This article appeared in the
March 19, 1999 issue of Executive Intelligence
March 8, attorneys for Executive Intelligence Review filed legal papers
in the Federal appeals court in Washington, opposing the effort by the Richard
Mellon Scaife-funded Landmark Legal Foundation to block the Justice
Department's investigation of misconduct by independent counsel Kenneth
EIR's amicus curiae brief shows that the Landmark Legal
Foundation, while posing as a disinterested party, "is itself deeply enmeshed
in the network of foundations, lawyers, and private citizens which are likely
to be the subject of inquiry by the Attorney General," and that it "has a
vested interest" in asking the court to order the termination of the Attorney
General's probe. EIR's brief shows that Landmark itself was covertly
working with the American Spectator magazine's Scaife-funded "Arkansas
Project" in the spring of 1994 to recruit lawyers for Paula Jones. Landmark
also sided with Jones's lawyers in challenging President Clinton's legal claim
that he was immune from civil suit--an effort in which Kenneth Starr was also
involved before he was appointed independent counsel. Landmark later attempted
to conceal its role in this effort. Here are the text of EIR's motion
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
Division for the Purpose of
Appointing Independent Counsels Ethics in
Government Act of 1978, As Amended
In re: Madison Guaranty Savings & Loan Association
now Executive Intelligence Review and moves this Court to allow it to
file the attached Brief, as amicus, in opposition to the "Application for
Judicial Notice and Writ of Prohibition" submitted by the Landmark Legal
Intelligence Review is a weekly news magazine founded by Lyndon H.
LaRouche, Jr. It has provided comprehensive investigative reporting concerning
the actions of Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr. The United States Department
of Justice, will, undoubtedly oppose the motion of Landmark to halt the Justice
Department's investigation into prosecutor Starr's actions on technical
grounds--such as the complete lack of standing of Landmark Legal Foundation to
make the application it has made to the court, its failure to satisfy the legal
criteria for granting extraordinary writs, and the prematurity and lack of any
legal basis, under 28 U.S.C. 596 for any action at the present time, by this
The Department of Justice is unlikely, based on past performance, to raise
the most important issue regarding Landmark's application--its factual context.
There has been considerable public speculation about the motives of this panel.
In the context of this public debate, implicating the Court's integrity, it is
imperative, before any decision is made by this Court on Landmark's
application, that the Court be fully apprised of Landmark's status as an
interested party and ally of the Independent Counsel and potential target of
any investigation conducted by the Department of Justice.
Accordingly, the Court should grant this motion of Executive Intelligence
Review to file the attached Brief in Opposition to the Application of
Landmark Legal Foundation as a friend of the Court.
* * * * *
On February 11, 1999 Landmark Legal Foundation filed application for a writ or
prohibition and judicial notice asking this Court to prohibit the Department of
Justice from investigating Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr. On February 19,
1999 the Special Division ordered U.S. Department of Justice to respond.
As stated in its motion to file this Brief in opposition to Landmark's
application, Executive Intelligence Review, a weekly news magazine
founded by Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr., has extensively investigated and reported
upon the activities of Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr. EIR along with
other publications, public officials and members of the public, have questioned
the actions of this panel and its impartiality as they pertain to the
appointment of Mr. Starr and the repeated enlargement of his jurisdiction.
EIR believes it is in the public interest and in the interest of public
confidence in the judicial process, to bring to this panel's attention certain
published accounts and facts about Landmark Legal Foundation and its interest
in this matter, prior to any decision which might be rendered on Landmark's
application by the Court. Accordingly, EIR moves that this Court
consider the materials set forth here by EIR, and take judicial notice
of them pursuant to F.R.E. 201.
These materials show that Landmark is not a disinterested party in this
proceeding, but rather, Landmark is itself deeply enmeshed in the network of
foundations, lawyers and private citizens which are likely to be the subject of
inquiry by the Attorney General. As such, Landmark itself falls squarely into
the zone of inquiry and therefore has a vested interest in asking the Special
Division to order the termination of the Department of Justice
According to Landmark's Exhibit 1, a New York Times article dated
February 10, 1999, there are several issues that the Justice Department wants
to examine, including contacts between Mr. Starr's office and the Paula Jones
legal team. As background to this, the Times article reports allegations
of "collusion" between Mr. Starr's office and the Jones lawyers, and reports
that "Linda Tripp found her way to the Office of Independent Counsel through a
group of private lawyers who performed legal work on the Jones case."
The Times article also states: "The [Justice Department] ethics
lawyers are trying to determine whether prosecutors in Starr's office had a
vested interest in the outcome of the Jones case, an interest that would have
undercut their ability to impartially investigate allegations related to the
Petitioner also draws the Special Division's attention to a second
investigation relating to Mr. Starr's office which is currently underway. This
pertains to allegations that Mr. Starr's key witness in the Whitewater probe,
David Hale, received payments and/or gratuities from the so-called "Arkansas
Project," a venture funded by Richard Mellon Scaife which operated under the
auspices of The American Spectator magazine and its "American Spectator
Educational Foundation." Investigators have interrogated Mr. Scaife, as well as
two individuals associated with him, David Henderson and Steven Boynton. See,
Attachments A and B hereto.
Landmark itself was secretly involved with Henderson, Boynton, and others
associated with the "Arkansas Project," in both helping to obtain lawyers for
Paula Jones, and then advising them not to sue The American
Spectator--the magazine whose January 1994 "Troopergate" story had
mentioned a woman named "Paula." This chain of events was described in an
account published in the on-line magazine Salon in April 1998. In
commenting on Landmark's advice not to sue The American Spectator, the
article notes that Landmark had received at least $650,000 from various
foundations controlled by Mr. Scaife, and it notes: "The Landmark lawyers'
advice was hardly disinterested: Richard Mellon Scaife had been a major
benefactor over the years of the American Spectator." See, Attachment C,
(Salon article), p. 4.
The Salon article also reports, referring to Paula Jones' lawyers
Gilbert Davis and Joseph Cammerata: "The two sources say that Landmark
counselled those knowledgeable about its role in helping find Davis and
Cammerata to keep the information confidential, fearing that the organization's
ties to Scaife would be used to discredit the Jones case." Mr. Davis denied
that Landmark had brought him into the case, but he acknowledged having had
discussions about the case with Landmark officials. See, Attachment C,
Mark Levin, the president of Landmark, has himself publicly acknowledged
receiving funding from the Scaife foundations. See, Associated Press story
dated 6/9/98, Attachment D hereto.
There have also been many published reports linking Mr. Starr to preliminary
preparations of an amicus curiae brief arguing against presidential
immunity in the Paula Jones case. Some reports have alleged that Mr. Starr was
engaged by Landmark to prepare such an amicus brief. Landmark has denied
that it paid Mr. Starr to prepare such a brief, but it has not denied
consulting with him. It was well-known, and Mr. Starr has acknowledged, that he
was intending to author or co-author an amicus brief in the Jones case
prior to his appointment as Independent Counsel by the Special Division in
August 1994. Indeed, Mr. Starr did acknowledge, in his testimony to the House
Judiciary Committee on November 19, 1998, that he did have discussions with the
Independent Women's Forum about the immunity issues with respect to the filing
of an amicus brief. See Attachment E hereto.
In its own promotional material, Landmark lists among its
Challenged President Clinton's unprecedented claim of civil immunity in his
effort to delay and dismiss Paula Corbin Jones' sexual harassment lawsuit.
See Attachment F hereto.
Petitioner asks the Special Division to accept this application for Judicial
Notice, and petitioner urges the Special Division to deny Landmark's
Application for a Writ of Prohibition instructing the Attorney General to cease
any investigation of Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr.
By Theo W. Mitchell
Counsel for Executive Intelligence Review
Theo W. Mitchell & Associates
9 Bradshaw Street
Greenville, South Carolina 29601