) working for many years to reform the process of judicial selection and discipline on national, state, and local levels. She is the daughter of Doris L. Sassower, a renowned whistle-blowing lawyer whose law license was viciously suspended by vindictive judges under a so-called "interim" order in 1991 — without notice of charges, hearing, findings, or right of appeal — after she launched a legal challenge to a corrupt political judicial cross-endorsement deal between the two major parties, involving the trading of seven judgeships over a three-year period.
Note: In 2001, Douglas Kendall, Executive Director of the Community Rights Council, testified before Congress as to the ineffectiveness of §372(c) complaints.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

References
Anthony D'Amato, "The Ultimate Injustice: When the Court Misstates the Facts," Cardozo Law Review, Vol. 11: 1313 (1990).

Research Papers of the National Commission on Judicial Discipline and Removal, Vol. I: 625 (1993).

[Sharing Lights]

Judge's Misconduct "A lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes."
-- Mark Twain

Complaint Outcome


Ethical Conduct Complaint against Tulane's
Attorney, G. Phillip Shuler

My word is my bond.
I will never intentionally mislead the court or other counsel.
I will not knowingly make statements of fact or law that are untrue.

From: Code of Professionalism, Louisiana State Bar Association

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

OFFICE OF THE DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
LOUISIANA ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY BOARD
4000 S. Sherwood Forest Blvd., Suite 607
Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70816

ETHICAL CONDUCT COMPLAINT

Part A: Information About Complainant

Dr. Carl Bernofsky
6478 General Diaz Street
New Orleans, Louisiana 70124
Tel: (504) 486-4639

Part B: Information About Attorney

George Phillip Shuler, III, Esq. T.A. #12047
Chaffe, McCall, Phillips, Toler & Sarpy, L.L.P.
2300 Energy Centre
1100 Poydras Street
New Orleans, Louisiana 70163
Tel: (504) 585-7000

Part C: Explanation of Complaint

I. Introduction


Complainant was plaintiff in a lawsuit designated as Dr. Carl Bernofsky v. Tulane University Medical School, filed January 31, 1995 in United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana as Civil Action No. 95-358, alleging discrimination under 42 U.S.C. §1981 joined with various state law claims. The complaint asserted that plaintiff ("Bernofsky") was a professor at Tulane University Medical School ("Tulane") where he had been a faculty member for 20 years and that a new department chairman, who arrived in November, 1991 had harassed him, interfered with his staff, hindered his performance, caused him to lose grant funding, and threatened termination. The complaint further alleged that these actions were based on the fact that plaintiff was Jewish and that the other two senior Jewish faculty members in the department were also being discriminated against on the basis of their Jewish parentage by the same chairman, who was of Lebanese descent. Plaintiff's employment was terminated April 21, 1995.


A First Amended Complaint, adding an age discrimination claim under state law, was filed February 27, 1995. A trial date was initially set for January 22, 1996, but was continued to July 8, 1996 because of plaintiff's diagnosis and treatment for cancer. A Second Amended Complaint was filed on November 21, 1995, adding an ADEA claim and a claim for conversion of laboratory equipment and materials.


Defendant filed a Motion for Summary Judgment on May 14, 1996, and a Reply Memorandum on May 31, 1996. Plaintiff filed an Opposition Memorandum to Summary Judgment on May 21, 1996, and a Reply Memorandum Opposing Summary Judgment on June 5, 1996. In response to issues raised by the District Court, plaintiff filed a Supplemental Memorandum Opposing Summary Judgment on July 1, 1996, a Memorandum in Response to Court's Request, and a letter setting forth each of plaintiff's claims, also in response to the District Court's directive. Defendant delivered a Pretrial Memorandum on July 1, 1996, and plaintiff responded on July 2, 1996.


A status conference was held July 5, 1996, at which time the District Court informed plaintiff's counsel that defendant's motion for summary judgment would be denied and that the trial would commence as scheduled on July 8, 1996. However, as a result of defendant's complaints concerning the Exhibit Books assembled by plaintiff, the parties agreed to continue the trial to the next available date which, after a series of scheduling conflicts, was set for September 8, 1997. Although this trial date was reconfirmed as late as April 2, 1997, the District Court reversed itself, granting summary judgment in favor of defendant April 15, 1997 and rendering final judgment April 21, 1997.


Plaintiff timely appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit as Case No. 97-30575, citing numerous issues of material fact that were in dispute with respect to his claims. Oral arguments were held January 6, 1998 in front of Judges Politz, DeMoss and Higginbotham, with attorney G. Phillip Shuler appearing for the defendant. The Appellate Court, in an unpublished opinion, affirmed the District Court for "substantially" the same reasons January 8, 1998 (Exhibit 1) and subsequently denied appellant's motion for a rehearing February 5, 1998.

[Sharing Lights]

II. Complaint Against Attorney Shuler


At oral argument, attorney Shuler willfully mislead the court with three outrageous falsehoods, two of which (items B and C, below) had not been previously raised. Attorney Shuler's assertions were wholly inconsistent with all known documentary evidence and appear to have been fabricated for the purpose of diverting attention of the court from the issues that had been examined in the briefs submitted by the parties. The misrepresentations concerned highly contested issues of material fact that more properly should have been examined at a trial on the merits. The appellate court, giving credence to these falsehoods, was swayed in favor of the defendant.


A. Attorney Shuler's first material misrepresentation to the court concerns Bernofsky's grant status at the time he was dismissed. Despite the record of grant support documented by Bernofsky's deposition testimony, curriculum vitae (Exhibit 2), the testimony of an economics expert, and numerous Tulane records, attorney Shuler falsely led the court to believe that Bernofsky had no grant support at the time of his termination.


Ten weeks before Bernofsky's dismissal on April 21, 1995, Tulane was notified that he would be receiving a new $250,000 research grant from the Air Force Office of Scientific Research. As a result of this notification, Tulane's Office of Public Relations dispatched a reporter and a photographer to interview Bernofsky and photograph him in front of his recently-acquired EPR spectrometer, which was funded by a previous $250,000 grant to Bernofsky. The story appeared on the front page of the March, 1995 issue of Monitor, the then current newsletter of Tulane University Medical Center (Exhibit 3). Attorney Shuler had access to all of this information, which was part of the case record.


Nevertheless, attorney Shuler falsely asserted that Bernofsky had no grant support at the time of his termination.

JUDGE HIGGINBOTHAM:

How much of the total dollar amount of grants would he have to obtain to support his salary allocation?

MR. SHULER:

Well, at the time of his termination, he had none. In 1993/94, he had zero. In 94/95, he had zero.

JUDGE HIGGINBOTHAM:

He had no grants at all?

MR. SHULER:

No grants at all. ... (Appellate transcript, pp. 29-30; Exhibit 4).

[Sharing Lights]

B. The second falsified claim concerned a course taught by plaintiff. According to Bernofsky's deposition testimony, curriculum vitae, the Tulane Catalog (Exhibit 5), and letters from his department chairman (such as Exhibit 6), Bernofsky taught an advanced graduate course in biochemistry for 16 years. Only the year he moved to Tulane and on two other occasions, when the course was canceled by the program director because of inadequate enrollment, did he not participate in the teaching program. Although teaching was not a requirement of his position, Bernofsky never refused a teaching assignment and was regularly invited to lecture in areas of his research specialization.


Starting in 1992, Bernofsky began asking his new department chairman to submit his credentials to the Personnel and Honors Committee so that he may be considered for the tenure he had been repeatedly promised for many years. The new chairman responded to this request by declaring that Bernofsky already had "de facto" tenure because of the many years that his "special" appointment had been renewed by Tulane. Finally, in 1994, Bernofsky offered to continue teaching with the provision that his chairman submit his credentials for review by the Personnel and Honors Committee. Neither the chairman nor any other Tulane administrator ever advised Bernofsky that his employment would be terminated unless he agreed unconditionally to continue teaching. In fact, Mr. John Beal, Tulane's Associate General Counsel, admitted in a letter written February 21, 1997 that, "His dismissal was not based upon any performance issues, but was strictly a financial decision. . . ."


Nevertheless, during oral argument - which was the first time this claim had ever been made - attorney Shuler falsely implied that Bernofsky would not have been terminated if only he had agreed to continue teaching.

MR. SHULER:

. . . He might still be there today if he had said that he would. But, he refused. (Appellate transcript, p. 33; Exhibit 7).

C. The third material falsehood pertained to the record of Dr. Jen-sie Tou ("Tou"), whose employment status was critical to the plaintiff's case for discrimination. The issue concerned the eligibility of these similarly-situated research professors for tenure and hinged on when and whether these employees had "special" (ie. non-tenure track) or "regular" (ie., tenure track) appointments.


All documentary evidence relating to Tou's appointments is summarized in Exhibit 8, which is based on Tou's deposition testimony, her curriculum vitae, annual Faculty Personnel Action Forms (such as Exhibit 9), personnel records (such as Exhibit 10), letters of appointment (such as Exhibit 11), and Minutes of the Personnel and Honors Committee (such as Exhibit 12).


In brief, the record demonstrated undisputedly that, for a period of 18 years starting from her first faculty appointment in 1971, Tou had "special" appointments except for a single year, during 1979-1980, when she was converted to a "regular" tenure-track position. During that brief interval, she was denied tenure twice by the Personnel and Honors Committee because of inadequate academic credentials and was returned to a "special" appointment (see Exhibit 11). Nevertheless, Tou was granted automatic tenure administratively in 1989 because of the length of time she held a "special" appointment (see Exhibit 13). All of these facts and documents were known to attorney Shuler at the time the case was argued in appellate court.


Nevertheless, at oral argument, attorney Shuler falsely asserted that Tou was hired on tenure track and had been on tenure track for seven years prior to receiving tenure. This was the first time this claim had ever been made.

[Sharing Lights]

JUDGE HIGGINBOTHAM:

What about the other person who did switch over?

MR. SHULER:

Dr. Tou, that's correct. Dr. Tau -- she calls her Tou. I call her Tou. But, it's Jen-sie Tou. And, she started out at Tulane in 1972 and was tenure track for seven years, but during that time, she got a very prestigious grant that precluded her teaching. Teaching, service, scholarship being important to tenure precluded her --

JUDGE HIGGINBOTHAM:

Let me ask you this: She came in as a tenure track?

MR. SHULER:

She came in as tenure track. Then, she got this grant which said you can only teach five percent (5%) of the time. So, they moved her over to be a research professor, a non-tenure track person like him, also. But then, later, they looked at her again when she was again teaching extensively and said she had been research track. We're going to give her credit for that, and we're going to convert her, okay. They also had, obviously, good reason to do that, because Dr. Tou was making important contributions to the department and had been tenure track at one time. (Appellate transcript, pp. 33-34; Exhibit 14).

III. Argument

The Code of Professionalism of the Louisiana State Bar Association states, in pertinent part:

"I will never intentionally mislead the court or other counsel. I will not knowingly make statements of fact or law that are untrue."


Attorney Shuler, by knowingly planting false evidence in the minds of the appellate judges, demonstrated a willful and egregious disregard for the code of professional conduct to which he is bound by oath. Such conduct impedes the course of justice, degrades the court and the legal profession, and damages public trust in the institution of the judiciary.

IV. Conclusion


As a consequence of the offences described above, the complainant respectfully requests that attorney Shuler be reprimanded and permanently barred from representing Tulane University in any and all proceedings that may take place in any Louisiana State Court, any U.S. District Court in the state of Louisiana, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, and in the U.S. Supreme Court. In addition, the Board may wish to impose whatever other disciplinary action it deems appropriate to the misconduct of attorney Shuler.

[Sharing Lights]

V. List of Attached Exhibits

Opinion, United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit; affirming the District Court's Order and Reasons of April 15, 1997; filed January 8, 1998.

Curriculum Vitae, Carl Bernofsky; from the end of the 1994-1995 academic year and his last annual contract with Tulane, p. 9; listing Bernofsky's most recent grants prior to his termination on April 21, 1995.

"Radical Research," Monitor, Vol. 2, No. 7, March, 1995, p. 1, by Judith Zwolak, editor, Tulane University Medical Center News; describing Bernofsky's new Air Force Grant.

Appellate transcript, January 6, 1998, p. 29, line 22 to p. 30, line 8.

Tulane Graduate School Catalog, 1990-92, p. 69; showing course taught by Bernofsky, "Energy Transduction Processes," Biochemistry 706.

Letter from Rune L. Stjernholm to Blackwell Evans, Acting Dean, dated April 14, 1989; praising Bernofsky's teaching and recommending him for tenure.

Appellate transcript, January 6, 1998, p. 33, lines 10 and 11.

Derived "timeline" for Dr. Jen-sie Tou; showing her university employment status from 1971 through 1997.

Faculty Personnel Action Form for Jen-sie Tou; showing her "special" (ie. non-tenured) appointment for the 1985-1986 academic year. These forms were issued annually.

Administrative notes from Jen-sie Tou's personnel file. The last entry (undated) is apparently from 1989, just prior to her grant of automatic tenure following 18 years of predominantly "special" appointments. Dr. "E" is identified as Dr. Blackwell Evans, Acting Dean; "A" is Adrienne Engelhardt, the Dean's administrative assistant; and "vote" refers to an action to be taken by the Personnel and Honors Committee ("P & H") regarding Tou's appointment.

Appointment letter from Dean James Hamlin to Jen-sie Tou, dated June 19, 1980; confirming that her status has been changed back to a "special" appointment. This follows Tou's second unsuccessful attempt to achieve tenured status through evaluation of her academic credentials by the Personnel and Honors Committee (See entry of 7/1/80, Exhibit 10). Tou's first attempt was a year earlier, at the time she first received a "regular" appointment (See entry of 7/1/79, Exhibit 10).

Minutes of the Personnel and Honors Committee Meeting, dated June 25, 1980, as reported at the Executive Faculty Meeting, dated June 26, 1980; denying Tou's second request for tenure. Page 2 shows that the motion to return Tou to Research Associate (ie., "special") status was carried.

Letter from Chancellor John Walsh to President Eamon Kelly, dated March 16, 1989; recommending tenure for Tou even though she held a "special" appointment and that administrative maneuvers on her behalf violated critical university precepts. Walsh was apparently unaware that, during Tou's brief period of "regular" status, she had been denied tenure twice, which explained her conversion back to "special" status.

Appellate transcript, January 6, 1998, p. 33, line 18 to p. 34, line 21.

VI. Certifications


I certify that I alone am responsible for the preparation of the above complaint against attorney G. Phillip Shuler and further declare that, to the best of my knowledge, the statements in the complaint are true.


I also certify that a copy of the above and foregoing has this day been forwarded to attorney G. Phillip Shuler and my present counsel by depositing same in the United States mail, properly addressed, and first class postage prepaid.


New Orleans, Louisiana, this 23rd day of January, 2001.

s/ Carl Bernofsky
Carl Bernofsky
Complainant s/ Debra L. Cassibry
Notary

[Sharing Lights]

Response of the Louisiana Attorney Disciplinary Board

The Board was quick to dismiss Bernofsky's complaint against attorney Shuler, arguing that Shuler's misrepresentations were of no consequence because the judges had access to the evidence in the record [1].

"To the extent that the representations of Mr. Shuler to the Fifth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeal during oral argument were contradicted in a material way by the evidence in the record, the court would not have been persuaded by representations of counsel . . ."

The Board also questioned Bernofsky's evidence:

"The Office of Disciplinary Counsel is not in a position to research and make factual determinations of the accuracy of your position nor that of Tulane University. . . . [T]here could never be a finding by this office of clear and convincing evidence since it would require this office to make the initial determination of which you represented the accurate facts within the context of your litigation."

The Board did concede, however, that Bernofsky may be justified in continuing to press for a trial of his discrimination case:

"To the extent that you believe that you have strong evidence to demonstrate the position taken by Tulane University during oral argument was inappropriate, you may wish to consult with an attorney of your own choosing to decide whether or not a motion for a new trial on the basis of fraud and ill practice may be appropriate."

Reference

Letter of February 5, 2001 to Carl Bernofsky from Charles B. Plattsmier, Chief Disciplinary Counsel, Louisiana Attorney Disciplinary Board (Case No. 2001-ADMIN-69).

[Sharing Lights]

NOTE:


According to Title 18, United States Code, Section 1001(a) it a crime to knowingly and willfully make any materially false, fictitious or fraudulent statement or representation in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative or judicial branch of the United States.

However, “Subsection (a) does not apply to a party to a judicial proceeding, or that party’s counsel, for statements, representations, writings or documents submitted by such party or counsel to a judge or magistrate in that proceeding.”

Thus, parties to a judicial proceeding are exempt from the provision of subsection (a) and can knowingly submit false testimony to a judge without fear of criminal prosecution.


Balance the Scales of Justice or your balance
of Rights would be diminished to big zero!

[Sharing Lights]

"Never give in, never give in, never, never, never, never..."
-- Sir Winston Churchill (1941)

"I Won't Back Down"
Johnny Cash




When Citizens Fight Judicial Corruption

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In her 502-page book, Anne Morrow, who opened a gift shop in a Corpus Christi strip mall in 1984, documents how a dispute with a well-connected landlord, who refused to erect a directory sign as promised, initiated a chain of horrendous events that eventually endangered her life, ruined her health, and involved a district attorney, drug trafficking, a judge, FBI agents, elected state and federal officials, and scores of lawyers who either refused to take her case or who abruptly withdrew under suspicious circumstances.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


“A CASE OF INJUSTICE” by Anne Morrow


BOOK REVIEW by Joel M. Skousen

This is a dramatic and powerful account of one feisty Texas businesswoman who wouldn't quit. I don't know why she is alive today, except by the grace of God. The powers arrayed against her were and still are ruthless. This real live story is set in south Texas, an area of the US which in the 1980s became an alternate source of drug importation for the CIA and other competing drug lords — after south Florida became too hot, politically.


Anne Morrow had married into one of the first families of Dallas — the Parrino family. She had political connections and money. Life was good. After the death of her husband, she ran a successful gift shop and, in 1984, decided to expand her business down into Corpus Christi. Like any normal unsuspecting business person, she entered into a standard lease for space at a new shopping center owned by one A.C. Gilmore — a seedy, unkempt king of the florist trade in south Texas (her first mistake). Readers of the book will note that as her account unfolds, Anne makes a series of little errors in judgment, each compounding her involvement in future bad situations, and each error accompanied by those subtle nervous feelings of conscience that forewarn of trouble. She doesn't heed the little warning signs, being positive and upbeat. This mistake is made by most people basking in the illusions of "good times." For Anne, it wouldn't take long for her experiences to shatter these illusions, a hard lesson in learning to listen better to these small warning signs.


After the absentee landlord failed to fulfill certain verbal agreements dealing with the critical issue of signage, Anne tried to sue for breach of contract. During her initial investigation, she found out the seedy landlord had altered the lease document in order to justify his breach — an obvious and outright act of criminal fraud. Gotcha! — or so she thought. Little did she know, the seedy, overweight A.C. Gilmore was protected by a corrupt local judicial system, intrinsically linked with local law firms. Gilmore was in fact involved in the drug trade, and was using his investments in shopping centers and other legitimate businesses to launder the profits. How many of us do business with companies every day (sometimes national chains) who appear legitimate but which may be fronts for money laundering operations or secret government operations? You may never know, but it's a much bigger problem than you think. Even major airlines and banks are involved.


The truth about a company's linkage with organized government crime may only surface if you have a significant legal problem with them and find out, in your quest for a resolution, that this particular business is beyond the law. Most front businesses are smart enough to not make a major issue of small legal matters — they settle quickly to keep their profile low. But A.C. Gilmore was a slob — he didn't care how he handled the situation because he knew he was working for people bigger than even the state of Texas. He also had local judges in his pocket and was confident they would cover for whatever he did. He was right.


This slowly started to dawn on Anne as she engaged one attorney after another in Corpus Christi. In each case, they turned from friendly one day to sour and distant the next and started giving her the run around about why they couldn't represent her, or why she didn't have a case. Somebody was turning these lawyers against her. She couldn't believe a louse like Gilmore could have this much power. Could he be buying them off? She had a near air-tight case and no attorney would take it. Convinced that Gilmore couldn't control all 650 lawyers in town, she kept trying. A private investigator stepped forward one day and offered to help — suspiciously, without charge. He and other connected politicians steered her towards an attorney who did agree to take her case — and then proceeded to sabotage it in a major way. He was talking to all her adversaries and acting on their behalf — a clear violation of attorney responsibility. When she threatened to charge him for misconduct to the Texas Bar Association, he just laughed. He was protected.

[Sharing Lights]

One of the keys to this story is her documentation of dealings with these attorneys. For those who distrust attorneys, this book will justify your every suspicion. It wasn't that everyone was involved personally with A.C. Gilmore. He wasn't paying them off. Most of these attorneys didn't even recognize the name of Gilmore when she initially presented her case to them. But then the following day, someone would get to these attorneys and their demeanor would change. None had the principles to blow the whistle on those applying pressure. They all folded and turned on her — every one, without exception. This means that there is an informal control system that shadows the legal profession — even in small communities. Individual lawyers never see it or know it exists until they start to handle a case that threatens some higher power. Then the phone calls come; subtle threats or warnings are uttered. Names are dropped. Potential consequences are hinted at. Lawyers are ladder-climbers in the profession. Most value their position in the legal pecking order more than their sense of justice. This is telling...and chilling.


But the good ol' boys underestimated Anne Morrow's determination. She finally went to the local elected officials with her case. Friendly at first, they too turned on her, or actively attempted to steer her into the arms of other vultures. She then went to the county prosecutor to request that he file criminal charges. He refused to even see her — ever! He had already been alerted. She bypassed him and got the same treatment from deputy prosecutors. She then went to the grand jury direct but the foreman informed her they could do nothing without the prosecutor's approval (not true). She went to the county commission — same story. When she proceeded to the Sheriff's office, she initially did get an admission from them that the area is full of corruption. They welcomed her case, and promised to pursue it in order to clean up the county. However, within a month the investigation was shut down and they treated her like dirt.


Anne then turned to the State of Texas and charged the county prosecutor with prosecutorial misconduct. A major investigation by the Texas state Prosecutorial Council began. At first the investigators were on her side. But once again, after all the incriminating evidence was gathered and presented to the State Legislature, orders came down from "above the State" to kill it. The Council was disbanded for good. Over the course of the next 10 years or so, she took her story to the FBI (in many different states), to Congressmen, Senators, and others, pulling every political string she had. Same story — everyone protected the surly A.C. Gilmore. Anne's description of the hostility she received at the hands of the FBI, even as she went from one state to another, tells volumes about how completely the dark side controls this once-sterling agency of justice.


It was obvious to me, after reading halfway through her story, that A.C. Gilmore had more power than a simple south Texas drug lord. He had risen from a nobody to a multi-millionaire in less than 3 years. You can do that as a local drug lord, but you don't get the protection of the state of Texas, the FBI, and members of Congress unless you are working for the feds. In this case, I presume A.C. Gilmore was working for the CIA drug pipeline.


Certainly, not all of the players who stonewalled Anne's case were guilty of direct conspiracy, or even had knowledge of the underlying conspiracy. But one thing was certainly happening: people with federal power at a very high level were calling down to the State level and telling them to shut down Anne Morrow's case — probably in the name of "national security," that ubiquitous cover that stops anyone from asking further questions. Everyone stupidly snaps-to and salutes, "Yes, sir!" Anne was also surveilled throughout this ordeal — and not by mafia thugs. She was shadowed and watched by clean cut federal agent types, and still is today to a lesser degree. That takes a lot of expensive resources, even for the dark side of government


Anne Morrow still fights on. She wants closure.........

Her book can do much to wake up sleeping America. But the media isn't about to help. The 4th estate, which should have been sympathetic to this case of extreme prejudice toward a woman businessperson, has scorned and betrayed her. We can only make her sacrifice meaningful if we buy the book, read her story and pass it on. Order A Case of Injustice online at http://www.palatinepress.com. It's available as a hardcopy, or half price as an E-book download to your computer. It's a must read.


What good will it do? Plenty. All of us, even conservatives, need to have our illusions of honesty and goodness on the part of local government shattered. It is true that not every town is as bad as Corpus Christi, Houston, Denver, Chicago, San Francisco, New York, or Los Angeles, but every city is being worked on and is under pressure, and every city is slipping ever closer into the federal grasp.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Author: Joel M. Skousen (http://www.joelskousen.com) is a political scientist, commentator, and consultant residing in Orem, Utah. He is the author of four books, one on law and government, and three on special design innovation in security architecture. He is also publisher of WORLD AFFAIRS BRIEF. His review of Anne Morrow's book, A Case of Injustice, first appeared in the December 21, 2001 issue of that publication

(http://www.centrexnews.com/columnist...2001/1221.html)

The opinions and conspiracy theories expressed by Skousen are his own and do not necessarily reflect the views of Dr. Bernofsky.

For additional reviews of Anne Morrow's book, see http://www.palatinepress.com/pressrel.html.