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

Investigation finds liquor agency badly understaffed
(According to The Associated Press, The Statesman-Journal newspaper in Salem
says the Oregon Liquor Control Commission is crippled by inadequate staffing
and soft penalties, and unable to monitor thousands of bars
and restaurants. The agency is asking the legislature for $1.5 million
to hire 14 new inspectors.)

Associated Press
found at:
http://www.oregonlive.com/
feedback (letters to the editor):
feedback@thewire.ap.org

Investigation finds liquor agency badly understaffed

The Associated Press
12/7/98 5:21 AM

SALEM, Ore. (AP) -- The Oregon Liquor Control Commission, crippled by
inadequate staffing and a soft penalties, is unable to monitor thousands of
bars and restaurants.

Even OLCC officials are frustrated by the lack of regulation of alcohol, the
Statesman-Journal newspaper reported.

When a man had 10 shots of gin at a bar, got into his car and killed Carl
Davis' wife of 27 years, the bar was never punished.

Chu's Eatery in Woodburn is still serving liquor after 44 warnings in two
years about serving to intoxicated people.

Agency chairman Philip D. Lang is so disillusioned he considered quitting.

Commissioner Ray Baum said the agency needs a tougher position in its
regulation of the 13,000 Oregon establishments that sell alcohol. But low
staffing and insignificant penalties prevent it from being an effective
watchdog.

"We continue putting little fingers in the dikes," he said.

Interviews with OLCC commissioners, staff and critics, and a review of OLCC
records, revealed these agency shortcomings:

-- Businesses that break alcohol laws are poorly monitored and are rarely
shut down.

-- The agency often gives warnings instead of issuing citations.

-- When the OLCC punishes a business for improperly dispensing alcohol, the
penalties are light.

-- The agency rarely holds a business responsible for serving someone who
later is arrested for drunken driving or causes a crash.

-- The agency brings in huge revenues by selling the very product it is
supposed to control.

-- OLCC inspectors are overwhelmed. Each inspector is assigned an average of
508 businesses to oversee. In Washington state, the average is 140.

-- OLCC inspectors spend most of their time combating sales of alcohol to
minors.

The number of liquor sellers across the state has increased by 25 percent
since 1990, but staffing hasn't followed suit. The OLCC lost 26 positions in
1993.

OLCC administrator Pamela S. Erickson said low staffing forces the
214-employee agency to focus on the biggest problems. "It's just a huge
amount of work for a small number of people to do."

The agency is asking the legislature for $1.5 million to hire 14 inspectors.

While Gov. Kitzhaber's recommended budget for 1999-2001 proposes increasing
the agency's budget by 13.5 percent, it only allows for four new positions.

"As one of the largest revenue-generating agencies in the state, it's a
shame the OLCC has to fight for every dollar it needs," said Commissioner
Robert Puentes, a restaurant owner.

The OLCC was formed in 1933, four days after the repeal of prohibition. On
one hand, it's the state's only seller of hard liquor, netting a profit of
$86 million last year.

On the other, it enforces Oregon's alcohol laws. And some say the dueling
responsibilities are inappropriate.

"You've got the weasel guarding the henhouse," said Carl Davis, on the staff
of the governor's Advisory Committee on Driving Under the Influence of
Intoxicants. His wife, Charlotte, was killed by a drunken driver five years ago.

The agency limits the number of liquor stores to 234. It supplies the
alcohol and sets prices.

Erickson says that by controlling the availability of hard alcohol and its
price, the agency lowers the rate of consumption. "There's a very strong
correlation."

The OLCC pays agents who run the state's liquor stores 8.5 percent of their
sales.

Between January 1996 and July 1998, the OLCC canceled or refused to renew
the liquor license of only 20 businesses.

The staffing problems force the OLCC to rely more heavily on bartenders and
owners to enforce liquor laws, said Sharon Daugherty, regional manager of
the OLCC's Salem office. "That's the nature of the beast here."

In 1997, the agency gave 17,000 verbal instructions. It issued only 1,268
criminal citations and "notice of violation" tickets in the same time span.

The agency notifies bars when a customer leaves the business and is in a
crash or is arrested for drunken driving. In the last two years, the OLCC
learned of more than 2,500 of those cases from local police.

Then it tells the bar where the drivers say they got their last drink. After
the first two DUII reports of a blood-alcohol level of .15 or higher in a
month, the OLCC sends the business a letter. A .15 level is nearly twice the
legal limit.

When there are five more, the OLCC sends a second letter.

Erickson is frustrated because the same businesses continue to show up in
the agency's records.

Linda Johnson, the agency's regulatory program coordinator, could only
remember one case in 12 years in which the agency successfully prosecuted a
business for overserving a customer who later caused a traffic death.

"We're often outclassed with attorney power," Erickson said. "That's pretty
tough on us."

Even strong cases don't always hold up.

On Aug. 13, 1996, a man walked into a Salem restaurant and asked for a rum
and Coke. Drunk, he fumbled with his money, and asked the bartender to take
out the amount he owed, according to records.

Later, reeling from a near-fatal .34 blood-alcohol level, he walked into
traffic and was killed by a car.

Though the OLCC cited the restaurant for serving a drunken man, the
administrative law judge didn't find that he exhibited signs of intoxication.

With limited resources, the OLCC is concentrating on putting a stop to
underage drinking.

It sends decoys to buy alcohol, and when a teen is successful, the agency
issues a citation. Nearly 90 percent of the citations the agency issues are
for sales to minors.

One in four businesses will sell to minors, a decrease from about one in
three when the agency first started the program.

Since 1979, the agency has required all alcohol servers to take an education
course. And the OLCC requires alcohol businesses maintain liability
insurance of at least $300,000.

Some other ideas being proposed to the legislature in 1999 by OLCC staff
include:

-- reducing the number of types of licenses the agency issues from 34 to
less than a dozen to reduce paperwork.

-- increasing fees for citations and licenses. Most fees haven't gone up
since the 1950s. The license fee for package stores has been $50 since 1933.

One of the OLCC's main hurdles facing the agency is getting backing from the
Legislature.

Even the decoy program has caught flak from legislators, who appointed an
oversight committee. Lawmakers had received complaints that inspectors were
targeting minority-owned and private businesses.

Peter Glazer, chairman of the governor's Advisory Committee on DUII, sees
that committee as another example of the Legislature failing to support the
OLCC.

"To have legislators saying the problem is the OLCC is being too aggressive
just shows the legislature has it all wrong," Glazer said.

(c)1998 Oregon Live LLC

Copyright 1997 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not
be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

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

Trend To Be Discerned From The 1998 Elections (Orange County Register
columnist Alan W. Bock says the mainstream media have missed most significant
political trends until they have already become well-established. Bock
suspects the media have also missed the most significant trend to be
discerned from the 1998 elections - every single ballot measure that promised
some kind of drug policy reform passed by a comfortable margin. He recommends
two ballot measures for the next election - one mandating the introduction of
federal legislation to reschedule marijuana, and another mandating a
challenge to the constitutionality of federal drug laws.)

Date: Tue, 8 Dec 1998 03:08:39 -0800
From: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org (MAPNews)
To: mapnews@mapinc.org
Subject: MN: US CA: OPED: Trend To Be Discerned From The 1998 Elections
Sender: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Reply-To: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Organization: Media Awareness Project http://www.mapinc.org/lists/
Newshawk: John W. Black
Pubdate: Mon, 7 1998
Source: Orange County Register (CA)
Contact: letters@link.freedom.com
Website: http://www.ocregister.com/
Copyright: 1998 The Orange County Register
Author: Alan W. Bock-Mr. Bock is the Register's senior editorial writer.
Note: Mr. Bock is the Register's senior editorial writer

Trend to be discerned from the 1998 elections

Journalist and author Richard Reeves, when I talked to him in the
early 1980s on a book-flogging tour, expressed fascination that the
mainstream media - presumably the people closest to important events -
during his lifetime had missed most of the significant political
trends until they were already well-established - from the beginning
of the civil rights movement to the rise of Goldwaterism to opposition
to the Vietnam was to the late-1970s tax rebellion. I suspect they
have also missed the most significant trend to be discerned from the
1998 elections.

Amid fruitless speculation on whether the midterm elections were a
referendum on Clinton, a slap to insufficiently conservative and
hapless Republicans or a new life for a previously dispirited
Democratic Party, the talking heads on election night usually found a
stray second or two to note that medical marijuana initiatives had
passed in several states. It was generally treated as a mildly amusing
resurgence of aging hippiesm, chalked up as an inexplicable anomaly
before the experts moved on to more comfortable material like the
meager distinctions between the two major parties.

Yet the results just might portend a seismic shift in the way American
voters think about drug policy. On Election Day 1998 every single
ballot measure that promised some kind of reform in our draconian and
ineffective drug laws - from limited medical use of marijuana to
decriminalization of personal, recreational marijuana use to an end to
jail time for simple possession of even "hard" drugs - passed, and
passed by comfortable margins.

These results came in the face of vehement and scornful opposition
from almost every establishment entity imaginable, form the official
federal drug warriors (often using tax money to try to influence the
elections) to an over-whelming majority of elected officials of both
major parties to three former U.S. presidents. Nor was this s
"stealth" campaign for a single initiative sneaked onto the ballot in
a single state. Voters in places as diverse as Arizona, Oregon and the
District of Columbia voted for whatever reform initiative was place
before them.

In Minnesota, Jesse Ventura, who had made a point of criticizing the
ineffectiveness of the drug war without actually calling for
legalization, won a stunning victory. In California, Dan Lungren, who
had carefully positioned himself as the staunchest of drug warriors,
was defeated soundly. None of the members of Congress who had voted
against a House resolution (clearly designed to influence voting on
medical marijuana initiatives) - declaring that medical marijuana was
a dangerous figment of wishful thinking - paid for their audacity at
the ballot box. Libertarian Republican Ron Paul of Texas, who has
called for a complete end to the drug war, won by a comfortable 55
percent.

This election showed that when it comes to the drug war, the American
people no longer trust their government or the two major parties. It
also displayed a commendable distrust of official "safety" agencies
like the Food and Drug Administration (Arizona voters, traditionally
among the most conservative in the country, rejected a legislative
softening of an initiative they had passed two years before that would
have postponed medicalization of marijuana until the FDA approved it).
And on a separate initiative, Arizona voters affirmed that they don't
want incarceration to be an option for first and second offenses for
simple possession of any drug.

To be sure, no initiative called for outright legalization off drugs.
But the voters, in the face of the usual alarmist rhetoric about how
any softening of the drug laws in the name of compassion would lead to
chaos (and congressional refusal even to count the votes in
Washington, D.C.), voted for every single reform measure. In short,
the only clear message to emerge from the 1998 election was one of
respect for freedom and personal dignity, of confidence in the
judgment of individuals and their doctors over the mandates of the
state.

All the media missed it. The drug warriors may have gotten part of the
message and responded with a stern admonition that the federal drug
laws are still in place and the uppity people - states representing 20
percent of the population now have voted for some kind of
medical-marijuana initiative - better not get too entranced by
subversive ideas about states' rights or individual choice.

Accordingly, I have a couple of suggestions for initiatives to be
placed on the ballots in other states two years hence, as they
certainly will be. Those initiatives should contain two additional
provisions:

One, the state's congressional delegation should be instructed - not
just recommended or any such evasion - to introduce and support a law
removing marijuana from Schedule I (reserved by law for drugs with
unique dangers of abuse and no known medical value, which means
keeping it there is already against federal law) at the federal level
so it can be prescribed by doctors.

Second, the attorney general of the state in question should be
instructed - or commanded, or whatever legal language is most
mandatory - to mount a legal challenge to the constitutionality of the
federal drug laws. A constitutional amendment was required to prohibit
beverage alcohol at the national level because everyone then
understood that the national government under the U.S. Constitution
didn't have the authority to do it. Why isn't an amendment required to
give the national government the power to prohibit certain other
drugs? Without such an amendment, where did the feds get the authority?

That would certainly make things interesting if, by then, we have
survived the Y2K crisis.

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

Teen Parties Today - "Cigarettes, Beer, Weed" (The San Francisco Examiner
asks, what gives with Pleasanton teens and strippers? Are the adolescents
all turning into drunken sailors, conventioneers and bachelor-party wannabes?
And what goes on at a teen party these days anyway? Teenagers surveyed
at Berkeley High and Stone Ridge Mall in Pleasanton said strippers are hardly
the usual form of party entertainment. Teenage parties today seem to be
just like they were when kids' parents were growing up. Loud music. Beer.
Some hard liquor. Some sex. Cigarette smoking. And pot.)

Date: Mon, 7 Dec 1998 20:50:55 -0800
From: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org (MAPNews)
To: mapnews@mapinc.org
Subject: MN: US CA: Teen Parties Today: "Cigarettes, Beer, Weed'
Sender: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Reply-To: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Organization: Media Awareness Project http://www.mapinc.org/lists/
Newshawk: compassion23@geocities.com (Frank S. World)
Source: San Francisco Examiner (CA)
Contact: letters@examiner.com
Website: http://www.examiner.com/
Copyright: 1998 San Francisco Examiner
Author: Marianne Costantinou OF THE EXAMINER STAFF
Pubdate: 7 Dec 1998

TEEN PARTIES TODAY: "CIGARETTES, BEER, WEED'

Teenagers can be a wild and woolly bunch.

However, the recent news that a male stripper entertained a Halloween party
of Pleasanton high school girls - perhaps at the behest of the 15-year-old
host's mother - has created a worldwide media frenzy.

As news spread of the stripper party and the less-than-demure behavior of
the girls - the stripper is accused of fondling some and even liberating
his G-string so that one could allegedly orally copulate him for $20 - word
also reached grown-ups that there were at least three other stripper
parties hosted by Pleasanton teens in the past year.

So, what gives with Pleasanton teens and strippers? Are the adolescents all
turning into drunken sailors, conventioneers and bachelor-party wannabes?
And what goes on at a teen party these days anyway?

Teenagers surveyed at Stone Ridge Mall in Pleasanton said strippers are
hardly the usual form of party entertainment.

And outside Berkeley High on Friday afternoon, just the mention of
strippers provoked groans and eye-rolls. Strippers? How tacky.

Whether in the seemingly sheltered suburb of Pleasanton or the hip town of
Berkeley, teenage parties of today seem to be just like they were when
kids' parents were growing up.

Loud music.

Beer.

Some hard liquor.

Some sex.

Cigarette smoking.

And pot.

"Basically, there's cigarettes, beer, weed," said Stefanie Alias, 16, a
junior at California High in San Ramon.

And just as their parents probably did at their age, most teens almost
never confess to their parents what occurs at parties.

"Pleasanton parents have no idea what's going on," said an 18-year-old who
would give his name only as Chuck.

Hoping to avoid a hassle from their parents, most Pleasanton teenagers
queried and about 50 percent of their Berkeley counterparts don't even tell
their parents that they're going to a party.

They lie. They say they're going to a movie. To a friend's house. Bowling.
A sleep-over at a pal's.

And when they do confess to attending the parties, the details are often
far from the truth.

They always tell their parents that the host's parents supervised the party
- even when, more often than not, the host's parents weren't home. And they
almost never 'fess up to anything that will alarm their parents, like
drinking.

Abercombie, 18, a high school graduate, tells his folks that "hot dogs and
potato chips" were served at the party, repeating the menu of his parties
of yesteryear, when he was a little kid.

But some do tell their parents what's going on. Talk is especially big in
Berkeley.

Megan Gordon, 17, a Berkeley senior, long ago decided to be up-front with
her parents. She said they know that drinking is an inescapable ingredient
of parties. They've talked about it, and trust her not to go overboard.

Beer is always around at parties, even with kids as young as 13 and 14.

"It's not a party without beer," said Hank, 17, a student at Village High
in Pleasanton.

Beer is usually served in kegs in Pleasanton, in cans and bottles in Berkeley.

Sometimes there is hard liquor at parties, too. Jock parties - especially
crew parties - are notorious, said Megan.

At liquor parties, it's BYOB. Vodka is the drink of choice.

A lot of the kids smoke pot at parties, too. In Pleasanton, kids will pass
around a bong. In Berkeley, kids smoke joints.

Hard drugs are pretty rare at Pleasanton parties. One 18-year-old who went
into drug recovery said he was a closet crack user because hard drugs were
looked down on at Amador High.

Also sure to bring some relief to parents: Although some of the wilder
parties have kids disappearing into bedrooms and bathrooms upstairs,
drunken sex is not as common as parents might think.

Although parents are not usually home when their kid is throwing a party,
parents who choose to stay home know enough to stay upstairs, out of sight.

These parents are known as the "cool parents." They know what the kids are
up to, but don't interfere.

Besides, several kids added, even if the parents wanted to stop some
activity, by the time they've noticed it, it's too widespread to halt -
short of ending the party and humiliating their sons or daughters. Most
house parties have 20, 30, 40 kids, even more.

"There's not a lot they can do," said Beth Fingerman, 15, a Berkeley
freshman. "There's too many kids to stop it." Besides, many parents know
their kids are going to drink or smoke pot anyway. At least in a party in
their own house, said Chris Splet, 17, a Berkeley senior, they know it
won't get too out of hand.

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

Belpre Community Upset By Fatal Raid (A United Press International article
in The Columbus Dispatch says a controversy has erupted in southeast Ohio
concerning a marijuana raid in which law enforcement officers shot a man
eight times. Delbert Bonar's family contends the dead man was unarmed.
Sheriff's deputies say the family is lying. They found a small amount
of the illegal weed, enough for personal consumption.)

Date: Mon, 7 Dec 1998 21:35:24 -0800
From: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org (MAPNews)
To: mapnews@mapinc.org
Subject: MN: US OH: Belpre Community Upset By Fatal Raid
Sender: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Reply-To: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Organization: Media Awareness Project http://www.mapinc.org/lists/
Newshawk: General Pulaski
Pubdate: Mon, 07 Dec 1998
Source: Columbus Dispatch (OH)
Contact: letters@dispatch.com
Website: http://www.dispatch.com/
Copyright: 1998, The Columbus Dispatch
Author: UPI

BELPRE COMMUNITY UPSET BY FATAL RAID

BELPRE, Ohio, Dec. 7 (UPI) - A controversy has erupted in southeast Ohio
concerning a marijuana drug raid in which law enforcement officers shot a
man eight times.

A public hearing was scheduled today in Belpre to allow citizens to question
Washington County officials about the death of Delbert Bonar.

The victim's family contends Bonar was unarmed when he was shot. Sheriff's
deputies say the family is lying and the 57-year-old man had refused to put
down an unloaded shotgun during the October incident.

Bonar's daughter-in-law, Carolyn Bonar, told the Columbus Dispatch Delbert
Bonar was putting down a water bottle and reaching for the telephone when he
was shot.

Sheriff Robert Schlicher told the newspaper Carolyn Bonar is lying. He said
Bonar confronted Sgt. William Wilson and Capt. Chris Forshey and they
protected themselves. ``This is something none of us feels good about but
there isn't much more you can expect a law enforcement officer to do.''

The deputies had a search warrant when they raided the Bonar home at 9 p.m.
Oct. 15. They suspected Bonar's son, Albert, was growing and selling
marijuana. They found a small amount of the illegal weed, enough for
personal consumption. Albert Bonar has not been charged with a crime.

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

3 Detroit Police Officers Wounded In Ambush (The Chicago Tribune
says three cops were wounded early Sunday, two of them critically,
while the officers were investigating the kidnapping of a woman
and her child, an abduction that appeared to be connected to "drugs.")

Date: Wed, 9 Dec 1998 15:15:48 -0800
From: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org (MAPNews)
To: mapnews@mapinc.org
Subject: MN: US MI: 3 Detroit Police Officers Wounded In Ambush
Sender: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Reply-To: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Organization: Media Awareness Project http://www.mapinc.org/lists/
Newshawk: Steve Young
Pubdate: 7 Dec 1998
Source: Chicago Tribune (IL)
Section: Sec. 1
Copyright: 1998 Chicago Tribune Company
Contact: tribletter@aol.com
Website: http://www.chicagotribune.com/

3 DETROIT POLICE OFFICERS WOUNDED IN AMBUSH

DETROIT, MICHIGAN -- Two men surrendered Sunday for questioning about
an ambush on police cars that wounded three officers, two of them
critically. An uninjured officer said the gunfire was so heavy that
the impact of bullets shook the car he was in.

The attack began early Sunday while the officers were investigating
the kidnapping of a woman and her child, an abduction that appeared to
be connected to drugs, Police Chief Benny Napoleon said.

No warrants had been issued for the two men who turned themselves in,
and police wouldn't characterize the nature of the questioning.

During a chase, two police vehicles were struck by shots fired through
a van's rear window by what appeared to be a "high-power, assault-type
weapon," Napoleon said.

Officer Shawn Bandy, 23, was on life support and in very critical
condition. Officer Lloyd Todd underwent surgery and also was in
critical condition.

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

Calculated Abuses - Win At All Costs series (The eighth part
of The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette's 10-part series about its two-year
investigation showing that federal agents and prosecutors break the law
routinely. Federal prosecutors frequently rely on promises of leniency
when they use criminals to snare other criminals, but the government's word
isn't necessarily its bond. Deceived into thinking her brother was dying,
Mary Ann Rounsavall testified against him, resulting in James Rounsavall
being sentenced to life in prison. In return, Mary Ann Rounsavall had been
promised about eight years. But the prosecutors in her case reneged on their
pledge. They made no request that her sentence be reduced based on her
cooperation, and the judge had no choice under federal mandatory sentencing
guidelines but to give her a 20-year sentence based on her own confession.)

Date: Tue, 8 Dec 1998 17:45:25 -0800
From: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org (MAPNews)
To: mapnews@mapinc.org
Subject: MN: US: Calculated Abuses - Win At All Costs series
Sender: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Reply-To: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Organization: Media Awareness Project http://www.mapinc.org/lists/
Newshawk: Nora Callahan http://www.november.org/
Source: Pittsburgh Post-Gazette (PA)
Copyright: 1998 PG Publishing
Pubdate: Mon, 7 Dec 1998
Contact: letters@post-gazette.com
Website: http://www.post-gazette.com/
Author: Bill Moushey, Post-Gazette Staff Writer
Note: This is the eighth of a 10 part series, "Win At All Costs" being
published in the Post-Gazette. The part is composed of five items (posted
separately). The series is also being printed in The Blade, Toledo, OH
email: letters@theblade.com

CALCULATED ABUSES

With Their Backs Against The Wall, Prosecutors Bring Out Their Dirtiest Tricks

Federal prosecutors frequently rely on promises of leniency when they use
criminals to snare other criminals, but the government's word isn't
necessarily its bond.

In 1990, Mary Ann Rounsavall pleaded guilty to helping her brother deal
drugs and was sentenced to five years in prison. Then in 1994, as she
awaited her release from prison, prosecutors brought new charges against
her in connection with the same drug ring that the government said her
brother James was still operating.

She and her brother were charged with bringing millions of dollars worth of
drugs from Southern California to Nebraska and laundering the proceeds of
the drug sales. She was even accused of selling drugs over the telephone
while she was locked up.

But the government's case was thin.

A judge declared two mistrials based on prejudicial testimony by government
witnesses. So prosecutors pressed Mary Ann Rounsavall to snitch on her
brother in exchange for a lenient sentence for herself.

She refused.

Prosecutors told her they might go after other members of her family unless
she testified.

She still refused.

Then they arranged for her to see her brother, who had been taken from the
prison where they both were being held and placed in a hospital intensive
care unit, suffering from viral pneumonia and a recurrence of his
rheumatoid arthritis. They told her he did not have long to live, and his
grave condition at the hospital gave credence to their claims.

Mary Ann Rounsavall talked to her mother, Gladys Rounsavall. She told Mary
Ann it would be best to testify against James. If he was dying, then Gladys
would at least know her daughter wouldn't risk a long prison term.

So Mary Ann Rounsavall testified. Her statements sent James Rounsavall to
prison for life. In return, Mary Ann Rounsavall had been promised about
eight years.

But the prosecutors in her case reneged on their pledge. They made no
request that her sentence be reduced based on her cooperation, and the
judge had no choice under federal mandatory sentencing guidelines but to
give her a 20-year sentence based on her own confession.

U.S. District Judge Richard Kopf, a hard-liner in drug cases, denounced the
prosecutor for failing to live up to his promise. He called the action
"horribly wrong."

Mary Ann Rounsavall also learned that her brother was healthy -- he isn't
dying at all. She was tricked.

Disregarding Ethics

The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette's two-year investigation found hundreds of
cases in which federal agents and prosecutors violated rules and laws to
make cases.

Some incidents went beyond treading across the line of ethical or legal
guidelines. These cases involved actions where the abuse of power was
cynically calculated to inflict harm well beyond the limits of the law.

Marvin Miller, ethics committee chairman for the National Association of
Criminal Defense Lawyers, admits he is a harsh critic of federal
prosecutors and their actions.He said there is no question prosecutors over
the past decade have increasingly subscribed to an anything-goes mentality,
often pushing the limits of the law to the point that their conduct becomes
unethical.

"These guys are unconcerned about misconduct," he said.

Thomas Dillard, a former U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Florida
and currently a criminal defense lawyer in Knoxville, Tenn., said
prosecutors have free rein in such matters because the power judges once
wielded to mitigate their conduct has been taken away.

"They don't have any authority in the charging, they have no authority in
the sentencing," Dillard said. They have really no way of checks and
balances like there used to be.

"We've slowly conceded any oversight of federal prosecutions. There is
nobody who is in charge that has any oversight. It's been slow in coming
and gradual in its appearance, but by golly, it's here now."

Arnold I. Burns, deputy attorney general under President Reagan, said the
problem is not with the majority of federal prosecutors, but with an
overzealous fringe element.

"Every so often, you wind up with [a federal prosecutor] who is some sort
of a crazy zealot, no background, no experience, no frame of reference,
uncontrolled, unfettered, very dangerous, particularly with the sentencing
guidelines," he said. "With them, the prosecutor has more and more power.
In fact, he has all the power."

Piling It On

Another variation of sentencing misconduct is called sentencing entrapment
- one of the most insidious forms of misconduct found in this investigation.

Sentencing guidelines approved by Congress in 1987 require a specific
penalty for every federal crime. Judges can't consider most extenuating
circumstances -- a provision set up so defense attorneys can't shop for
lenient judges.

A person's sentence -- and prison time -- is determined by the charge
brought by agents and prosecutors. They can easily manipulate those
charges, especially in drug cases, where the amount of illegal substances
sold is translated into the amount of prison time a convict faces.

For example, in 1992, Lorenzo Naranjo was sentenced to 10 years in prison
for buying 5 kilograms of cocaine from a government informant in the San
Francisco Bay area.

The informant had pressured Naranjo for months about a drug deal and was
turned down. Naranjo finally agreed to buy some cocaine, but not nearly
enough to suit DEA agents, who told their informant to badger Naranjo to
buy more, according to an opinion rendered by the 9th U.S. Court of Appeals.

The informant finally succeeded, effectively doubling Naranjo's prison
sentence.

Martin Parrilla of Butte, Mont., was also a small-time dealer who agreed to
sell a government informant less than $200 worth of cocaine in 1996.

Agents for the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms told the
informant to set up another deal and offer Parrilla a handgun in exchange
for cocaine. That would also hook him on a federal firearms charge.
Parrilla agreed to the deal, and was arrested on both federal drug and
firearms charges.

He agreed to plead guilty after federal agents dropped the firearms charge.
But his pre-sentence report showed a gun was involved in the deal, even
though Parrilla argued it was the result of entrapment. A judge said his
hands were tied and doubled Parrilla's sentence, as required by federal
guidelines.

Both Naranjo and Parrilla were lucky. Appeals courts agreed they'd been
entrapped, and cut their sentences. That doesn't always happen.

In 1992, John Behler, a 49-year-old Vietnam veteran who lived in Dunbar,
Neb., was sentenced to 19 years in federal prison for supervising a drug
conspiracy in which he was the only person to go to prison.

He'd never been charged with a crime before.

According to the government, for three years Behler had traveled to
Colorado, where he bought methamphetamine, which he then brought back to
Nebraska and sold.

Behler admitted frequently buying the drug in Colorado. But he said he used
it himself. And 400 taped conversations made by federal agents on Behler's
phone disclosed only one instance where he sold the drug, providing a small
amount to a friend of his wife.

When Behler was arrested, he was carrying less than one-half of a gram of
methamphetamine. Based on that amount alone, Behler would have faced only
minor drug charges.

But federal prosecutors found two former girlfriends to testify against
him. One had been arrested on drug charges herself, and received leniency
for testifying against Behler, though she denied any such deal in court.
Prosecutors are supposed to correct such lies, but did not in this case.
The other girlfriend said she testified because he repeatedly threatened
her. Both said he'd sold the drugs he'd bought in Colorado.

Agents found no drugs in his house when he was arrested, only $200 in cash,
and no other assets to suggest he was a drug kingpin. Yet the testimony of
his two former girlfriends prevailed.

But prosecutors had only gotten started.

The government arbitrarily decided Behler had transported one ounce of
methamphetamine on every trip he made to Colorado -- 14 ounces total. Under
the sentencing enhancement provisions of mandatory federal sentencing
guidelines, that ensured Behler a sentence of at least 10 years.
Prosecutors then used the wrong guidelines to add four more years based on
the drug's purity -- a mistake the judge in the case failed to catch.

Behler didn't have a gun when he was arrested, but his former girlfriends
testified that he used to carry one. So prosecutors added a weapons
possession charge, which added another five years to his sentence.

Then they added more time for intimidating a witness, even though the
testimony of the witness who claimed intimidation had been impeached in court.

Had Behler faced state charges, he might have gotten probation.

Had he been sentenced for bringing in 14 ounces of methamphetamine, he
would have gotten five years in prison.

But because of the manipulation of mandatory sentencing guidelines by
prosecutors, he ended up being sentenced to 19 years as a drug supervisor.

An appeal he filed in prison had some success -- a judge agreed to cut 7
1/2 years from his sentence based on the government's arbitrary
determination of the purity of the drugs he'd purchased. He has filed other
appeals on what he considers other sentencing guideline errors, as well as
discovery violations and perjury.

Behler worked as a welder and a bouncer before he was arrested. He admitted
he used lots of drugs.

But by no stretch of the imagination could he have been considered the
kingpin of a drug conspiracy.

If there were a drug conspiracy, he said, "wouldn't it look good if you had
two people in jail, instead of one guy getting 19 years?"

Helping Him 'Jump'

In the fifth part of this series, the Post-Gazette reported on a scam by
prisoners called "jumping on the bus," in which inmates buy inside
information about a crime they had no part in, often purchasing it from
government informants. They memorize it and offer to testify against people
charged with the crime. In return, prosecutors promise to cut their sentences.

John Pree's ticket to freedom went beyond that. He said federal agents
approached him and asked him to lie to help win indictments against more
than a dozen reputed Detroit-area gangsters. The agents promised to provide
the information he'd need.

Federal agents had long sought to put Vito Giacalone, boss of the Detroit
organized crime family, and several of his accomplices behind bars.

Pree was a long-time criminal facing a life sentence after being arrested
following his armed robbery of a home in 1992. Federal agents told him they
could make that sentence disappear.

In court filings, here's how Pree described the deal: Federal agents
provided him information about a number of crimes, including the torture
and murder of Detroit gangster Peter Cavataio. Pree would plead guilty to
these crimes, testifying that he'd been acting on the orders of Giacalone
and his associates, who would face life sentences.

In exchange, the life sentence Pree was facing for the armed robbery and
being a career offender would be dropped, he'd be sentenced to 20 years for
the murder he didn't commit, then federal agents would quietly arrange for
that 20-year sentence to be reduced to less than a decade behind bars.

Pree said they also promised him a new identity and cash to begin his life
anew.

Pree said he agreed to the deal, even though he'd never met Giacalone.
"[Federal agents] would bring me police reports to read, photographs, then
their rendition of things that happened," he said in a recent telephone
interview.

Pree told the fabricated testimony of the Cavataio murder to a grand jury,
and more. Yes, he'd burned down Giacalone's girlfriend's house in suburban
Detroit so Giacalone could collect the insurance, he told the grand jurors.
There were mob-ordered fire bombings, hidden business interests in
brothels, intimidation of witnesses, political corruption and more, Pree
testified.

There were a few hitches. He testified that he'd murdered the gangster in
1986, when the killing actually occurred in 1985. And he failed when asked
to pick his victim out of a photo lineup.

"That's because I didn't know him," Pree said from prison.

Pree said he repeatedly failed a polygraph test before testifying.

Nonetheless, Pree's grand jury testimony in March 1997 helped indict 17
suspected mobsters in the federal government's largest crackdown of
organized crime figures in Michigan.

Agents placed Pree in the federal witness protection program and sent him
to a prison in Minnesota to await his call to testify at the trials of
Giacalone and others.

Pree said he soon began to get nervous about the deal. There was no word on
the promise to cut his prison time. Several of the men he'd testified
against had agreed to plea bargains, so his testimony wouldn't be needed at
trial. And if the federal prosecutors didn't fulfill their part of the
deal, he feared he might be sentenced to life in prison for a murder he
didn't commit. And aside from that, he had found some things in his armed
robbery conviction that he believed might help him get the verdict reversed
on appeal.

His misgivings intensified after federal agents stopped responding to his
calls and letters.

So in 1997, he withdrew his guilty plea in the murder.

He told the court he'd lied in linking crimes to Giacalone and underlings.
He said his FBI contacts had cautioned him to keep that information to
himself.

Even though he still faced life in prison on the home invasion charge, Pree
said in an interview that the charade had worn on him. "I'm not going to
lie for these guys [federal agents] anymore."

Without Pree's testimony, two suspects he'd implicated were acquitted,
while others were convicted after prosecutors were able to convince another
gangster to become a government witness. Giacalone, who was facing life in
prison based on Pree's statements, agreed to a 6 1/2-year sentence in
exchange for pleading guilty to one charge of conspiracy.

As for Pree, he has appealed his conviction on the armed robbery charge.
And after withdrawing his guilty plea in Cavataio's slaying, federal
prosecutors quietly dropped murder charges against him.

Keith Corbett, chief of the organized crime and racketeering section for
the U.S. Attorney's Office in the Eastern District of Michigan,
characterized Pree as an admitted perjurer and said the government has
contested each issue Pree has broached.

As for his planned testimony, Corbett said, "We would not have attempted to
use Mr. Pree as a witness unless we believed what he was telling us."

Corbett said all of the matters regarding Pree are still under review.

Pree has been removed from the witness program and is now imprisoned in
Michigan.

Jury Disregarded

Sometimes prosecutors won't take no for an answer. Even when the no comes
from a jury.

Federal agents in South Florida said Sal Magluta was the largest cocaine
supplier they'd ever caught when they heralded his arrest and that of his
partner, Willy Falcon, in 1991.

They were in prison for 52 months before their trial finally got under way.

In February 1996, Magluta and Falcon were acquitted on all counts.

Defense attorneys were able to show that virtually every witness called to
testify against them was lying or had been given freedom in exchange for
their testimony. Jurors said afterward the testimony was not believable.

Prosecutors weren't ready to give up, though.

Only a few days after his acquittal, they released information to the media
showing Magluta and Falcon had attempted to negotiate a plea agreement in
which they would plead guilty and turn over to the U.S. government vast
quantities of cash, real property and cocaine in exchange for a lesser
sentence.

Such negotiations are supposed to be confidential.

Then, only three weeks later, the government indicted Magluta with yet
another crime -- perjury -- based on a statement he had made before he was
indicted on the drug charges.

Magluta's attorneys were outraged. Their client had been acquitted and now
federal prosecutors were trying to find another way to put him in prison.

"The best evidence of actual prosecutorial vindictiveness is the release of
information about the negotiations for a plea agreement in direct
contravention to (federal court rules and their) requirement of
confidentiality," wrote attorney Roy Black. "The only purpose for
disclosing this information was to prejudice Magluta in the eyes of the
public. The disclosure would stand as justification for the government
continuing to seek indictments against him."

Among the points made in their appeal: The 52 months Magluta had been
imprisoned awaiting his first trial would cover any penalty that might be
imposed on the perjury charges, which stemmed from statements he'd
supposedly made 6 1/2 years earlier.

Magluta's attorneys also argued the government was simply trying to re-try
a case it had lost.

Magluta remains in prison, awaiting action from an appeals court. It has
been almost seven years since his initial arrest. He has yet to be
convicted of even one crime.

Last summer, his problems got worse. The foreman of the jury that found
Magluta not guilty was charged with accepting a $500,000 bribe to fix the
case. That case is still pending.

Bowing To Pressure

Mary Ann Rounsavall has filed an appeal seeking a reduced sentence based on
the government's promises to her. In addition to accusing the government of
breaking its promise, the appeal also says some of the testimony she gave
in her brother's case was provided by federal agents.

During a telephone interview, she described how she finally relented to
government pressure and agreed to testify against her brother.

She remembers the fateful meeting with Assistant U.S. Attorney Bruce Gillen
after weeks of negotiations about whether she would tell on her brother.
Gillen didn't respond to a Post-Gazette request for comment.

"I said, 'If I sign this plea agreement, how much time am I going to do?'
Bruce Gillen told me seven to 10 years. At the time, I was so upset with
everything that I just said yes," she said.

At a hearing in October, the government argued she had not fully cooperated
in return for leniency, an argument her sentencing judge had earlier rejected.

During the course of her research into the appeal, Rounsavall said she
found another case where the same U.S. Attorney's office did not fulfill
promises it made on a deal. In that case, Roderick Pipes and LaSalle N.
Waldrip, two Nebraska men caught in a cocaine case, had cooperated with the
government.

In September 1997, the 8th U.S. Court of Appeals reversed the sentences
they received after the government refused to give them reduced prison
time. In that case, Nebraska agents said the two men had been forthright in
their assistance, while agents in Oklahoma said they had not.

The re-sentencing of the two men has not been resolved.

As for Rounsavall, on Friday a judge granted her motion to compel the
government to abide by its agreement. She will be resentenced Jan. 6.

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

German Criminal Finds A Lucrative Life As Federal Informant
(The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette continues its 10-part series about its two-year
investigation showing that federal agents and prosecutors routinely break the
law. When Helmut Groebe, a German citizen, offered his services as an
informant to the US government in 1989, he was wanted in four countries for
crimes ranging from fraud to drug smuggling to arranging a South American
jail break. The DEA signed him up. Despite a criminal history that would bar
his legal immigration, the DEA offered him permanent residency in the United
States, turned him loose with little supervision, promised to pay him more
than $600,000, then ensured that charges against the people he entrapped
would stick by unlawfully withholding from defense attorneys information
about Groebe's criminal background and government payoffs.)

Date: Tue, 8 Dec 1998 18:14:30 -0800
From: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org (MAPNews)
To: mapnews@mapinc.org
Subject: MN: US: German Criminal Finds A Lucrative Life As Federal Informant
Sender: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Reply-To: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Organization: Media Awareness Project http://www.mapinc.org/lists/
Newshawk: Nora Callahan http://www.november.org/
Source: Pittsburgh Post-Gazette (PA)
Copyright: 1998 PG Publishing
Pubdate: Mon, 7 Dec 1998
Contact: letters@post-gazette.com
Website: http://www.post-gazette.com/
Author: Bill Moushey, Post-Gazette Staff Writer
Note: This is the eighth of a 10 part series, "Win At All Costs" being
published in the Post-Gazette. The part is composed of five items (posted
separately). The series is also being printed in The Blade, Toledo, OH
email: letters@theblade.com

GERMAN CRIMINAL FINDS A LUCRATIVE LIFE AS FEDERAL INFORMANT

Helmut Groebe's History Of Fraud Ignored As He Traps People For Cash

Helmut Groebe destroyed the people he professed to love.

He defrauded one young woman he took as his wife after a whirlwind romance.
At least three other times he convinced women that his love was genuine
before draining their bank accounts. He lured one of them into a
money-laundering sting that sent her to prison for 38 months. The U.S.
government paid him for that service.

Groebe even set up his daughter and her husband in a new business, then
arranged to steal their company's assets, leaving them at the mercy of
creditors.

When Groebe -- a German citizen -- offered his services to the U.S.
government in 1989, he was wanted in four countries for crimes ranging from
fraud to drug smuggling to arranging a South American jail break. It was
apparent this good-looking former professional bicyclist could talk just
about anyone into doing just about anything.

Groebe told federal agents he'd been an undercover informant in Germany for
years and could help the government catch major drug traffickers and money
launderers. The U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration signed him up.

But it soon became apparent Groebe didn't care if the people he went after
were major criminals, or even criminals at all. The U.S. agents he worked
for didn't seem to care, either.

Abusing The System

Federal agents must sometimes use criminals to help trap other criminals.
But consider their offer to Groebe: Despite a criminal history that would
bar his legal immigration, they offered him permanent residency in the
United States, turned him loose with little supervision, promised to pay
him more than $600,000, then ensured that charges against the people he
entrapped would stick by unlawfully withholding from defense attorneys
information about Groebe's criminal background and government payoffs.

"Do you have to put yourself in league with the devil for some higher
good?" asked Mike Levine, who served as an agent and supervisor with the
DEA for 25 years and now lives in upstate New York. "I think the net
balance is we lose."

Levine knows the pain of drugs. His brother committed suicide after
suffering from heroin addiction for 25 years. His son, a highly decorated
New York City police officer, was killed by crack addicts during a holdup.

But agents who come to believe the end justifies the means -- who believe
they are entitled to do whatever it takes to remove criminals from the
streets -- simply succeed in perverting the system they are sworn to
uphold, he said.

Gary McDaniel, a private investigator in West Palm Beach, Fla., knew he'd
stumbled onto something terribly wrong when an imprisoned client asked him
to see what he could find out about Groebe.

Tracking down Groebe's tangled criminal past required four years and trips
to several countries. McDaniel offered to share his findings with the
government. He met once with a federal agent, then got no further response
to several letters and sworn statements he provided.

"That is the most frightening thing about all of this," McDaniel said. "Not
only are (federal law enforcement officers) doing nothing with the offers
I've made concerning this evidence, but they have yet to disclose specific
information to the defendants" that Groebe helped snare and put in prison.

A Veteran Criminal

According to court records, Groebe's career as a criminal began in 1968,
when as a 23-year-old he was implicated in his father's escape from a West
German jail.

Groebe, now 53, was already well known as a professional cyclist in his
native country. Soon his name began turning up in police and court documents.

His first fraud involved an advertising company he'd started that won a
contract to print flyers for the German government. Rather than distribute
them, he sold them for recycling and kept the money.

After that, he talked a wealthy German widow to whom he'd proposed
marriage, and a doctor he'd known for years, into investing hundreds of
thousands of dollars in an athletic center that they later learned he
didn't own.

Some of his crimes resulted in brief prison stints. But he usually was
released early because, according to court documents, he'd become a paid
informant for the BKA, West Germany's equivalent of the FBI. Once, he even
escaped from prison.

In 1984, Groebe slipped out of West Germany to Rio De Janeiro, Brazil, but
he would fly between South America and Europe and occasionally the United
States up to six times a year.

It was in Brazil that he set up a scam on his 20-year-old daughter, whom he
hadn't seen in 18 years. He invited her and her new husband to come to
Brazil for their honeymoon. Groebe had learned his new son-in-law was an
accountant with wealthy clients who had money to invest. Groebe suggested a
business deal to the newlyweds.

They would buy dental supplies from Germany, then export them to a
Brazilian firm in which Groebe was a partner. They liked the idea, borrowed
more than $100,000 from one of the son-in-law's clients and, in August
1988, had the products shipped to Brazil.

Groebe claimed nothing ever arrived. His daughter eventually filed theft
charges against him in Germany and learned that the investor who had loaned
money for the venture had been contacted by Groebe, who offered to pay off
the loan in illegal drugs. The investor refused.

Groebe's daughter and son-in-law lost everything and soon were divorced.
The criminal complaint and arrest warrant were allowed to lapse.

Sign Him Up

Despite the outstanding warrants against him, Groebe returned to Germany
frequently in 1989 without ever being arrested. During that period, private
investigator McDaniel learned later, Groebe went to work as an undercover
operative for the U.S. government, first in Hawaii, then with the DEA in
South America. Groebe and Lee Lucas, a then-23-year-old special agent with
the DEA, traveled to Brazil, Peru, Colombia and Bolivia in their attempts
to make cases against drug traffickers.

This new association didn't deter Groebe's career in crime. In 1990, he was
accused of swindling the wife of a bank robber.

Hermann Sterr was a fellow German on the run in Brazil who faced charges
back home of hiding more than $400,000 he'd stolen from banks in Germany
and Austria.

Groebe immediately contacted German undercover officers so he'd get credit
for Sterr's arrest. Then he sold Sterr a false passport and helped him
escape to Peru -- knowing he'd be captured at the border. That's exactly
what happened.

Groebe then told Sterr's wife that for $20,000, he could arrange for
Sterr's escape from a Peruvian jail. She made the payment. Groebe then
bribed a Peruvian police officer, who allowed Sterr to slip away in a
waiting car.

Last year, a woman who had also helped arrange Sterr's breakout reported to
Peruvian officials that she was abducted, beaten and threatened with death
if she did not keep quiet about the entire episode. Peruvian police
eventually arrested three men outside her home, according to reports
secured by McDaniel. The police reports said the men -- all equipped with
high-powered weapons -- said they were working for Groebe. That case has
yet to be resolved.

After several months on the run, Sterr was finally nabbed by German
officials. He blamed his capture on Groebe.

Later in 1990, Groebe moved to South Florida, purchased a house, and soon
opened a Bavarian-styled beer garden in Miami Beach, while continuing his
undercover work for the DEA. To help, Groebe outfitted one table at the
strip plaza restaurant with electronic surveillance equipment so that
Groebe could record everything anyone said.

Faustino Rico Toro

Helmut Groebe provided information that led to the arrest and conviction of
Bolivian official Faustino Rico Toro, above. He hired a private
investigator to look into Groebe's background, a probe that revealed a long
criminal history. The information helped Rico Toro win his freedom from
prison. Groebe had promised federal agents early on that he could deliver
Faustino Rico Toro, a Bolivian government official in charge of leading
that country's anti-drug efforts. In 1991, it looked as though he'd succeeded.

Rico Toro was leaving an afternoon mass at his church when Bolivian police
arrested him on an extradition request from the United States. It accused
him of being involved in a major cocaine trafficking ring.

Rico Toro had long been a controversial figure in the Bolivian military,
accused by opponents of everything from human rights violations to aiding
drug smugglers. When he agreed in 1989 to lead his country's battle against
drugs, he knew more accusations would fly and that he'd face pressure from
the United States.

The Bolivian government initially refused to extradite him, but seven
months later, Rico Toro voluntarily agreed to travel to the United States
to face charges that he was sure would be dropped when the facts became clear.

At the Federal Detention Center in Miami, Rico Toro's attorneys told him
that federal prosecutors had linked him to drug deals on more than 500
audio tapes and 14 videotapes.

His chief accuser, Rico Toro learned, was a man he'd never met.

His name was Groebe.

In addition, federal prosecutors claimed four co-conspirators were prepared
to testify about Rico Toro's role as a protector of drug kingpins.

Rico Toro was baffled as to how he could be implicated on tapes for crimes
he knew he did not commit. And he wondered where the government had come up
with the witnesses.

There was, in fact, no physical evidence of drugs. Rico Toro had never been
caught with drugs, nor were any seized when Bolivian officials conducted
raids on his home. They found no hidden assets that might point to profits
he'd earned as a drug kingpin. The costs of fighting the case, in fact,
would eventually leave him broke.

Rico Toro demanded an investigation in his native Bolivia and wanted a
quick trial in this country. But it would be several years before his trial
was finally scheduled, and by then the case had grown more and more curious.

Rico Toro had hired McDaniel, who learned Groebe had promised each of the
four co-conspirators $20,000 if they would connect Rico Toro to drug couriers.

During the discovery process, McDaniel examined the hundreds of tapes the
government said would implicate Rico Toro and found Rico Toro was in none
of them. Groebe would later say in statements to the DEA that he met with
Rico Toro, but did not wear a recording device because he feared for his
safety if he did.

Then, as the trial drew near, the four co-conspirators signed sworn
affidavits saying they refused to cave into pressure from American agents
to implicate Rico Toro in drug trafficking.

Through McDaniel, Rico Toro learned that Groebe had been paid a total of
more than $400,000 by the U.S. government (that amount would eventually
exceed $600,000, including expenses) to help it make cases.

McDaniel also learned that the federal government had been contacted by one
of Groebe's jilted lovers, who said Groebe had been committing crimes at
the same time he was working for German and American law enforcement
agencies. U.S. prosecutors never produced any of that information about its
prized informer for defense lawyers, which is required under federal
discovery laws.

But when defense attorneys began revealing their knowledge of Groebe and
his tactics, prosecutors began talking about a plea bargain. Although Rico
Toro faced several life sentences on the charges the government had
brought, prosecutors allowed him to plead guilty to a minor drug charge and
sentenced him to a few additional months of jail time.

Rico Toro said he accepted the deal not because he was guilty, but because
he did not want to risk fighting the charges in a system of justice he
could not trust.

Politicians in his own country, who had often chastised him in the past,
had also cleared him of wrong-doing. A report by the Bolivian Commission
for Constitution, Justice and Judicial Police in October 1991 found "there
is no evidence for the guilt of Faustino Rico Toro."

After nearly five years in prison, Rico Toro flew home on Nov. 26, 1996.

Elena Abuawad

Elena Abuawad, a pharmacist, lived in Brazil with Groebe in 1989 and was
unaware her lover was an informant for the DEA.

Abuawad was a widow who confessed to becoming infatuated with the tall,
sweet-talking German. She loaned him more than $60,000 for what she thought
were business deals. She became worried about her money when she learned
Groebe was seeing another woman, but her concerns eased when Groebe
proposed marriage.

Abuawad had been trying to sell a condominium she owned in Rio and Groebe
told her he'd found an Italian buyer. The commission he'd earn on the sale,
he told her, would be enough to help him pay back the money he owed her.
The deal would close in Miami, and prior to the sale, Groebe cautioned
Abuawad to go along with the buyer's request that the deal be in cash and
that the details of the transaction be kept secret.

Groebe was an international businessman, so Abuawad was used to his
occasional intrigues. She had suspected some of his deals involved drugs.
But he had never put her at risk, and she said later she could not believe
he ever would.

There was no real buyer, however. The man she met was DEA Special Agent
Lucas, working undercover. Other undercover agents were also present.

Lucas mentioned the cash he was using came from illegal drug deals and
asked Abuawad specific questions about laundering money. Her answers, she
later said, came from the schooling she'd received from Groebe on the way
to the closing.

As they left the meeting with cash in hand, Abuawad complained to Groebe
that he had never told her the buyer was a drug dealer. Moments later, she
was arrested and charged with money laundering.

Because she'd made up a story during the deal about how her son might be
able to help her in the endeavor, DEA agents also threatened to indict him,
Abuawad said, unless she pleaded guilty. So she got 38 months in prison.
She never saw Groebe again.

Abuawad had no criminal record. No drug smugglers or gangsters had tried to
launder the money. The only participants in this sting were federal agents.
And they were prodded into the deal by an informant who'd set up his
fiance. In fact, by then he'd found a new lover.

Wolfgang von Schlieffen

Wolfgang von Schlieffen came to America in 1990 with money to invest. He
did well.

He leveraged his loan from a German bank into real estate, construction,
property management and import/export businesses in the Miami area -- and
enjoyed the fruits of his labor. He owned a yacht and several expensive
cars, including a Rolls Royce.

"Everything I touched turned to gold," he said during an interview at a
federal prison in Seagoville, Texas, last January. "It was a challenge to
me. I wanted to accomplish the American Dream. I was so close."

Von Schlieffen, a divorced father of four, had never had been arrested.
Then, on April 5, 1993, he met Groebe. They hit it off immediately -- both
came from the same hometown in Germany. They knew some of the same people.
They shared an interest in new enterprises. Soon, they were talking about
condominiums and von Schlieffen's cars -- a couple of which he wanted to sell.

A few days later, Groebe told von Schlieffen he knew someone who might be
interested in buying both the cars and condominiums. They agreed to meet
and show the cars to the prospective buyers.

"He was absolutely convincing, everything he said was precise. He was
definitely a professional liar," von Schlieffen said in a recent interview.

"I totally trusted him."

They set the meeting with the prospective buyers for April 8, 1993, in a
room at a travel agency. Both the buyers were, in fact, federal undercover
agents. One was Lucas, the DEA agent who'd been working with Groebe for
several years.

Von Schlieffen told them the cars were in mint condition and began
explaining the improvements he'd made during the year he'd owned them,
according to a transcript of the conversation, which federal agents taped.

The buyers listened, but kept turning the conversation to drugs -- they
were dealers, they said, and that was where the money was coming from. They
even flashed a little package at von Schlieffen that contained what he
believed to be cocaine.

"I [thought], 'Why am I here, where did he bring me?' I figured I'm in a
drug dealer nest," von Schlieffen said.

The transcript of recordings made at the meeting shows he tried to steer
the conversation away from drugs or drug money and to his investment
opportunities and the cars. It also shows von Schlieffen struggling with
his English, a language he had not yet mastered.

"I told them I have no sources for this [cocaine], I can't get involved in
this, but I have excellent business deals for you," he said. The transcript
confirms his statements.

But they also confirm he told the buyers that if the price were right, he
didn't care where the money came from. The two buyers threw $10,000 on the
table as a downpayment on the auto purchases. He picked it up and at their
request counted it. Moments later, agents with guns rushed in and arrested
him.

He can be heard on the tape protesting that what they were doing was wrong
-- this was a car deal.

"I said it was all a misunderstanding," von Schlieffen recalled.

But knowingly accepting money from drug dealers for the car resulted in
money-laundering conspiracy charges against von Schlieffen.

While von Schlieffen was out on bail, his attorneys asked federal
prosecutors for all discovery materials -- any evidence that might show
their client's innocence or discredit witnesses who testified against him.

The government told defense attorneys Groebe had been convicted of fraud in
Germany in 1977, and that they knew of no other crimes on his record -- the
same thing they told defense attorneys in the cases of Abuawad, Rico Toro
and several other individuals Groebe would implicate in crimes.

They described Groebe as an efficient, high-level government informant.
Groebe testified in the von Schlieffen case that he would be paid for his
work, but he only listed specific payments that never surpassed $150,000.
He didn't mention that the government had promised him more than $500,000
for his various entrapment efforts.

Groebe was smooth on the stand. He placed von Schlieffen into a calculated
conspiracy to engage in cocaine trafficking. Based mostly on his testimony,
von Schlieffen was convicted in a four-day trial in February 1994 and
sentenced to 8 years in prison.


Gathering Evidence

Rico Toro was the first to hire McDaniel to learn more about Groebe. Then
von Schlieffen and Abuawad heard about his investigation of Groebe,
although Abuawad had almost completed her prison time by the time McDaniel
visited her.

The information gathered by McDaniel, with the help of a London
investigator named Jackie Williams, helped win Rico Toro his freedom and
may soon free von Schlieffen.

McDaniel amassed more than 3,000 pages of documents about Groebe, detailing
his criminal past and government payoffs, facts that were hidden from
defense attorneys.

The judge who sentenced von Schlieffen reviewed the affidavits provided by
McDaniel and reversed von Schlieffen's conviction, sending it back to the
government to decide whether to schedule a new trial. Von Schlieffen waits
in a Texas prison cell for an answer to his lawyer's latest petition
requesting that he be released on bond.

Abuawad was released from prison in 1996 and returned to South America.

Before she left the United States, she gave McDaniel permission to release
a tape recorded interview that followed her release.

"I was in love," she said. "I wanted to get married, and I wanted to have a
home again. If he asked me to do something, I was going to do it because I
didn't want to lose him."

After her first lawyer died of a drug overdose, she hired Julio Ferrer.
After learning the truth about Groebe, he lashed out at the government in
an appeal his client later withdrew when she ran out of money.

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

The government's response: Abuawad was guilty and all of her arguments were
self-serving. The government would not comment about its relationship with
Groebe.

Last January, a Post Gazette reporter approached Groebe as he loaded
restaurant supplies into his gold Mercedes 500 convertible on a Friday
evening outside his restaurant in Miami Beach.

Groebe said government officials knew about his past when they hired him as
an informant. Asked about the complaints from people he'd set up, Groebe
said their stories were filled with "lies and half-truths."

Finally, he said he could discuss the issues in more detail later and gave
the reporter a telephone number. He never returned calls. A month later,
Groebe sold his restaurant and disappeared. The new owners have since sued
him for $150,000 on various fraud claims.

Last summer, Groebe was arrested in Austria on an outstanding German
perjury warrant related to his escape from prison.

He has posted bond and German legislators -- who've been made aware of his
frauds by his victims -- are demanding a full accounting from the German
government. His story played prominently in the German media.

Groebe was the subject of a German documentary last year. Its title: "King
Rat."

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

Under Consent Decree, FBI Still Violates Order - Win At All Costs series
(The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette continues its 10-part series about its two-year
investigation showing that federal agents and prosecutors routinely break
the law. A group of Chicago residents who supported an organization called
the Committee in Solidarity with the People of El Salvador, which opposed
US policy in that country, discovered that between 1983 and 1985 the FBI
had spied on them and listed them as suspected terrorists because of their
affiliation - even though a 1981 court decree had ordered the agency
to stop.)

Date: Wed, 9 Dec 1998 12:12:38 -0800
From: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org (MAPNews)
To: mapnews@mapinc.org
Subject: MN: us: Under Consent Decree, FBI Still Violates Order - Win At All Costs
Sender: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Reply-To: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Organization: Media Awareness Project http://www.mapinc.org/lists/
Newshawk: Nora Callahan http://www.november.org/
Copyright: 1998 PG Publishing
Source: Pittsburgh Post-Gazette (PA)
Copyright: 1998 PG Publishing
Pubdate: Mon, 7 Dec 1998
Contact: letters@post-gazette.com
Website: http://www.post-gazette.com/
Author: Bill Moushey, Post-Gazette Staff Writer
Note: This is the eighth of a 10 part series, "Win At All Costs" being
published in the Post-Gazette. The part is composed of five items (posted
separately). The series is also being printed in The Blade, Toledo, OH
email: letters@theblade.com

UNDER CONSENT DECREE, FBI STILL VIOLATES ORDER

For years, the FBI put the names of several Chicago residents on its list
of suspected terrorists, long after a judge had ordered the agency to stop.

These so-called terrorists supported a group called the Committee in
Solidarity with the People of El Salvador, which opposed U.S. policy in
that country.

Last year, after more than 15 years of litigation, the FBI finally admitted
it had been in error when it continued to spy on members and supporters of
this "subversive" group. Under a consent decree, the agency pledged to give
FBI agents training on how to conduct investigations without violating the
First Amendment rights of individuals.

The case began when a group of Chicagoans discovered that between 1983 and
1985 the FBI had spied on them because of their affiliation -- even though
a 1981 court decree had ordered the agency to stop.

Lawsuits were filed in 1988 and in 1991, and U.S. District Judge Ann C.
Williams ruled that members of the organization had been subjected to
wide-ranging violations of the 1981 consent decree.

As part of a systematic covert investigation into the lives and activities
of the organization's supporters, agents had analyzed phone, utility and
banking records, none of which produced any evidence of wrongdoing. Even
so, the FBI had continued to list several of its targets on the federal
registry of suspected terrorists.

"It's a great day; after all this time, our names are finally going to be
deleted from the FBI's terrorist files," said Phyllis Hasbrouck, a former
Chicago leader of the group.

"Americans ought to be able to criticize their government's policies
without being branded terrorists."

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

Government Goes Back On A Deal - Win At All Costs series
(The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette continues its 10-part series about its two-year
investigation showing that federal agents and prosecutors routinely break
the law. It took federal prosecutors more than seven years to live up to
their promise to free Alberto San Pedro from prison after he went undercover
and helped snag the mayor and a commissioner in Hialeah, Florida,
who were involved in an influence-peddling scam.)

Date: Wed, 9 Dec 1998 12:12:44 -0800
From: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org (MAPNews)
To: mapnews@mapinc.org
Subject: MN: US: Government Goes Back On A Deal - Win At All Costs series
Sender: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Reply-To: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Organization: Media Awareness Project http://www.mapinc.org/lists/
Newshawk: Nora Callahan http://www.november.org/
Source: Pittsburgh Post-Gazette (PA)
Copyright: 1998 PG Publishing
Pubdate: Mon, 7 Dec 1998
Contact: letters@post-gazette.com
Website: http://www.post-gazette.com/
Author: Bill Moushey, Post-Gazette Staff Writer
Note: This is the eighth of a 10 part series, "Win At All Costs" being
published in the Post-Gazette. The part is composed of five items (posted
separately). The series is also being printed in The Blade, Toledo, OH
email: letters@theblade.com

GOVERNMENT GOES BACK ON A DEAL

In June 1989, Alberto San Pedro struck a deal with federal agents to avoid
what would likely have been life in prison for smuggling cocaine.

The deal was this: The government would release him from a state prison
sentence he was about to complete, then he would go undercover to snag the
mayor and a commissioner of Hialeah, Fla., who were involved in an
influence-peddling scam. In return, he would be granted immunity from the
new drug trafficking charges and any other crimes committed to date, and
freed from prison.

He was successful. The mayor was convicted in the scam, the commissioner
pleaded guilty and San Pedro's cooperation was lauded by federal
prosecutors as "substantial, truthful and invaluable."

San Pedro went back to prison to await his imminent release.

But by then, another set of federal agents and prosecutors from South
Florida, working another case, had linked San Pedro to several drug-related
crimes from years before, ranging from homicide to extortion.

Since San Pedro had been guaranteed immunity for all of his crimes, it
appeared the agents were out of luck.

But not quite. Since immunity deals require a defendant's complete and
truthful testimony, the agents scoured transcripts of San Pedro's grand
jury testimony in the Hialeah cases.

Based on minor discrepancies between grand jury testimony and his testimony
in court, they charged him with seven counts of perjury, figuring that
would also eventually allow them to charge him with the other crimes.

In fact, within a month, San Pedro also found his name in a federal
racketeering indictment, which court papers say was approved by then U.S.
Attorney General Dick Thornburgh, who had been briefed on the entire chain
of events.

But in 1991, a judge dismissed four of the perjury counts and a jury
acquitted him on the remaining three. Now the government was hamstrung:
Despite its best efforts, San Pedro had upheld his end of the immunity
agreement.

Yet federal prosecutors continued to press racketeering charges against him
and fight his release on bond, keeping him in prison for another five years.

In 1996, more than seven years after the deal was struck, U.S. District
Judge Jose Gonzalez Jr. finally ruled the government was bound by its
initial agreement and dismissed all of the remaining charges against San
Pedro, setting him free.

"In a day when the confidence and trust of the American people in their
government ebbs, it is critical that the United States government keep its
word and live up to its obligations," Gonzalez wrote. "If doing so means
that it must forego convicting one person of a crime, that is a small price
to pay to preserve the integrity of our institutions."

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

Agents Dug Up More Problems For Archaeologist - Win At All Costs series
(The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette continues its 10-part series about its two-year
investigation showing that federal agents and prosecutors routinely break
the law. Peter Larson was sentenced to two years in prison based on charges
that were filed in retaliation for Larsen's outspoken reaction to the federal
government's tactics in a separate civil case.)

Date: Wed, 9 Dec 1998 12:16:08 -0800
From: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org (MAPNews)
To: mapnews@mapinc.org
Subject: MN: US: Agents Dug Up More Problems For Archaeologist -
Win At All Costs
Sender: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Reply-To: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Organization: Media Awareness Project http://www.mapinc.org/lists/
Newshawk: Nora Callahan http://www.november.org/
Source: Pittsburgh Post-Gazette (PA)
Copyright: 1998 PG Publishing
Pubdate: Mon, 7 Dec 1998
Contact: letters@post-gazette.com
Website: http://www.post-gazette.com/
Author: Bill Moushey, Post-Gazette Staff Writer
Note: This is the eighth of a 10 part series, "Win At All Costs" being
published in the Post-Gazette. The part is composed of five items (posted
separately). The series is also being printed in The Blade, Toledo, OH
email: letters@theblade.com

AGENTS DUG UP MORE PROBLEMS FOR ARCHAEOLOGIST

It all started with the fossilized skeleton of a tyrannosaurus rex that
Peter Larson excavated in South Dakota in 1990.

Larson had permission from the Indian rancher whose land he was searching
to look for fossils. And he paid the rancher $5,000 for this find, before
turning it over to the Black Hills Institute of Geological Research, which
Larson founded in 1974.

That's where the government stepped in. The rancher had placed his land in
trust to the government, federal officials said. So Larson had no right to
anything found there and had to return the dinosaur bone. The rancher, in
fact, claimed he didn't realize Larson's check was for the dinosaur fossil.

Larson, of Hill City, S.D., appealed all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court,
which sided with the government.

But that's not where the story ended.

In fighting Larson's civil case, federal agents seized his records and the
institute's records in 1992, scrutinized them for two years, then brought a
39-count indictment against him. He was convicted of two misdemeanors that
are rarely enforced -- taking a fossil worth less than $100 from federal
lands and possessing a fossil from federal lands. He also was convicted on
two felony counts of possessing more than $10,000 in "monetary
instruments," cash and traveler's checks without declaring it when leaving
or entering the country.

The charges were retaliation pure and simple for Larson's outspoken
reaction to the federal government's tactics, Larson's defenders said.

None of the charges he faced related to the trophy dinosaur fossil he'd
found. The money he'd taken out of the country hadn't been for drugs or
other criminal activity. But Larson lost his appeals and was sentenced to
two years in prison.

His lawyer, Patrick Duffy, offered this analysis to the media in South
Dakota at the time: "The moral is, 'Don't [anger] the Department of
Justice, because they'll crush you.'

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

Heroin Said To Be Making Inroads Among US Teens (Reuters says an analysis
of more than 80 existing studies and other resources on substance abuse,
published Monday in the December issue of "Pediatrics," the journal
of the American Academy of Pediatrics, turned up one study which found
that heroin use by high school seniors rose from .9 percent in 1990
to 1.8 percent in 1996 and 2.1 percent in 1997. Out of 80 studies,
one other report found the drug being used at an earlier age.)

Date: Mon, 7 Dec 1998 21:35:21 -0800
From: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org (MAPNews)
To: mapnews@mapinc.org
Subject: MN: US: WIRE: Heroin Said To Be Making Inroads Among U.S. Teens
Sender: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Reply-To: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Organization: Media Awareness Project http://www.mapinc.org/lists/
Newshawk: General Pulaski
Pubdate: Mon, 07 Dec 1998
Source: Reuters
Copyright: 1998 Reuters Limited.

HEROIN SAID TO BE MAKING INROADS AMONG U.S. TEENS

CHICAGO, Dec 7 (Reuters) - Heroin use among U.S. teenagers is growing,
although the total number of those using the drug remains relatively small,
according to a study published on Monday.

"The problem is growing and adults and teens alike need to be more educated
about the prevalence and dangers of heroin," said Richard Schwartz of Inova
Hospital for Children in Falls Church, Virginia.

His findings, published in this month's issue of "Pediatrics," the journal
of the American Academy of Pediatrics, was based on an analysis of more than
80 existing studies and other resources on substance abuse.

While the overall level of heroin use is still low, he said, one study found
that its use by U.S. high school seniors doubled from 1990 to 1996, when 1.8
percent reported using the drug. In 1997 that figure rose again to 2.1
percent, he said.

Schwartz said another study found the drug being used at an earlier age.

"Heroin imported from Colombia and from Mexico is now cheaper and of high
potency, permitting novices to start with nasal administration of the drug,"
he said.

"Most (U.S.) adolescents now initiate heroin use by snorting it; however,
frequent use of heroin by any route leads to tolerance and intense drug
craving," he added.

Young people who may be more likely to start using the drug are those whose
school grades are falling and who also smoke cigarettes and commit
antisocial acts for rebellion or amusement, he said.

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

Why it Takes a Village to Afford a Prescription (An op-ed
in The San Jose Mercury News by a physician and former FDA official
says prescription drugs now cost much more than they used to because of
excessive government regulation. The example cited is the FDA's recent
announcement that drug companies will be required to test in children
the medicines they sell for adults, and to put the pediatric dosages
on the label. That might sound benign, or even desirable, but these new
requirements ignore the realities of drug testing. They may actually be
detrimental to kids and could actually delay the availability of new drugs,
if FDA withholds approval for adult uses while data from pediatric studies
are being collected.)

Date: Mon, 7 Dec 1998 11:50:57 -0800
From: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org (MAPNews)
To: mapnews@mapinc.org
Subject: MN: US: Why it Takes a Village to Afford a Prescription
Sender: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Reply-To: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Organization: Media Awareness Project http://www.mapinc.org/lists/
Newshawk: compassion23@geocities.com (Frank S. World)
Source: San Jose Mercury News (CA)
Contact: letters@sjmercury.com
Website: http://www.sjmercury.com/
Copyright: 1998 Mercury Center
Pubdate: Mon, 7 Dec 1998
Author: Henry I. Miller

WHY IT TAKES A VILLAGE TO AFFORD A PRESCRIPTION

IF YOU'VE filled a prescription recently, you may have had a nasty
surprise. Antibiotics or a tube of steroid cream used to cost a few bucks,
but now the prices are soaring. A few examples of the cost of a week's
supply of drugs: the antibiotic clarithromycin, $75; Rocalcitrol, a vitamin
D derivative, $55-$385 (depending on the dosage); and erythropoietin, for
anemia, $324-$486.

Why? In large part, it's your tax dollars at work. Government regulation
imposes enormous ``taxes'' on drug development, which decrease the number
of drugs that are developed and which are ultimately passed along to
consumers in higher prices.

The feds were at it again recently when the FDA announced that drug
companies will be required to test in children the medicines they sell for
adults, and to put the pediatric dosages on the label. That might sound
benign, or even desirable, but these new requirements ignore the realities
of drug testing. They may actually be detrimental to kids and could
actually delay the availability of new drugs, if FDA withholds approval for
adult uses while data from pediatric studies are being collected.

Moreover, the regulation is a rigid, centralized governmental solution to a
non-problem, according to many pediatricians. Even the FDA concedes that
physicians commonly and safely prescribe pain relievers, asthma drugs,
antihistamines, antibiotics and other therapeutics millions of times
annually for children, despite the clinical trials of those products having
been performed only in adults. ``Pediatricians routinely tailor dosages for
children by adjusting the dosage according to the patient's weight,''
confirms Kaiser Permanente pediatric allergist Dr. Michael H. Mellon.

Even if additional testing of drugs in children were needed, there are more
imaginative and effective ways to accomplish it. For example, the FDA could
simply require a prominent label or logo on drug preparations whose safety
and efficacy have not yet been determined in children, or the agency could
publish a list of such drugs annually. This would make parents and
physicians aware that such information is not available, and they, in turn,
could exert moral and economic pressure on drug companies to obtain it.
(Consider, too, that it is in drug companies' own interest to expand the
population that will purchase and benefit from their products, and to avoid
harming patients.)

The FDA seems unaware of the nuances of drug development. Creating a dosage
form appropriate for children is often especially challenging, for a number
of reasons. Can the active ingredient be incorporated in a chewable or
syrup form? Will it have special storage requirements and adequate
shelf-life? Does it taste good enough so that kids will actually take it?

A pediatric form of Glaxo Wellcome's antibiotic, Ceftin, required more than
double the cost and man-hours to develop than did its adult formulation.
The same company also experienced serious problems in finding effective
preservatives for its pediatric syrup form of Epivir, an AIDS drug, even
after the adult formulation had been fully developed.

Clinical trials are difficult to perform with children. For ethical
reasons, testing is done in patients, not in healthy volunteers. Study
participants may be scarce because a disease is rare in children, because
the population is geographically diverse, or because parents are reluctant
to enroll their sick children in an ``experiment.''

Finally, for the purposes of drug testing, ``children'' is by no means a
homogenous category. The term implies several groups that are
physiologically and metabolically distinct: newborns, infants,
preschoolers, primary-schoolers and teens. Moreover, children may pass
through two or more age groups during the course of a multi-year clinical
study, confounding statistical analysis.

As regulatory requirements are ratcheted ever upward, drugs are moving more
sluggishly through the clinical testing pipeline. The total time required
for drug development, from synthesis of the molecule to the patient's
bedside, has almost doubled during the past three decades, from 8.1 to 15.2
years. And the United States's $500 million dollar tab for each drug
approved is by far the most expensive in the world.

Why does the FDA impose unnecessary regulations, which are expensive, rigid
and inimical to free-market forces -- at a time of supposed ``reinventing
government'' and regulatory reform?

For one thing, it's in the self-interest of bureaucrats to seek greater
mandates and, thereby, to amass larger empires and budgets. And it's in
their nature -- as former FDA Commissioner Frank E. Young once quipped,
``Dogs bark, cows moo, and regulators regulate.''

When regulation is excessive, everyone is a loser -- except government
regulators themselves. Money spent by the government, industry and
consumers on FDA regulation is money not spent on something else, including
the ability to protect public health in other ways -- for example, by
increasing the rate of vaccination or performing diagnostic testing.
Consider, for example, the potential benefits of spending the
(conservatively) estimated $21 million annual cost of FDA's new regulation
instead on cervical cancer screening -- according to public health
statistics, it would save 14,700-31,500 years of life.

The FDA's new regulation is the latest example of Big Brother deciding
where private sector R&D resources are best spent. In the process, it
increases costs to consumers and puts them at risk as the introduction of
new drugs is delayed. This regulation, the first to appear under new FDA
Commissioner Jane Henney, suggests that she will show a greater commitment
to the rhetoric than to the reality of protecting the public health.

Henry I. Miller, a physician, is a fellow at the Hoover Institution. He was
an FDA official from 1979-1994. E-mail: miller@hoover.stanford.edu.

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

Hemp BC Hearing at City Hall, December 8 (A news release
from Cannabis Culture magazine asks supporters of the hemp store
in Vancouver, British Columbia, to show support Tuesday at a city council
hearing where police officers and city officials are expected to ask
that Hemp BC not be granted a business license, and that it be forced
to close permanently. Meanwhile, Hemp BC lawyers have appeared before a judge
to testify that Vancouver Police Officer Mark Bragagnola possessed cannabis
on April 30, 1998, contrary to the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.
A similar statement was made against US Navy operative Stacy Sherman,
who allegedly trafficked in cannabis on April 25, 1998. Both of these charges
relate to the Vancouver Police and US Navy "joint investigation" of Hemp BC,
when Vancouver Police and US Navy officers tried to buy pot at Hemp BC
and failed. So instead they bought some pot on the street and smoked it
in Hemp BC themselves.)

From: creator@drugsense.org (Cannabis Culture)
To: cclist@drugsense.org
Subject: CC: Hemp BC Hearing at City Hall, December 8
Date: Mon, 07 Dec 1998 07:39:57 -0800
Lines: 80
Sender: creator@drugsense.org
Reply-To: creator@drugsense.org
Organization: Cannabis Culture (http://www.cannabisculture.com/)

HEMP BC HEARING AT CITY HALL, DECEMBER 8

On Tuesday, December 8th, there will be hearing about Hemp BC at Vancouver
City Hall. City Council will be hearing evidence from police officers and
city officials that Hemp BC should not be granted a business license, and
that instead Hemp BC should be forced to close permanently. This meeting is
open to the public, and Sister Icee asks that anyone who doesn't want Hemp
BC shut down should attend to show support.

"All of their claims being made against me relate to things Marc Emery said
or did when he was the owner," said Sister Icee, owner of Hemp BC and the
Cannabis Cafe. "Since Marc sold me the businesses last March there have
been no seed sales and no vapourizers in the Cafe. I haven't even
encouraged anyone to come here and smoke pot.

"There are hundreds of other businesses in Vancouver that carry the same
kind of merchandise as Hemp BC. We are being targeted by City Hall because
of our high-profile political activism, and nothing else."

The next date after this hearing will be January 26, at which time Hemp BC
will be able to present evidence supporting their right to a business
license, including a petition with 15,000 signatures of people who think
Hemp BC and Cannabis Cafe are assets to this community. At least fifteen
local merchants have also agreed to speak on Hemp BC's behalf.

In the mean time, the City has agreed to not pursue a court order to shut
down Hemp BC pending the outcome of these hearings. They have also agreed
not to make any criminal allegations with regards to the smoking
accessories (paraphenalia) sold by Hemp BC.

POLICE OFFICER AND US NAVY OPERATIVE UNLAWFULLY TRAFFICKED IN MARIJUANA

Meanwhile, Hemp BC lawyers have appeared before a Justice of the peace, to
swear an information that Vancouver Police Officer Mark Bragagnola
possessed cannabis on April 30, 1998, contrary to the Controlled Drugs and
Substances Act. A similar Information has also been sworn against US Navy
operative Stacy Sherman, who allegedly trafficked in cannabis on April 25,
1998.

Both of these charges relate to the Vancouver Police and US Navy "joint
investigation" of Hemp BC, dubbed "Operation Intruder". During this
farcical investigation, Vancouver Police and US Navy officers tried to buy
pot at Hemp BC and failed. So instead they bought some pot on the street
and smoked it in Hemp BC themselves.

However, neither the Vancouver Police nor the US Navy asked for or was
granted the necessary certificates entitling them to buy marijuana and
break the law in this manner. Without this legal permission, they are
guilty of trafficking in marijuana.

The Justice of the Peace will now seek the input of the Justice Department,
and then decide if reasonable and probable grounds exist to support the
charge as sworn. She will announce if charges are approved on December
15th, 1998.

In an email to Sister Icee, US Navy spokesman Charles McWhorter denied any
knowledge of Operation Intruder, and claimed that no Navy Officerd were
authorized to purchase marijuana as part of any investigation of Hemp BC.

CONTACTS

* Sister Icee can be reached by email at sisterc@hempbc.com, by phone at
(604) 681-4620, and by fax at.(604) 681-4625.

* Vancouver City Council and Mayor Philip Owen can be reached at:
mayorandcouncil@city.vancouver.bc.ca
tel: (604) 873-7621, fax: (604) 873-7685

* The Vancouver Police Department can be reached at: vpd@city.vancouver.bc.ca
tel: (604) 665-3081.

* The US Navy can be reached by email at rbmorse@juno.com, by phone at
(310) 235-7481, and by fax at (310) 235-7856.

Vancouver Sun: sunletters@pacpress.southam.ca
Vancouver Province: provletters@pacpress.southam.ca
Vancouver Echo: editor@vanecho.com
Vancouver Courier: editor@vancourier.com

***

CClist, the electronic news and information service of Cannabis Culture
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@drugsense.org containing
the command "unsubscribe cclist".

***

Subscribe to Cannabis Culture Magazine!
Write to: 324 West Hastings Street, Vancouver BC, CANADA, V6B 1A1
Call us at: (604) 669-9069, or fax (604) 669-9038. Visit Cannabis
Culture online at http://www.cannabisculture.com/

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

Medicinal marijuana club in Bradford, Ontario (A list subscriber forwards
a coming-out announcement and URL for the Marsh Marijuana Club.)

From: creator@islandnet.com (Matt Elrod)
To: mattalk@listserv.islandnet.com
Subject: medicinal marijuana club in bradford ont (fwd)
Date: Mon, 07 Dec 1998 10:14:19 -0800
Lines: 16

-------- Forwarded message --------
Date: Mon, 7 Dec 1998 10:55:53 -0500
From: "scratchy" (scratchy@netcom.ca)

hello,

we are a medicinal marijuana club in bradford ont.ca. we are 168 members
across canada and since going public US membership is growing rapidly.if we
can be of assistance let us know.Egon Dezelak,387 Agar Ave. Bradford
ont,ca.,our web site is

http://members.tripod.com/~TooManyHawks/marshmarijuana.html

TMMC

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

Rise in Cigarette Smoking Doesn't Bother Burma Government
(The International Herald-Tribune says free handouts and slick advertising
tactics never before seen in Burma have enticed young people across the
country to take up cigarettes. Smoking is also on the increase in other
countries in Southeast Asia where cash-strapped goveraments have a financial
stake in tobacco sales. The Burmese govemment likes dealing with
multinational cigarette companies because it can more readily collect revenue
from large factories or importers than it can from small-time producers of
hand-rolled smokes. "The cinema is censored, and there are no nightclubs or
live shows. Beyond smoking there is no entertainment," says one young man.)

Date: Thu, 10 Dec 1998 11:42:48 -0800
From: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org (MAPNews)
To: mapnews@mapinc.org
Subject: MN: Rise in Cigarette Smoking Doesn't Bother Burma Government
Sender: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Reply-To: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Organization: Media Awareness Project http://www.mapinc.org/lists/
Newshawk: Peter Webster
Source: International Herald-Tribune
Contact: iht@iht.com
We