Footnotes

When the DEA busted them..”they had secret radio frequencies of federal, state and local authorities,” a DEA spokesman said. “They had mechanical programmers and night-viewing devices. They had air-to-ground radios so sophisticated we dont even have them on our airplanes.”

“Founded with $2 million 1967, New Court today manages a portfolio worth more than $1 billion, including funds from such corporate clients as General Foods, TRW and Hughes Aircraft. New Courts other owners included NM Rothschild & Sons in London, which represents the English branch of the family and is headed by Evelyn de Rothschild, 50, and the Rothschild Zurich bank, of which Swiss Cousin Baron Edmond de Rothschild is part owner.

“New Court is an aggressive venture capital firm that has some $200 million invested in fledgling American companies (Author Note: Federal Express was an important New Court venture investment.) Last year its return on current investment of $17 million was 35%. In July, its American chairman John P. Birkelund, 51, asked the Rothschilds for more control over the firm. Instead, the family sacked Birkelund, named Guy and Evelyn as cochairmen and installed a new manager, Family Confidant Gilbert de Botton, 46.

“The new Rothschild man in New York City had previously directed the familys bank in Zurich, which grew from a paltry $2.5 million in 1968 to its present capitalization of more than $35MM. De Botton is currently investing heavily in sagging stocks of US energy companies, especially those with large domestic reserves of oil and gas. He also plans to strengthen the firms venture capital thrust. Says he: The US is the prime market in the world for startup, small and medium size companies.

“That bullishness on Americas prospects is shared by Co-Chairman Guy, who has been commuting monthly since last June between Paris and New Courts offices in New York Citys Rockefeller Center. Guy will not move permanently to the US and Cousin Ellies son Nathaniel, 34, a graduate of the Harvard Business School, is a prime candidate to direct US operations eventually. Says Guy: My great-grandfather sent one of his sons, my grandfather Alphonse, to America in 1848. After returning to France, Alphonse pleaded with his father that the US was the coming country and that there should be a House of Rothschild there. Its an enormous pity that my grandfathers advice was not heeded. As far as Im concerned we should have had a Rothschild bank in the US since the middle of the 19th century. Our involvement in America now is really 100 years late in arriving.”

“On October 30, 2002, the European Community and the following ten member states, Belgium, Finland, France, Greece, Germany, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Portugal and Spain, filed a third complaint against RJR, RJR Tobacco and several currently and formerly related companies in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York. The complaint, which contains many of the same or similar allegations found in two earlier complaints that were previously dismissed by the same court, alleges that the defendants, together with certain identified and unidentified persons, including organized crime organizations and drug cartels, engaged in money laundering and other conduct for which they should be accountable to the plaintiffs under civil RICO and a variety of common law claims. The complaint also alleges that the defendants manufactured cigarettes, which were eventually sold in Iraq in violation of U.S. sanctions against such sales. The plaintiffs are seeking unspecified actual damages, to be trebled, costs, reasonable attorneys’ fees and injunctive relief under their RICO claims, and unspecified compensatory and punitive damages, and injunctive and equitable relief under their common law claims. On April 1, 2004, the plaintiffs fled an amended complaint. The amended complaint does not change the substance of the claims alleged, but primarily makes typographical and grammatical changes to the allegations contained in the original complaint and adds to the description of injuries alleged in the original complaint. This matter remains pending, but all proceedings have been stayed pending a decision by the Supreme Court on the petition for certiorari filed by the plaintiffs in connection with the dismissal of their previous complaint.

“On December 20, 2000, October 15, 2001, and January 9, 2003, applications for annulment were filed in the Court of First Instance in Luxembourg challenging the competency of the European Community to bring each of the foregoing actions and seeking an annulment of the decision to bring each of the actions, respectively. On January 15, 2003, the Court of First Instance entered a judgment denying the admissibility of the first two applications, principally on the grounds that the filing of the first two complaints did not impose binding legal effects on the applicants. On March 21, 2003, RJR and its affiliates appealed that judgment to the Court of Justice of the European Communities. The application for annulment filed in connection with the third action is still pending before the Court of First Instance. On September 18, 2003, however, the Court of First Instance stayed the proceedings in the third action, pending resolution of the appeals from the January 15, 2003 judgment denying the admissibility of the first two applications.

“RJR Tobacco, B&W and the other defendants filed motions to dismiss the actions brought by Ecuador, Belize and Honduras in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida. These motions were granted on February 26, 2002, and the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal with the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit on March 26, 2002. On August 14, 2003, the Eleventh Circuit announced its decision affirming the dismissal of the case. On November 5, 2003, Ecuador, Belize and Honduras filed a petition for a writ of certiorari requesting the United States Supreme Court to review the decision of the Eleventh Circuit. The court denied the petition on January 12, 2004. B&W and the other defendants filed motions to dismiss a similar action brought by Amazonas and other departments of Colombia in the United States District for the Eastern District of New York. These motions were granted on February 19, 2002, and plaintiffs appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. The Second Circuit affirmed the dismissal on January 14, 2004. On April 13, 2004, Amazonas and other departments of Colombia petitioned the United States Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari. On June 17, 2004, B&W and the other defendants filed a brief opposing the petition, and the Amazonas and other departments of Colombia filed a reply brief on June 29, 2004. A decision by the Supreme Court is pending.

“RJR Tobacco has been served in two reparations actions brought by descendants of slaves. The plaintiffs in these actions claim that the defendants, including RJR Tobacco, profited from the use of slave labor. These two actions have been transferred to Judge Norgle in the Northern District of Illinois by the Judicial Panel on Multi-District Litigation for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings with other reparation actions. Seven additional cases were originally filed in California, Illinois and New York. RJR Tobacco is a named defendant in only one of these additional cases, but it has not been served. The action in which RJR Tobacco is named, but has not been served, was conditionally transferred to the Northern District of Illinois on January 7, 2003, but the plaintiffs contested that transfer, and the Judicial Panel on Multi-District Litigation has not yet issued a final ruling on the transfer. The plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint on June 17, 2003.

“On July 18, 2003, the defendants moved to dismiss the plaintiff’s complaint. That motion was granted on January 26, 2004, although the court granted the plaintiffs leave within which to file an amended complaint, which they did on April 5, 2004. In addition, several plaintiffs have attempted to appeal the trial court’s January 26, 2004 dismissal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. Because the dismissal was not a final order, that appeal was dismissed. All the defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint that had been filed on April 5, 2004. A decision is pending.”

One of the most important things that came out of the hearing of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence was an understanding about why we did not know about who was trafficking in drugs as we began to investigate and take a look at the allegations that were being made about the CIA’s involvement in drug trafficking in south central Los Angeles and the allegations that profits from that drug trafficking was going to support the Contras.

We discovered that for 13 years the CIA and the Department of Justice followed a memorandum of understanding that explicitly exempted the requirement to report drug law violations by CIA non-employees to the Department of Justice. This allowed some of the biggest drug lords in the world to operate without fear that the CIA would be required to report the activity to the DEA and other law enforcement agencies.

In 1982, the Attorney General and the Director of Central Intelligence entered into an agreement that excluded the reporting of narcotics and drug crimes by the CIA to the Justice Department. Under this agreement, there was no requirement to report information of drug trafficking and drug law violations with respect to CIA agents, assets, non-staff employees and contractors. This remarkable and secret agreement was enforced from February 1982 to August of 1995. This covers nearly the entire period of U.S. involvement in the Contra war in Nicaragua and the deep U.S. involvement in the counterinsurgency activities in El Salvador and Central America.

Senator Kerry and his Senate investigation found drug traffickers had used the Contra war and tie to the Contra leadership to help this deadly trade. Among their devastating findings, the Kerry committee investigators found that major drug lords used the Contra supply networks and the traffickers provided support for Contras in return. The CIA of course, created, trained, supported, and directed the Contras and were involved in every level of their war.

The 1982 memorandum of understanding that exempted the reporting requirement for drug trafficking was no oversight or misstatement. Previously unreleased memos between the Attorney General and Director of Central Intelligence show how conscious and deliberate this exemption was.

On February 11, 1982, Attorney General French Smith wrote to DCI William Casey that, and I quote, this is what he said:

[Page: H2971]

I have been advised that a question arose regarding the need to add narcotics violations to the list of reportable non-employee crimes . . . no formal requirement regarding the reporting of narcotics violations has been included in these procedures.

On March 2, 1982 William Casey responded:

I am pleased these procedures which I believe strike the proper balance between enforcement of the law and protection of intelligence sources and methods will now be forwarded to other agencies covered by them for signing by the heads of those agencies.

My colleagues heard me correctly.

The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters) has expired.

(By unanimous consent, Ms. Waters was allowed to proceed for 3 additional minutes.)

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, the fact that President Reagan’s Attorney General and Director of Central Intelligence thought that drug trafficking by their assets agents and contractors needed to be protected has been long known. These damning memorandums and the resulting memorandum of understanding are further evidence of a shocking official policy that allowed the drug cartels to operate through the CIA-led Contra covert operations in Central America.

This 1982 agreement clearly violated the Central Intelligence Agency Act of 1949. It also raises the possibility that certain individuals who testified in front of congressional investigating committees perjured themselves.

Mr. Chairman, every American should be shocked by these revelations. Given the shameful history of turning a blind eye to CIA involvement with drug traffickers, this amendment seeks to determine whether the current memorandum of understanding closes all of these loopholes to the drug cartels and narcotics trade.

At this time I know that there is a point of order against my amendment. The chairman of the committee is going to oppose this amendment, and so I am going to withdraw the amendment. But I wanted the opportunity to put it before this body so that they could understand that we had an official policy and a memorandum of understanding that people could fall back on and say I did not have to report it. Yes, I knew about it.

We have a subsequent memorandum of understanding of 1995 that is supposed to take care of it. I am not sure that it does.

Mr. Chairman, I submit for the Record the following correspondence between William French Smith and William J. Casey:

*************

Office of the Attorney General, Washington, DC, February 11, 1982.

Hon. William J. Casey, Director, Central Intelligence Agency, Washington, D.C.

Dear Bill: Thank you for your letter regarding the procedures governing the reporting and use of information concerning federal crimes. I have reviewed the draft of the procedures that accompanied your letter and, in particular, the minor changes made in the draft that I had previously sent to you. These proposed changes are acceptable and, therefore, I have signed the procedures.

I have been advised that a question arose regarding the need to add narcotics violations to the list of reportable non-employee crimes (Section IV). 21 U.S.C. 874(h) provides that `[w]hen requested by the Attorney General, it shall be the duty of any agency or instrumentality of the Federal Government to furnish assistance to him for carrying out his functions under [the Controlled Substances Act] . . .’ Section 1.8(b) of Executive Order 12333 tasks the Central Intelligence Agency to `collect, produce and disseminate intelligence on foreign aspects of narcotics production and trafficking.’ Moreover, authorization for the dissemination of information concerning narcotics violations to law enforcement agencies, including the Department of Justice, is provided by sections 2.3(c) and (i) and 2.6(b) of the Order. In light of these provisions, and in view of the fine cooperation the Drug Enforcement Administration has received from CIA, no formal requirement regarding the reporting of narcotics violations has been included in these procedures. We look forward to the CIA’s continuing cooperation with the Department of Justice in this area.

In view of our agreement regarding the procedure, I have instructed my Counsel for Intelligence Policy to circulate a copy which I have executed to each of the other agencies covered by the procedures in order that they may be signed by the head of each such agency.

Sincerely,

William French Smith, Attorney General.

*********

THE DIRECTOR OF Central Intelligence, Washington, D.C., March 2, 1982.

Hon. William French Smith, Attorney General, Department of Justice, Washington, D.C.

Dear Bill: Thank you for your letter of 11 February regarding the procedures on reporting of crimes to the Department of Justice, which are being adopted under Section 1-7(a) of Executive Order 12333. I have signed the procedures, and am returning the original to you for retention at the Department.

I am pleased that these procedures, which I believe strike the proper balance between enforcement of the law and protection of intelligence sources and methods, will now be forwarded to other agencies covered by them for signing by the heads of those agencies.

With best regards,

Yours, William J. Casey.

Enclosure.”

Ridgeway Farm Inc. Route 2, Box 380, Brookneal, VA 24528

But one important element was in short supply: Federal prisoners.

It was more than an embarrassing detail. The new prison, the Donald W. Wyatt Detention Facility, is run by a private company and financed by investors. The Federal Government had agreed to pay the prison $83 a day for each prisoner it housed. Without a full complement of inmates, it could not hope to survive.

So the prison’s financial backers began a sweeping lobbying effort to divert inmates from other institutions. Rhode Island’s political leaders pressed Vice President Al Gore while he was visiting the state as well as top officials at the Justice Department to send more prisoners. Facing angry bondholders and insolvency, the company, Cornell Corrections, also turned to a lawyer who was then brokering prisoners for privately run institutions in search of inmates.

The lawyer, Richard Crane, has done legal work for private corrections companies and Government penal agencies. He put the Wyatt managers in touch with North Carolina officials. Soon afterward, 232 prisoners were moved to Rhode Island from North Carolina, and Mr. Crane was paid an undisclosed sum by Cornell Corrections.”

Letters to the Editor

New York Times

Letters to Editor

Tim Egan’s Article on Prisons, March 7, 1999

Ladies and Gentlemen:

Thank you for Tim Egan’s article on prisons. It was an excellent summary of the growth in the US prison population over the last two decades. A welcome follow up might be an exploration on how the money works on prisons.

The federal government has promoted mandatory sentences and taken other steps that will increase the overall prison population to approximately 3 million Americans as recently legislated policies finish working their way through the sentencing system. This means that approximately 10-15 million Americans will be under the jurisdiction of the criminal justice system from arrest, to indictment, to trial, to prison, to probation and parole.

The enactment of legislation ensuring the growth of prisons and prison populations has been a bipartisan effort. Republicans and Democrats alike appear to have found one area where we can build consensus for substantial growth in government budgets, staffing levels and media attention. Indeed, during this period, the number of federal agencies with police powers has grown to over 50, approximately 10% of the American enforcement bureaucracy. This is further encouraged by federal laws permitting confiscation of assets such as homes, cars, bank accounts, cash, businesses and personal property that can be used to fund federal, state and local enforcement budgets.

One way to look at the financial issues involved is to view them from the vantage point of the portfolio strategists of the large mutual funds. We have approximately 250-280 million people in America. The question from a portfolio strategist standpoint is what productive value will each one be creating in companies and communities and how does that translate into flow of funds that then translate into equity values and bond risk.

The prison companies are marketing one vision of America with their prison and prisoner growth rates, while the consumer companies are marketing another. The two are not compatible. CCA’s assumptions regarding the growth in arrests and incarceration can not be true if Fannie Mae’s, Freddie Mac’s and Sallie Mae’s assumptions about homeownership and college education rates are. We, the people, cannot refinance our mortgages or buy homes or raise our children and send them to college if we are in jail. Meantime, the municipal debt market is also facing conflicting positions. If prison bonds are a good investment, then some general obligation bonds may be in trouble. We, the taxpayers, can not support the debt: we are no longer taxpayers. We have become prisoners. Whatever we are generating in prison labor, it is certainly not enough to pay for the $154,000 per prisoner per year costs indicated for the full system by the General Accounting Office.

It would be very illuminating to get the rating agencies and the ten largest mutual funds together in one room for an investor roundtable to discuss pricing levels on the investment of our savings that is internal to their portfolios and ratings. We would compare equity valuations and growth rates of:

• Companies who make money from the American people losing productivity
• Companies who make money from helping the American people grow more knowledgeable and productive.

We are investing in two different visions that can not both come true.

We could then calculate which was going to succeed, and what the integrated pricing level would be. Better yet, what could happen that would make the most money for the investment community. The question is which vision is best for we, the equity investors of America? And why are investors assuming both can or will win as they price their stocks and bonds?

It is critical to look at prison policy from the standpoint of maximizing return on equity investment. It would be a terrible thing, while I can no longer pay taxes or buy a house or send my son to college because I am in prison, if my vested pension benefits were wiped out by the time I re-entered society. It is bad enough that my life savings are being invested in companies that make money from promoting that me and my family should be arrested and incarcerated. It would be worse if I and my family were broke because companies that make money from loss of productivity turned out to also be a bad investment.

Such a roundtable might make for a great New York Times article. If you are willing to take it on, Solari would be happy to assist your staff by contributing background analytics on how the money works in prisons.

Sincerely Yours, Catherine Austin Fitts