The Lighthouse Report
Portland Free Press

November/December 1996


Christic Died for Our Sins

Editor's note: A number of people have asked whatever happened to the Christic Institute. Thus, we asked Bill Davis (former Christic chairman) and Lanny Sinkin (former director of litigation) to give PFP their reflections and recollec tions. Bill faxed a chronology of the investigation and ultimately successful efforts to derail the La Penca investigation and litigation. Lanny e-mailed the story of murder in the Eleventh Circuit, which has not been otherwise reported. The broader import of Christic's destruction has been the chilling effect on all public-interest litigation. There was an excellent review of this issue in the October 1992 Sojoumers magazine. The 1.3-million-dollar "Rule 11" fine im posed on Christic sent an unambiguous message to all lawyers that taking on the Imperial state could be dangerous to their welfare. Raygun and the "me too" Democrats amended "Rule 11 " in 1983 "to encour age judges to impose huge financial sanctions on lawyers, law firms and clients who ostensibly violate the rule." (Sojoumers, cited above) What is most obscene about the de struction of Christic is that the exact story reported by Gary Webb in the San Jose Mercury, August 1996, was reported by Christic in November 1987: "The Contra-Drug Connection." (Photo copies of this historic 12-page document are available from the PFP for three bucks.)

Attempts to Derail the La Penca Investigation.

by Bill Davis

Months before the La Penca bombing occurred, State Department of ficials laid an elaborate trail of disinformation to suggest that Basque terrorists with Sandinista connections were responsible for the bombing attack at La Penca.

Murder in the Eleventh Circuit

by Lanny Sinkin

There is an untold chapter in the saga of the Christic Institute's effort to bring the illegal covert operators to justice. When Judge Lawrence King dismissed the Avirgan v. Hull case and entered sanctions against Daniel Sheehan, the Institute and plaintiffs Tony Avirgan and Martha Honey, the Institute took the dismissal and the sanctions on appeal to the Eleventh Circuit in Atlanta, Georgia.

On December 16, 1989, while the appeal was in process, a pipebomb in the mail killed Judge Robert S. Vance of the Eleventh Circuit. Personnel in the Eleventh Circuit Clerk's office found another bomb, which was defused. A third bomb killed a civil rights attorney. While the case was still on appeal, I flew to Portland, Oregon, to help Marlene Smith move to Washington, D.C., to go to work for the Institute. As we drove out of Portland, National Public Radio broadcast a story that there had been an attempted assassination of Judge J.L. Edmundson, also of the Eleventh Circuit. The story said that a shot had been fired at the limousine carrying Judge Edmundson and that the judge had not been hit. At the time, the judge was traveling under the guard of United States Marshals because the death of Judge Vance had not been solved.

When we heard the story, we pulled over lo call Washington. I contacted the office of Congressman Henry B. Gonzalez and asked what information they had on the attempted assassination. An aide to the congressman pulled up their wirc service and told me that there was a massive manhunt underway and that helicopters were circling an apart ment building where they believed the assassin was trapped.

As we drove across country that day, we continued to listen for more informa tion. Therc was nothing further. The next morning, National Public Radio broadcast a story saying that the police had concluded that a defect in the glass or a rapid change in temperature had caused the window to shatter and that therc had becn no assassination attempt.

Marlene and I jusl laughed at the speed of the cover up.

When I returned to Washington, I looked up thc prorilcs of the two judges. Judge Rohcrt S. Vance was one of the great libcrals in modcrn United States history. Hc led the Mississippi Freedom Democratic delcgation to the 1968 Dcmocratic Convcntion That delegation was thc lirst illtcgratcd dclegation to be sent from Mississippi. The convention unseated the official segregationist del egation and seated the delegation headed by Judge Vance.

A man of such courage in challenging the status quo might well have been will ing to go against the national security tide and reverse Judge King's orders.

Judge J. L. Edmundson is a true con servative. If the government is on one side of a case against an individual, his assumption is that the governmenthas all the resources and, therefore, a heavy bur den to do everything exactly right. To the right of Judge Edmundson are ideological conservatives, who would not be the least sympathetic to the Institute's appeal.

When I reached Washington, I called the Eleventh Circuit to check on the status of the appeal. The clerk asked what case. When I said "Avirgan v. Hull," she said "Oh, Lord!" I asked "Oh, Lord?" She said "Avirgan v. Hull means duck and run for cover." Clearly in the minds of court personnel the death of Judge Vance and the attempt on Judge Edmundson were associated with the Christic appeal. On our appeal, we had friend of the courtbriefs supporting ourposition from the United Church of Christ and nine other major religious denominations, Trial Lawyers for Public Justice, Public Citizen Litigation Group, and others. The American Bar Associationdecided not to expend their resources filing a friend of the court brief because they believed there was no chance the rulings by Judge King would be upheld on appeal.

However, the Eleventh Circuit panel unanimously upheld the decisions of Judge King and ruled our entire appeal frivolous. I have always believed that the court ruled under duress.

After the Eleventh Circuit denied our appeal, the FBI solved the killing of Judge Vance by arresting and convicting the man they had suspected trom the very tirst day. With no particular proof, I believe that the FBI had orders to go very slow in solving Judge Vance's murder because leaving that murder unresolved left the intimidating effect on the court of the murder possibly being associated with our appeal.

As to whether the attempt on Judge Edmundson was a deliberate miss or a failed assassination attempt, I don't know. I do not believe the defect in the window story to be anything other than a cover up. The attempt had been made and would have its effects. The effect was to psychologically sandwich the justices that might lean toward reversing Judge King and make them afraid to do so.

The Supreme Court refused to even hear an appeal, so that ended the case. Ten years later, the San Jose Mercury News is bringing to light some of the cocaine-contra-CIA connection which formed a major theme in the Avirgan case. Whether this new exposurc of govern ment crimes will lead to a substantive investigation and revelation of the truth, remains to be seen.

November/December 1996 Portland Free Press
THIS ARTICLE IS REPRINTED BY THE LIGHTHOUSE REPORT WITH THE EXPRESSED PERMISSION OF THE PORTLAND FREE PRESS.

For more information on the Portland Free Press write to:
Portland Free Press
Post Offce Box 1327, Tualatin, Ore. 97062
Voice Mail: (503) 242-4254


Contact the Lighthouse Report.

Site created and maintained with assistance from David A. Mason.


Return to David and Val Mason's Home Page