Friday, 22 June 2012

July 4- Seize The Day!

0 comments

43rd annual July 4th Smoke In - A Movement Stalled Since Summer 1971
EVENT WEBSITE: http://www.smoke-in.org/mj/
RALLY with SPEAKERS at NOON to 3 PM Lafayette Park north side of the White House

MARCH 3 PM to 4:20 PM to Constitution and 23rd

CONCERT with SPEAKERS at recreation field at Constitution and 23rd just to the north of the Lincoln Memorial from 4 PM to 9PM - I shall be at this entire event with other drug legalization activists

This is the annual July 4th Smoke In to Legalize Marijuana, in Washington D.C.at Lafayette Park immediately north of the White House, held every year since 1971.
Held annually on July 4th in Washington, D.C. for the past 43 years, this rally, march and concert is one of the oldest demonstrations advocating drug policy reform in the United States. The Smoke-In has undergone several changes since being created out of the BE-IN era of political movements. During it's history elected politicians in Washington DC have tended to view this annual demonstration as a youthful indiscretion at best, and arresting protesters at worst, and failing to engage in any meaningful compromise concerning marijuana prohibition. This is why our grass roots demonstration has an indelible appeal to the people who are having trouble getting a representative voice in their federal government's drug policy. Activists occupy and attend the Smoke-In year after year by unleashing the pride and empowerment of being a marijuana activist and will not cease until the politicians listen to and respond to their point of view. Currently the goal is to achieve equality and respect buy rescheduling marijuana at the federal level, please support this effort. Many thanks to the people involved in producing this demonstration year after year. Please support the activists who have donated their time & talent, they truly deserve credit for my dedication to the belief that some day marijuana prohibition shall end.
1971- 41 years ago- so many thought that legalization - ending the nightmare of prohibition -- was 'just around the corner'.  Yet instead a lingering status quo, with meaningful change stymied, especially with the changes for the worse in 1978 through 1986.

1986- I say take the fight beyond Marijuana, also end the prohibitions on Coca and Opium.

1987- The Drug Policy Foundation was founded in response to the this hysteria over 'drugs' and particularly cocaine ... and after 1992 drops the ball!  It makes itself more of a redundent 2nd NORML, limiting itself to Cannabis (Marijuana), plus a few "safe" things like clean needles.  Its as if injection should remain any drug's main mode of use-  distracting from rationally questioning whatever happened with natural plant drugs as Opium and Coca and others including Iboga - supressed under a drug war scheme that's all about protecting pharmaceuticals and cigarettes.

From Licit & Illicit Drugs, by Edward M. Brecher and Consumers Reports at page 230
showing upturns in cigarette use around the times of the 1906, 1914 and 1937 U.S. 'drug control laws'

2009 - Dealing with the situation with the 'Within The Beltway' stonewalling, with say a 300 year agenda as admitted by Ira Glasser at his keynote address at the DPA conference in November 2011, to eventually reduce such prohibitions - maintaining them as long as they can get away with to protect markets in pharma  -- Dana Beal and other drug policy activists smell a rat.  Hence, upon my advice, we organize the initial protest to begin seriously targeting a particular nexus of political power in Washington, D.C. long overdue in being spotlighted.

the building of that powerhouse law firm Covington &Burling

Eric Holder - current U.S. Attorney General

The founders of Covington & Burling LLP foresaw the pervasive effects of the forthcoming era of federal legislation, regulation, and taxation. In 1919, they sought to create a firm in the nation's capital that could advise and represent corporations located anywhere in the nation or the world on a wide range of legal issues. Today our Washington office has over 300 lawyers representing clients according to the highest standards and fulfilling the firm's strong commitment to public service.  http://www.cov.com/washington/
On January 20, 2009, President Obama was inaugurated, and we said farewell to a number of our lawyers who answered his call to service. Among them was our partner Eric Holder, who became the Attorney General of the United States almost sixty years to the day after Dean Acheson’s swearing in as Secretary of State.  http://www.cov.com/about_the_firm/firm_history/
Obama delivered heated rhetoric, but his actions signaled different prioities. Had Obama wanted to strike real fear in the hearts of bankers, he might have appointed former special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald or some other fire-breatheras his attorney general. instead, he chose Eric Holder, a former Clinton Justice official who, after a career in government, joined the Washington, joined the Washington office of Covington & Burling, a top-tier law firm with an elite white collar defense unit. The move to Covington, and back to Justice, is an example of Washington's revolving door ritual, which, for Holder, has been lucretive- he pulled in $2.1 million as a Covington partner in 2008, and $2.5 million (including deferred compensation when he left the firm in 2009.)

Putting a Covington partner- he spent nearly a decade at the firm- in charge of Justice may have sent a signal to the financial community, whose marquee names are Covington clients. Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan Chase, Citigroup, Bank of America, Wells Fargo, and Deutsche Bank are among the institutions that pay for Covington's legal advice, some of it relating to matters before the Department of Justice. But Holder's was not the only face at Justice familiar to Covington clients. Lanny Breuer, who had co-chaired the white collar defense unit at Covington with Holder, was chosen to head the criminal division at Obama's Justice. Two other Covington lawyers followed Holder into top positions, and Holder's principle deputy, James Cole, was recruited from Bryan Cave LLP, another white shoe firm with A-list finance clients.

Justice's defenders point out that prosecuting financial crime is a complicated matter requiring the highly secialized expertise found in the white-collar defense bar. But some suggest there is the potential for conflicting interest when the departments's top practices representing the very financial institutions that Justice is supposed to be investigating. "And that's where they're going back to," says Black. "Everybody knows there is a problem with that." (Two members of Holder's team have already returned to Covington.) A spokesperson for Covington was not available for comment. (Newsweek uses the firm as outside counsel.)  http://freedomofmedicineanddiet.blogspot.com/2012/05/newsweek-on-covington-burling-eric.html


1201 Pennsylvania Avenue

Covington & Burling -- the Eric Holder law firm -- was founded by James Harry Covington

Covington & Burling is not just another law firm
http://freedomofmedicineanddiet.blogspot.com/2011/10/covington-burling-is-not-just-another.html

Co Founded by James Harry Covington - a U.S. Congressman with Food and Drug Law evolution into the 1914 Harrison 'Narcotics' Act
http://freedomofmedicineanddiet.blogspot.com/2008/08/congressman-jh-covington-name-appearing_9159.html

JH Covington Becomes Judge and UpHolds Harrison 'Narcotics' Act
http://freedomofmedicineanddiet.blogspot.com/2011/10/jh-covington-upheld-harrison-narcotic.html
http://freedomofmedicineanddiet.blogspot.com/2011/09/hw-wiley-jh-covington-subversion-of-1st.html

Covington & Burling Tobacco
http://freedomofmedicineanddiet.blogspot.com/2011/09/tobacco-industry-httpwww.html
http://freedomofmedicineanddiet.blogspot.com/2008/08/cig-ind-legal-coordination_27.html
http://freedomofmedicineanddiet.blogspot.com/2008/08/1987-cig-ind-legal-coordination.html

Coca Feared by U.S.D.A. as a 'Tobacco Habit Cure'
http://freedomofmedicineanddiet.blogspot.com/2011/04/coca-as-tobacco-habit-cure.html

Covington & Burling - Drug Policy Reform Bottleneck or Facilitator?
http://freedomofmedicineanddiet.blogspot.com/2011/10/bottleneck-or-facilitator.html

Covington & Burling Food & Drug Practices
http://www.cov.com/practice/food_and_drug/

Covington & Burling Pharma attorney Eric Holder's Law Firm
http://freedomofmedicineanddiet.blogspot.com/2009/01/holder-breuer.html
http://freedomofmedicineanddiet.blogspot.com/2009/01/eric-holder-covington-burling-obama.html
http://freedomofmedicineanddiet.blogspot.com/2012/04/ex-covington-burling-pharma-attorney.html
http://freedomofmedicineanddiet.blogspot.com/2012/05/newsweek-on-covington-burling-eric.html

DPF Covington & Burling Legal Connection
http://freedomofmedicineanddiet.blogspot.com/2008/03/drug-policy-foundation-legal-connection.html

DPF Advised by Covington & Burling Food, Drug & Insurance Attorney
http://freedomofmedicineanddiet.blogspot.com/2008/03/drug-policy-foundation-advised-by-c.html

Open Invitation to Covington & Burling attorney Marialuisa Gallozzi 'assigned to take primary responsibility for advising the [Drug Policy] Foundation', with Covington & Burling long involved with organizations as DPF-DPA and Marijuana Policy Project, to speak at the Smoke In about legal activist strategies to end the 'drug war' - re-legalize plant drugs Opium and Coca as well as Marijuana and Iboga-Ibogaine.  Though useful for treating drug addictions, Iboga root bark and the isolated ibogaine alkaloid are 'schedule 1' - of a drug war not alleviating but rather perpetuating suffering.

Expose the 'drug war' as a FRAUD- in reality a criminal mercantilist pharma-cigarette 'drug war' enacted in a twisted U.S. Congress in 1914 against Opium, Coca and in 1937, Cannabis- a legal travesty further marked by the sweetheart exemption for alcoholic beverages and Tobacco products from retail ingrediant labeling requirments.

Marialuisa Gallozzi of Covington & Burling


2012 - the year to begin the end this mega boondoggle international estrangement from common sense- of perverting useful plants as Opium and especially Coca into white power poisons of abuse for a scheme to protect pharma and cigarettes.

Let's DO IT- End the pharma-cig mercantilism before the 100th anniversary of the Harrison 'Narcotics' Act.


Angelo Francois Mariani
Vin Mariani-



A Blog to Check Now and Regularly http://southmallblogger.blogspot.com/

Douglas Andrew Willinger - Angelo Francois Mariani Coca Activism
http://freedomofmedicineanddiet.blogspot.com/2012/06/douglas-andrew-willinger-angelo.html

Read more ►

Tuesday, 22 May 2012

Newsweek - On Covington & Burling/ Eric Holder

0 comments


Why Can't OBAMA Bring WALL STREET To Justice?

May 14, 2012

excerpt

Obama delivered heated rhetoric, but his actions signaled different prioities.  Had Obama wanted to strike real fear in the hearts of bankers, he might have appointed former special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald or some other fire-breatheras his attorney general.  instead, he chose Eric Holder, a former Clinton Justice official who, after a career in government, joined the Washington, joined the Washington office of Covington & Burling, a top-tier law firm with an elite white collar defense unit.  The move to Covington, and back to Justice, is an example of Washington's revolving door ritual, which, for Holder, has been lucretive- he pulled in $2.1 million as a Covington partner in 2008, and $2.5 million (including deferred compensation when he left the firm in 2009.)

Putting a Covington partner- he spent nearly a decade at the firm- in charge of Justice may have sent a signal to the financial community, whose marquee names are Covington clients.  Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan Chase, Citigroup, Bank of America, Wells Fargo, and Deutsche Bank are among the institutions that pay for Covington's legal advice, some of it relating to matters before the Department of Justice.  But Holder's was not the only face at Justice familiar to Covington clients. Lanny Breuer, who had co-chaired the white collar defense unit at Covington with Holder, was chosen to head the criminal division at Obama's Justice. Two other Covington lawyers followed Holder into top positions, and Holder's principle deputy, James Cole, was recruited from Bryan Cave LLP, another white shoe firm with A-list finance clients.


Justice's defenders point out that prosecuting financial crime is a complicated matter requiring the highly secialized expertise found in the white-collar defense bar.  But some suggest there is the potential for conflicting interest when the departments's top practices representing the very financial institutions that Justice is supposed to be investigating.  "And that's where they're going back to," says Black.  "Everybody knows there is a problem with that."  (Two members of Holder's team have already returned to Covington.)  A spokesperson for Covington was not available for comment.  (Newsweek uses the firm as outside counsel.)
Read more ►

Wednesday, 11 April 2012

ex-Covington & Burling Pharma Attorney With the Keys to the CSA

0 comments
With all of the bs criminal federal 'crack'down on medical marijuana, people are going to wonder about the connection

With the Controlled Substances Act granting so much power to the USAG, we can say the CSA thus so empowers a recent former Covington & Burling attorney who has represented big pharma

Yes, You Are Missing Something

It's called the Controlled Substances Act. It gives the power to schedule and reschedule controlled substances to the Attorney General (appointed, not elected), NOT Congress. The AG is part of the executive branch, meaning he (in theory) answers to the president. With a simple executive memo, the president could "encourage" the AG to reconsider marijuana as a schedule 1 substance. Really, that's all it should take.

In reality, the AG has delegated the responsibility for scheduling controlled substances to the DEA. In other words, not only are non-elected DEA officers making laws, they are also enforcing those very same laws. So, no way the DEA will approve rescheduling marijuana as it would put them out of business. Again though, a simple "suggestion" from the president could easily set things right, as the DEA are also part of the executive branch.



Read more ►

Sunday, 1 April 2012

About the Drug Policy - Covington and Burling Connection

0 comments



An Interview By The Federal Triangle:
About Appearances of Conflict of Interest with Covington & Burling’s pro-bono advisement relationship with drug policy reform organizations

With 'ML' Marialuisa S. Gallozzi, with C&B since 1987, in 1988 “assigned to take primary responsibility for advising the [drug policy] foundation”

By “FMD” Freedom of Medicine and Diet/ Douglas Willinger

FMD- As reported in FMD, from the initial Drug Policy Foundation biennial report, Arnold Trebach-Kevin Zeese preface letter identifies Covington & Burling’s pro-bono program linkage to the Drug Policy Foundation:
“… the leading Washington, D.C. law firm Covington & Burling accepted the Foundation as a pro bono publico [for the public good] client in regard to cooperate and tax matters in 1988. We have received valuable advice from Marialuisa Gallozzi, the Covington & Burling associate assigned to take primary responsibility for advising the Foundation. Having Covington and Burling in our corner is a source of great comfort.”
People throughout the drug policy reform movement are asking about this advisor-advisee relationship- owing to what they see as a clear potential for how advice from this law firm may affect the drug policy reform organizations, owing to C & B’s long history of clientele. Founded in 1919 at the start of the great growth in U.S. regulatory law, C&B is big into pharmaceuticals and other industries that benefit from the hysteria over the illegalized drugs, particularly Tobacco, there’s a clear interest in keeping up the hysteria over “cocaine” in order to obscure and keep illegal Coca Leaf, and thus a potential conflict of interest in this C&B relationship with drug policy reform organizations.

ML- Absolutely, FMD. A great many thanks for the opportunity to address this appearance of conflict of interest. As the attorney ‘assigned primary responsibility for advising the Foundation’ of this pro-bono program of this major food-tobacco-pharma industry law firm, I have an obligation to the public and to Covington & Burling to make myself available to answer questions regarding this pro bono relationship with the Drug Policy Foundation- now Drug Policy Alliance and other such organizations dedicated to reforming the laws regarding the now illicit drugs. Particularly at a time of this “Fast & Furious” controversy regarding a government program under U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder, to flood illicit gun markets in order to better arm the various drug gangs so they may shoot and kill more people, including U.S. border guards, and thereby continue and even escalate this drug war that was started in part by Covington & Burling’s co-founder, James Harry Covington, one time U.S. Congressman from the Maryland eastern shore. You see, Holder is from Covington & Burling, and so is his assistant AG Breuer. And Holder in particular, among his legal practices, represented some pharmaceutical companies- indeed as Covington is perhaps the largest legal representative of much of the pharmaceutical industry. Indeed, with the Controlled Substances Act granting so much power to the USAG, it can be said that the CSA thus so empowers a recent former Covington & Burling attorney who has represented big pharma- so likely guaranteeing a good show at some upcoming Congressional hearing on Fast & Furious.

FMD- Go on.

ML- Covington is the largest representative of so much, including food, drugs-pharmaceuticals. Its first client was the National Canners Association- still a client as the National Food Processors Association. The firm became THE firm for coordinating the defense of the cigarette industry- to sell what would be otherwise deemed a adulterated and mis-branded substance- oh but for the tradition established with that 1906 act for excluding a list of the additives.

Indeed Covington was established in the wake of and along with the tremendous rise in government regulatory expansion, indeed so much centralization in so much at that time, like a re-codification of cannon law to further centralize power within and near Rome.

Indeed, our founder James Harry Covington was involved in the drug war’s creation. Our founder was in the U.S. Congress when the 1906 U.S. Food and drug act was being crafted into the 1914 Harrison Narcotic Act which he than upheld as a federal judge regarding giving the power over health choice to the U.S. Department of Treasury!
As so much of this has created problems that concern many people, such as the tremendous increase in the prison population, it leads us to assist the various organizations that are set up to challenge such problems; but since we represent such a broad array of industry, that we inevitably get caught up in issues that threaten the established interests that we have and continue to represent. By long representing much of the drug-pharmaceutical industry for instance we end up representing those that benefit from the current century old drug control scheme. Hence our involvement with the drug policy reform or legalization movement inevitably raises conflicts with our established interests we represent.

FMD- Such as interests benefiting from this drug war as …?

ML- Various drugs that would be to some degree displaced by legalized Marijuana, Opium, Coca leaf.

Recently 10 pharmaceutical products were enumerated as potentially threatened by legalized Marijuana. Jack Herer of course pointed out the numerous industrial products likewise threatened by legalized Marijuana or rather, in many cases, Hemp, as they don’t use it for its medicinal-psychoactive properties. And of course that elephant in the living room ignored by everyone but yourself of Tobacco-Virginia Bright Leaf cigarettes by Coca Leaf particularly as both are plant-stimulants each respectively with nicotine or cocaine- two well known substances though blatantly perceived differently. You already done a masterful job with your DPF published papers during the early 1990s, though they have not published you since 1992. That is so weird given the potential effectiveness of your arguments to actually undermine support for the drug war regarding cocaine. Yet Ira Glasser, who anyone who can google can find takes Tobacco cigarette industry money, runs away from addressing the issue.

FMD- Oh yes. Did you read my accounts about him? Asides from 1995 with my COCA '95 panel they have not placed me on any panels, nor accept any of my panel proposals except the 1999 History Panel which nonetheless did not include any speakers on the Coca-cocaine issue, even rejecting such proposals as Coca Turning over a new leaf towards reducing health care costs with Dr Lester Grinspoon and Tinctures of Opium Wines of Coca Popular Pre Prohibition Uses of what became today’s white power poisons of abuse, with numerous speakers including Dr, John Morgan and former DPF employee, the writer Cynthia Cotts. The pharma tobacco drug legalization conflict is undeniable. The DPF clearly went away from the Coca cocaine issue, for instance discontinuing holding a regular “cocaine” panel after the 1992 DPF conference- though all in spite of the clear message of 1986 that reformers had to address the drug that was used for the post death of Len Bias by overdose hysteria used to generate public support for more draconian drug contraband penalties of cocaine. And it has gone conservative. We already had NORML and were to additionally get Marijuana Policy Project. Groups as the Drug Policy Foundation and its successor Drug Policy Alliance are about the broader issue of the popular illicit drugs which of course includes cocaine. So why not address it to belay the hysteria? Why keep cocaine a feared “narcotic” while nicotine remains part of a larger chronic poison taking some 440,000 premature lives annually within the U.S. and 6 million plus (if not as high as 40 million) annually worldwide, and 100+ million within the last calendar-century. Why deny the benefits of the Coca leaf- the stimulant according to UCLA’s Dr Ronald K. Siegel, the toxicologist who testified at the trial regarding Len Bias’s cocaine overdose supplier’s trial, that is the safest of its category? Why? Just look at the history, the 20th century drug control scheme in the U.S. came via the USDA- Department of Agriculture. Agricultural Mercantilism. This has raised numerous eyebrows.

ML- I can imagine seeing those eyebrows. A food and drug and insurance attorney at this powerhouse of a law firm for big pharma and the cigarette industry with a pro bono program advising drug policy reform/legalization organizations. And oh boy what a conflict. Our firm represents the interests that benefit from the “drug war”- so people are naturally going to wonder. Especially with no information forthcoming from myself, Covington nor any of these drug policy organizations since FMD began spotlighting this connection back in early 2008.

FMD- Indeed.

ML- This cigarette industry and that of the patent – aka patentable synthetic substances rather then un-patentable natural plant substances were and are the main beneficiaries of this new drug control scheme, of cocaine something to be feared by being required to be labeled while caffeine and nicotine were not, and to be arbitrarily deemed deleterious to human health irregardless of the concentration by a USDA that had been established to protect the interests of domestic business rather than health, thus favoring domestic Tobacco from the foreign market threat of the ‘Tobacco Habit Cure” of Coca Leaf.

Anyone with a background in vocal arts or anesthesiology would know this history.

FMD- Ah yes- Vin Mariani!

ML- Indeed, Vin Mariani.

Way better than powder cocaine, or cigarettes.

Popularized by Angelo Francois Mariani.

He was born December 17, 1838; and died April 1, 1914.



A Corsican by birth who moved to Paris to become a pharmacist in service to Parisian women who liked performing in opera, who all found Coca beneficial for the vocal cords and providing useful energy.

He understood Coca, deemed in South America as the essence of MamaCoca - the Earth Mother Figure - Most Special Gal. He bottled her essence. It gave a lot of people benefit, and was a good thing.

Alas the public allowed itself to be bamboozled by a “liberal-progressive” media that lied through its teeth, confusing “cocaine” in people’s minds from delightful alternative to caffeine to alluring concentrated white power poison of abuse. A mind over matter. Confuse the mind to allow destructive policies confused as beneficial and necessary but rather a deceptive self perpetuating lie. Result countless trillions in law enforcement/civil rights violations, plus trillions in added health care costs with some 100 million premature deaths resulting from this market distortion suppression of cocaine, protection-promotion of tobacco actually meeting the definition of adulterated and mis-branded.

This is to the benefit of a disastrous decision made in the early 1900s.

With the dragging of their feet regarding the Coca leaf issue, it is understandable that people are going to inquire upon what is tying this down and hence wonder about this linkage between the drug policy reform organizations and Covington & Burling.

What are they going to do- have the world think they hired me to suppress drug policy reform, drastically needed change in policies that are a continuing mega boondoggle health care human rights disaster?! Google my name with the terms “pharmaceutical” and there will be hits, only leading people to further wonder about this Covington and Drug Policy Reform organizations relationship. Even moreso given that current USAG Eric Holder's scandal- "Fast & Furious."

Tobacco the most dangerous was protected by the ban on Coca via the ridiculously overly simplistic hysteria against “cocaine”.

A mega colossal disaster, with a chain reaction of effects and successive reactions like a dog eternally chasing its tail.

We get the crack epidemic.

We get the trillions on added health care costs from the cigarettes.

We get amnesia about the Vin Mariani era.

Don’t they remember Vin Mariani?

It started as a favorite of Parisian stage performers helping tone their voices and given useful energy, not the up – down and afterward harshness of refined cocaine.

That was why cocaine was remembered favorably- as a delightful alternative to caffeine and even nicotine. And who would think of using the latter two as they bastardized cocaine starting during the mid 1880s.

So why has the Drug Policy Foundation stopped your excellent efforts to address cocaine after the 1992 conference?

People going to ponder that, knowing that its my name, an attorney specializing in food, drug and insurance, from Covington with its lengthy and extensive experience, and plus that with the clear market protection angle of the drug war that you cover but which all of the good old boy, fraternalistic orderesque organizations are naturally too chicken to do, so people are going to wonder about this program and ask, Bottleneck or Facilitator?

They have not yet let me stand up. The DPA would not even approve that excellent plenary panel on Agricultural Mercantilism with the former U.S. prosecutor Sheila Eubanks you made for the 2009 and 2011 DPA conferences.

Either we continue to stonewall, but more people will see this as an admission of the utter corruptness of Washington D.C. Fewer may want to send money to such foundations as the “Drug Policy Foundation” or Drug Policy Alliance” if it is seen as a tool of a Washington D.C. cigarette-pharmaceutical legal powerhouse founded by a man who helped found prohibition!

Or we do the right thing- for freedom of diet and medicine.

Covington & Burling has a long history going back to the very foundations of the great 20th century “war on drugs” or rather some drugs, a great deception that gets people to confuse its effects as somehow its continuing justification. People see the problems with prohibition and with ultra concentrated drugs – a situation engendered in most cases by Prohibition’s Iron Law that was the subject of an article by NORML’s Dick Cowan in the National Review way back in December 1986. They overlook the iron law of prohibition – remember when cocaine was in Coca Cola rather than taken as now. The FDA has been reluctant to approve other drugs taken in such a manner, such as nicotine nasal spray because of the pharmacokinetics how drugs are assimilated into the human body, aka slow versus fast all at once release. Its an issue known by science yet disregarded by that Basilica on the New Tiber- the U.S. Congress with its blatant cigarette-pharma mercantilism dating back at least to 1906.

Our founder was in the U.S. Congress when the 1906 US Food and Drug Act was being crafted into the 1914 Harrison Narcotic Act which he than upheld as a federal judge regarding giving the power over health choice to the U.S. Department of Treasury!

As for the advice I have given the DPF and any other such drug policy related organizations, that can wait for my upcoming public presentations, including those that the Drug Policy Alliance needs adding to its conferences, complete with a minimum of 20 minutes of question and answer time with the audience.

Give me the opportunity to answer any such questions about such advice, along with what I and Covington & Burling shall be doing to assist in the re-legalization of Coca Leaf and other plant preparation products, including possible class action suits on behalf of the global public against a scheme denying us the benefits of Coca, instead perverting its use for the sake of protecting the most intrinsically dangerous drug its class- Tobacco.

I will answer questions about that by being available for questions as a participant in the various drug policy reform organization conferences, including DPA, Harm Reduction Coalition, and Marijuana Policy Project and to provide an overview of what I and Covington must do with a full scale legal effort, both internationally and within the U.S. Just think about the arguments used against Obama Care, particularly those regarding the Commerce Clause. We can use momentum from this to scrap the Cigarette-Pharma-Market-Protection "Controlled Substances Act" drug-war-scam.

We have a moral obligation to reverse the madness.

And to think of the juxtaposition. After, accordingly Washington, D.C. is the city of the beautiful virgin, though now, given the political dynamics, particularly Ledochowski’s Georgetown University School of Foreign Service, remains a city of the great whore.
From the very beginning, the city was intended to celebrate the mystery of Virgo – of the Egyptian Isis, the Grecian Ceres and the Christian Virgin. This truth – and this truth alone – explains the structure of the city, and the enormous power of its stellar symbolism. Washington, D.C., is far more then a city of zodiacs – it’s a city which was built to celebrate a massive cosmic symbolism, expressed in stars. Its the main buildings – Capitol, White House and Washington Monument – mark on the Earth the annual renewal of that magical pyrotechnic display in the skys, which occurs on the days around August 10. (page 344)

From whatever direction one approaches the history of Washington, D.C., the processional avenue of L’Enfant seems always to find its way into the story, and the tale is usually linked with Masons. If we glance at the history of the capital from the viewpoint of, say, sculpture, we find a seamless fabric which joins together generations of artists through almost two centuries. And, this is a fabric woven in the vicinity of Pennsylvania Avenue.

Today, the Old Post Office is set back from Pennsylvania Avenue, oriented to the squares drawn on the original map along D Street, as though some planner had forgotten about what L’Enfant had indicated on his map. Across the road is the beaux arts building that once housed the most influential newspapers in the city, the Washington Evening Star, its façade still looking down onto the statute of Benjamin Franklin, who occupies the triangular-shaped declivity in Pennsylvania Avenue. It is entirely fitting that this building, so intimately linked with a setting star, should look onto one of the most influential of early American Masons, one who had knowledge of the stars and was a keen astronomer. The sculpture, commissioned of Jacques Jouvenal as a gift to the city by the newspaper proprietor Stilson Hutchins, was designed to look onto Pennsylvania Avenue from 10th Street [note. It sits on the south-eastern corner of Pennsylvania Avenue and 12th Street, being re-located there in 1982], because in those days the avenue was flanked by printers and newspapers: within a stones throw was the largest litho printer in the United States. Now the printers and newspaper have fled in the wake of threatened and actual development, leaving Franklin, displaced from his original symbolism, raising his right hand as though astonished in their disappearance. Nonetheless, there seems to be a destiny even in accidents, and this placing of a Mason on one side, and a building named after an evening star, is propitious.

The Evening Star departed its famous building in 1955, leaving only its stellar name in metallic and lapidary inscriptions overlooking the Pennsylvania frontage. The reception hall of the newspaper has been revamped in modern times, but it is possible that a meaningful symbolism has survived from earlier days. In its marble floor is a huge sunburst, or starburst pattern. The five splendid radiants throw their beams out toward this magical avenue, as though he were part of the profound secret of Washington, D.C. [emphasis added] (pp 311-312)

Does the state of Franklin, on its pedestal below the campanile, hold up its hand in amazement of this solar wonder? (page 344)
This account’s fixation upon the Eastern Star upon the Evening Star building may be misleading as it is to his 4 o’clock; curiously the book fails to mention the address of where Ben Franklin’s statute actually stares in astonished amazement diagonally across the intersection of Pennsylvania and 12th Street. 1201 Pennsylvania Avenue- the Covington & Burling building.






Consider, the continuing to this very day ancient regime, and its many wars not limited to its insane pervert cocaine to protect cigarettes drug war, but including Ledochowski’s vicious counter reformation revenge for the Kulturkampf, with Maximillian Kolbe’s “our war” deification of the Mary figure, suggestive of this woman, born on the Winter solstice as the Mother of War (some variant of Mary Lou given Louise=warrior?), at that spot of Washington, D.C. described by a Masonic book as the center of the universe where Ben Franklin’s statute stares in wondrous astonishment. Is not that suggestive that Covington is at the center of the universe? And that we have a job we must do!

FMD- Absolutely! Ben Franklin and everyone else are awaiting the Covington & Burling - Marialuisa Gallozzi move to end the travesty of anti Opium-Coca pro cigarette criminal mercantilism.

"The Farmer and the Cowman"
I'd like to say a word for the farmer,
He come out west and made a lot of changes
He come out west and built a lot of fences,
And built 'em right acrost our cattle ranges.
The farmer and the cowman should be friends,
Oh, the farmer and the cowman should be friends
Rogers, Richard and Hammerstain, Oscar. Oklahoma: Broadway Cast Album. Laurence Guittard, Christine Andrea, Mary Wickes et al. Mus. Dir. Jay Blackton. Red Seal, 1980; cited by Marialuisa S. Gallozzi in her USDA conference paper: "The Food Industry's View About the Development of Plant-made Pharmaceuticals and Industrials" presented at the USDA Agricultural Outlook Forum, Arlington, Virginia February 19-20, 2004



The Evil 'Drug' Prohibition to Promote Tobacco Cigarettes
http://freedomofmedicineanddiet.blogspot.com/2012/12/the-evil-prohibition-to-promote.html

MisManaged Drug Policy Reform Organizations - DPF/DPA
http://freedomofmedicineanddiet.blogspot.com/2010/07/peter-lewis-ira-glasser-is-waste-of.html


2012 - April 1 - South Mall Blogger
http://southmallblogger.blogspot.com/2012/04/2012-april-1.html


South Mall Blogger
http://southmallblogger.blogspot.com/
Read more ►

Wednesday, 22 February 2012

Radley Balko on CATO & REASON

0 comments
Via Facebook:
Radley Balko You're onto them, Douglas. Obviously, the most pressing issue with current drug war is who is responsible for for its inception at the beginning of the 20th century. And Reason and Cato have ignored this because are firmly ensconced in the pockets of the 1906 tobacco companies. And they would've gotten away with it if it weren't for your detective skills!
Thursday at 8:15pm · · 14



Alas they are STILL getting away with it- at least as I am the ONLY person writing about it...
Read more ►

Friday, 28 October 2011

Dana Beal Protests Covington & Burling

0 comments
The law firm where Eric Holder worked just prior to becoming Obama Administration U.S. Attorney General



This protest was held in early 2009. One can see the protesters marching to the Covington & Burling building at 1201 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, from Freedom Plaza (now the site of Occupy D.C.).
Read more ►

A Better Way- My Suggestion for C&B

0 comments


Covington and Burling was founded in 1919, just a scant half decade after the enactment of the U.S. Harrison Narcotics Act effectively banning Opium and Coca.

I say let’s have a Covington and Burling do something here truly beneficial, starting with a suit to repeal the 1961-1988 United Nations international ‘Narcotics’ Control conventions.

Do it as - ahem - repentance for your decades of shielding the cigarette industry with its sweetheart exemption of labeling requirements.

Do its as excellent public policy, and for people’s health, ridding the ‘legal’ prosecutorial mafia cigarette protectionist scheme, given Virginia Bright Leaf’s deleterious effects versus the safest being Coca leaf, getting rid of this market protection for the substance that killed 100 million in the 1900s and 1 billion in the 2000s, against the safer substances. Insurance companies should logically see their self interest here for their benefit and everyone else- but those insisting upon this continuing drug protectionism.

Do it pro bono, advising the governments of Bolivia and Peru, and/or various unions of Coca growers plus any public health related organizations, for public relations to counter their longstanding involvement with the cigarette industry with its reckless misuse of Virginia Bright Leaf Tobacco laced with numerous additives to promote consumption, which cause their own health problems, yet go unlabeled as part of the sweetheart deal exempting only cigarettes, alcoholic beverages and cosmetics from otherwise routine retail ingredient labeling. Remember that Coca was targeted by the USDA dedicated to protecting domestic agriculture.

Have Covington and Burling, initiate a suit against the United Nations International ‘Narcotics Control Board.

This requires an attorney with polished speaking skills. As apparent from the numerous legal events featuring her as a speaker, Covington and Burling has this with its insurance-food-pharmaceutical industry specialist attorney "assigned primary responsibility for advising the [drug policy] foundation".

I say send her before the U.N. INCB to speak eloquently against the current prohibitive status of Marijuana, Coca, Opium, Ibogaine and other substances, as a basic denial of human rights and public health as a perverse market protection benefiting the intrinsically most dangerous substance – Virginia Bright Leaf cigarettes, particularly those with the unlabeled burn accelerant additives – while perverting the infinitely safer Coca into the infinitely more dangerous concentrated forms of cocaine.

A Suggested Better Use for Our Covington and Burling Connection:

DPF Covington & Burling Legal Connection

http://freedomofmedicineanddiet.blogspot.com/2008/03/drug-policy-foundation-legal-connection.html

DPF Advised by C&B Food & Drug & Insurance Attorney
http://freedomofmedicineanddiet.blogspot.com/2008/03/drug-policy-foundation-advised-by-c.html

Covington & Burling Food & Drug Practices
http://www.cov.com/practice/food_and_drug/

Coca Come Back
http://freedomofmedicineanddiet.blogspot.com/2009/02/coca-come-back.html
Read more ►

Thursday, 27 October 2011

USAG Holder’s Criminal Mercantilism Against MJ as an ex partner at C&B?

0 comments

USAG Holder presides over a continuing and renewed inquisition against MJ, particularly within the State of California.

This serves not only entities as prison guard unions seeking even more overtime, but Big Pharm with its investments in such including pharmaceutical MJ derived products, such as GW Searle Pharmaceuticals, which has had legal representation with Washington D.C.’s best established corporate law firm- Covington & Burling, which is where Holder represented pharmaceutical interests as a partner just before his appointment as US AG by President Obama in 2009.


What inquiry has been done?

Could Holder be continually pushing the anti MJ inquisition due to a tendency of persons of his class to protect the interests of their clients?


Could he? We’ll accordingly to the book“The Super-Lawyers: The Small and Powerful World of the Great Washington Law Firm” by Joseph C. Goulden Prologue; pp 13-14

“America’s governmental system is so constituted that some Washington Lawyers constantly violate the public interest, without violating public statutes. These lawyers pervert the Federal government for the financial benefit of private corporate clients. Through legalistic maneuvering, they helped their clients keep on the marketplace a host of consumer products- ranging from pharmaceuticals to pesticides and automobiles- which are gravely dangerous to the American citizen. Through what is euphemistically called “effective representation,” some of them wheedle billions of dollars of tax breaks and public subsidies from a pliant Congress and Federal bureaucracy.” When criticized for emasculating laws designed to protect the public, they lapse into well-rehearsed speeches about “everyone has a right to a lawyer, whether he’s a corporation or an indigent criminal defendant.” Agreed. But some Washington Layers frequently go beyond the advocate’s role in representing industries and become an extension of management. An example: Covington and Burling is among the more self-consciously dignified firms in town, one prideful of its sweet sense of probity. And two of its senior partners- H. Thomas Austern and Stanley Temko- are the legal technicians who have helped manufacturers keep on the market a vast variety of pharmaceuticals and foodstuffs for years after the food and Drug Administration challenged their value (See chapter 1, “Covington and Burling: The Pinnacle of Power.”) There are dropouts. Robert Wald, formerly Washington Lawyer for the Lorillard cigarette interests, quit in 1971 because of personal misgivings about the industry he represented. Wald told The Wall Street Journel’s Jonathon Kwitny: “I haven’t the slightest doubt that cigarettes cause lung cancer. I had to come home every night and face my kids saying, “Daddy, why do you work for a cigarette company?’”

Holder Law Firm Big With Big Tobacco

Holder Law Firm Advised the Drug Policy Foundation

Holder Law Firm Long Involved With Drug Policy

Holder Law Firm's Continuing Involvement With Drug Policy

Holder’s Law Firm Founder’s Romish-Masonic Fraternal Connection
Read more ►

Wednesday, 26 October 2011

Pro Bono Programs: Seen as Total Bullshit and/or Public Relations

0 comments

From “The Super-Lawyers: The Small and Powerful World of the Great Washington Law Firm”
by Joseph C. Goulden; chapter 10 “The New Washington Lawyers: Balancing the Scales”

Pp 356-361

When the big-firm recruiters toured the name law schools beginning in the late 1960s, they encountered a recurrent phenomenon. Ho-hum indifference. No one wanted to listen to them. “Interviews” turned into angry confrontations, with students haranguing dignified lawyers on “responsibilities to society” and “whorish corporate attorneys.” Who wants you money? The students asked. I want to do something more important in life them work for General Motors or United States Steel.

The recruiters were philosophical, if stunned. “We had no trouble in finding enough good people to fill the slots we had vacant,” a Covington and Burling partner told me. He paused. “But I must admit we did miss getting some people we wanted. You’d find someone with good grades and an outstanding law review record, but his attitude would be so fouled up you could get nowhere with him.” One result of this experience was a decision by the major Washington firms to expand and (in some cases) to publicize their pro bono programs. (Not every firm believes in pro bono work, by that or any other names. I asked a man formerly with Corcoran, Foley, Rowe and Youngman what public interest work this firm did when he was there. He thought a moment and replied, “Tommy Corcoran used to be nice to Lyndon Johnson.”)

Pushed by activist young associates, Arnold and Porter’s management committee decreed that as a matter of formal policy the firm would devote fifteen percent of its time to pro bono work. Arnold and Porter assigned a partner as full-time supervisor of the program, with authority to draw upon the full resources of the firm. One figure I saw listed Arnold and Porter’s pro bono outlay, in manpower and non-reimbursed expenses, at $500,000 for 1970. Wilmer, Cutler and Pickering computes that thirteen percent of the firm time went for public-interest/pro bono work during 1970. Mortimer Caplin, of Caplin and Drysdale, says his firm invested a “couple of thousand hours” for nonpaying or low-paying clients during writing of the Tax Reform Act of 1969.

Most of this work is done in the name of individual lawyers, not of the firm. There is a reason. “Any time an office has more than one lawyer in it, you have two opinions on a subject,” states a partner of Hogan and Hartson. A background sheet on Wilmer, Cutler and Pickering’s pro-bono program explains:

The firm’s 57 lawyers have individual and sometimes differencing views on public questions. It is our shared belief that individual lawyers with the form should be free, consistent with the Code of Professional Responsibility, to pursue their own independent and professional goals. Rather than attempting to achieve a unified “position” on any particular matter, the members of this firm encourage each individual to take whatever public position on issues of public concern he feels appropriate.

A sampling of Wilmer, Culer and Pickering cases: Contesting unreasonably high utility charges to the poor, especially in the South and Appalachia. Helping organize a nonprofit corporation to build low-income housing in Mississippi. Challenging early voter registration cutoff dates before Texas primary elections. Assisting the G.I. Office a center for servicemen complaining of military abuses, and the Vietnam Moratorium Committee and the New Mobilizations to End the War in Vietnam, the anti-war groups. Combating freeways planned to cut through a scenic park in Memphis, Tennessee, and New Orleans’s Vieux Carres. The firm can also mobilize manpower for an emergency: in April and May 1968, ninety percent of the lawyers in the firm helped represent persons arrested during the riots following the murder of the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King; later, a partner chaired a D.C. committee that revised police court, and jail procedure during situations that result in mass arrests. And Culter has been a guiding force in the Lawyer’s Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, virtually the only surviving white-dominated group pressing for desegregation.

Law activists deride the pro bono programs. One morning while awaiting an appointment at the George Washington Law School I talked with two guys at the coffee machine, and we got onto pro-bono. “Pure bullshit,” one of them said. “Public relations,” said the other. “You ever hear of them going after anybody with money, the big corporations?” Yes, as a matter of fact. Arnold and Porter is helping Nader in a suit to require General Motors to recall trucks whose wheels allegedly have the disquietening habit of breaking apart. Some Arnold and Porter clients protested vigorously that the firm would help the demon Nader do anything whatsoever, but the firm persevered. And Benny Kass, who practices all alone, without foundation money or visible sympathy for Washington Lawyers, told me “Unhappily, a measure of sincerity in 1970 is how much money you are paying for something. Covington and Burling had paid $100,000 on the Culebra case the last time I checked. Now that means something.”

But the pro bono programs have inherent defects. The large firms are limited in the type of actions they can bring, lest they are caught in a conflict-of-interest problems with existing clients. For instance, airline business is spread evenly across Washington Law. A Benny Kass was required to sue American Airlines for allegedly deceptive advertising. When student activists wanted to sue District of Columbia banks for alleged violations of usury laws, the big firms politely told them to go away; any firm with a D.C. bank for a client- or possibly any bank- would have a conflict of interest. There are anomalies. Louis Oberdorfer was national co-chairperson of the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law at the same time that his firm Wilmer, Cutler and Pickering, represented Crown-Zelerbach, which was being sued for employment discrimination under the Civil Rights Act. (The case ended with Crown-Zellerbach signing a consent decree.)

Even more serious a threat to pro bono work are the internal pressures from within a firm. When Richard Copaken began representing residents of Culebra he asked other public-interest lawyers for advice. “Get all the publicity you can,” he was told. One lawyer suggested that he demand equal TV time to counter Navy recruiting advertising- for each “John the Navy and see the world” spot, he should demand one saying, “Join the Navy and bomb the people of Culebra.” The lawyer told Copaken publicly was always vital on a public policy case being fought in the political forum of Congress. Copakan liked the idea, but told the other lawyer a few days later” “the firm wouldn’t let me do it. We represent a network, and such a suit might embarrass it.” Again, a Covington and Burling partner who formally held a high Department of Defense position subtly suggested that Copaken go easy on the suit. Copaken refused.”

Lawyers reflexive clubbiness is another inhibiting factor in pro bono work. In December 1971 the directors of the Washington branch of the American Civil Liberties Union were debating how much, if any, assistance the ACLU should give to attorney Phillip Hirschkop, who had been cited for contempt of court for his conduct of the defense of anti-war activists. The District of Columbia Bar Association, through its grievance committee, concurrently was initiating its own disciplinary proceedings. Hirschkop’s attorney, Monroe Freedman, wanted ACLU support in a court action enjoining the bar committee from acting. But two lawyers on the ACLU board argued against involving the ACLU in the case. One of them- David B. Isbell, of Covington and Burling- noted that Edmund L. Jones, a leading partner in Hogan and Hartson, another big firm, was chairman of the Grievance committee, and that any suit wold have to name him as a defendant. According to two persons at the meeting, Isbell noted that Hogan and Hartson handles fifteen to twenty cases a year for the ACLU, and that a suit against Jones could so “embarrass” the firm it would withdraw from further pro bono work. Isbel was outvoted. The ACLU decided to aid Hirschkop.

Covington & Burling – Drug Policy Foundation PRO BONO connection
Link FMD 3-31-08
Read more ►

Covington & Burling’s Unique International Practice: as “a prime mover in shaping foreign policy” 1947

0 comments

From “The Super-Lawyers: The Small and Powerful World of the Great Washington Law Firm”
by Joseph C. Goulden; chapter 1: “Covington & Burling: Pinnacle of Power” pp 42- 49

Illustrations: C&B and Iran

How this reportedly started:

One morning in 1947 the Iranian Ambassador to the United States telephoned John G. Laylin, a senior partner at Covington and Burling, and asked him to come to the embassy immediately. The matter was urgent, the Ambassador said, and he would be appreciative if Laylin would hurry. The firm had already done no work for Iran previously; curious about the summons, Laylin dropped whatever work he was doing and caught a cab. “When I got there and sat down, the Ambassador asked what I liked to drink,” Laylin recollects. “I told him that I was a Scotch man, but that I normally didn’t drink anything that early. After all, it was only ten in the morning. “The Ambassador smiled, “Mr. Laylin’ he said, ‘after what I am going to tell you, I think you are going to need a drink. I have just been authorized to hire you to get the Russians out of my country.” “’Mr. Ambassador,’ I said, ‘I think I would like to have a Scotch.’” And thus began a period of cold war diplomacy which variably made Covington and Burling an arm of the United States Department of State, orchestrating activities of friendly allied governments so they do not conflict with Washington’s foreign policy goals.

Covington and Burling’s international practice is unique in several respects. As do a score of other New York and Washington firms, it advises foreign governments and companies in routine commercial matters. But unlike the others, it is also a prime mover in shaping foreign policy- both of the United States and of its clients and Washington overlap.

In the case of Iran, Laylin says, “the Russians had overstayed their welcome” after the Second World War ended, and both the Iranians and Washington wanted them out. A formal treaty obligated the Soviets to withdraw by March 2, 1946, but they stalled, pressing for Iranian recognition of a pro-Soviet autonomous regime created in Azerbaijan, and for a joint Soviet-Iranian company to exploit oil resources in the north of the country. Because of a strong pro-Soviet element in its Parliament, the Iranian government did not have complete freedom of action, and Ambassador Hussein Ala maneuvered to persuade the United States to take the matter to the Security Council on its own initiative. Secretary of State James Byrnes was sympathetic, but replied Iran would be better received if it acted on its own. The visit to Laylin followed.

Laylin helped the Ambassador draft Iran’s case for presentation o the United Nations Security Council; after some months of haggling, the Soviets appeared to have won their two points and withdraw the troops. Whereupon the Iranian parliament repudiated the oil consortium agreement and sent troops into Azerbaijan to reestablish authority in the breakaway region. Summarizing his efforts, Laylin says, “This was the only time in the postwar period the Soviets were bargained out of anything.”

Dean Acheson had left Covington and Burling in 1941 to reenter government; from August 1945 to June 1947, when the firm was rebuilding its international practice, he served as Under Secretary of State, the department’s number-two position. Laylin, however, insists that Acheson “had absolutely nothing to do” with Covington and Burling representing Iran and Greece, two nations with whose affairs Acheson dealt intimately in his official capacity. “The Iran case came about this way,” he said. “Immediately after the war I handled a routine case for Saudi Arabia. An Arabist in the State Department apparently was impressed. Anyway, shortly thereafter, when Iran asked this man to recommend a United States lawyer for the Soviet problem, he listed three firms- Covington and Burling was among them- and told what I had done for Saudi Arabia. That’s why the [Iranian] Ambassador called me in. Right after we won the Iranian case in the United Nations, the Greek Ambassador said to me, “Congratulations! You ran the Russians out of Iran. Now you are going to run them out of Greece.’”

The Greek case, considerably more complicated, involved much closer liaison with former partner Acheson, and it is also a nigh-classic case of the overlaps between government and the quasi-public world of the Washington lawyer. Greece was near collapse in the winter of 1946-47 because of guerrilla activity, economic turmoil and inept government; Acheson writes in his memoirs that the situation there “deteriorated rapidly during January and February 1947” and that by late February “all signs pointed to an impending move by the Communists to take over the Country.”

On February 15, 1947, Covington and Burling formally consummated its agreement with the Greek government. P. Economous-Gouras, charge d’ affaires of the Greek embassy in Washington, spelled out the terms in a letter to Laylin and John Lord O’Brien, another senior partner in the international field:

You are to act as our sole legal advisors in the United States in all matters brought by Greece to the attention of the Security Council of the United Nations and all questions involved in the application of Greece for loans from the Export-Import Bank, and from the International Bank for Reconstructing and Development [the World Bank].

It is understood that you are not to be asked to undertake any work that may conflict in any way with the foreign policy of your government, and that you may reserve the right to withdraw at any time as our advisors if in your opinion any proposed course of conduct will conflict with the policy of your government.

You have stated it will not be satisfactory to answer isolated questions but that within the scope of your work you must be kept fully informed and consulted on all developments. Te embassy and our country will, of course, be free to follow your advice or not as we think best promotes the interests of Greece, but we fully understand and will respect your desire to withdraw as counsel in the event that your advice is not followed on any matter of importance.

Economou-Gouras agreed to pay Covington and Burling “in accordance with your customary scale of charges on a time basis,” and enclosed a $5,000 retainer. But the amount actually received by Covington and Burling for the case indicates Greece was not a normal commercial client. The fees for three years totaled only $52,263, a pittance for the amount of work done by the firm. The Iranians paid less than $50,000. Laylin, however, denies Covington and Burling got into the case on behalf of the State Department or any other Federal agency.

Three days later, on February 21, Secretary of State George C. Marshall directed Dean Acheson “to prepare the necessary steps for sending economic and military aid” to Greece; shortly thereafter, economically strapped Britain formally announced her intention to cease aid to Greece and Turkey within six weeks, and the chain of events which led to the establishment of the Marshall Plan was underway. Financially, Covington and Burling worked with state Department officials to lobby $400 million in economic and military aid through Congress, paying particular attention to Republican Senator Arthur Vandenberg. Diplomatically, Laylin and O’Brien wrote speeches for the Greeks to present both in the Security Council and in the General Assembly. The issue there, was support of guerrillas in Greece by Yugoslavia, Albania and Bulgaria. “I never spoke for Greece in the debates, but I sat in the audience or right behind the delegates, and I offered my thoughts,” Laylin says. “It was ninety-nine percent legal work.” A Soviet veto killed a U.S. resolution in the Security Council asking for cessation of external aid to the guerrillas, but with Laylin’s guidance Greece managed to push the same document through the General Assembly.

According to the record of U.N. debates, the U.S. and Greek position were indistinguishable during the entire episode. Yet Laylin attempts to draw a clear distinction during the entire episode. Yet Laylin attempts to draw a clear distinction between representing a foreign government – “which we never do” – and advising a foreign government. “I would not go to the State Department and say I am speaking for the government of Greece,” Laylin says. “I say I am advising the Greeks, and that the Prime Minister, or Foreign Minister has asked me to say “this is the position of Greece.” When working for a foreign client, Laylin says, “I make clear that I am American, and I am not going to do anything against the high policy of my government; if it ever gets to the point, I’ll withdraw. But that does not mean I am reluctant about telling people in the State Department that something I am advocating is a good thing for my client and the United States, too.”

The distinction carries with it an independence that Laylin says he would not have if he acted as an agent of a foreign client. “If a lawyer is acting as the representative of a foreign government and instructions come from the home office—the foreign ministry, or the chief executive officer- he has to follow them. This holds also for the Ambassador. But I come back to them and say, ‘I don’t think this is so good, and I don’t think you should do it.’

‘Let me give you an example, concerning a country I’ll have to leave nameless. This country was a beneficiary of a considerable amount of United States financial aid. It fell down in a deal involving a shipment of grain and was sued for certain demurrage charges for the shipping, something relatively simple relating to slowness of the paperwork. The case was pretty clear-cut against the country. The foreign ministry wanted to plead sovereign immunity and get out of the suit. It was silly. At most, the country would save $300,000 or so. But in doing so it would jeopardize literally tens of millions of future aid, because the United States government would be most upset.

“The Ambassador did not have guts enough to tell the foreign minister he was doing a stupid thing. We can speak candidly, for the worst thing they can do, if the foreign minister is offended, is to fire us. We are not dependent upon any one client- but the Ambassador is.” The country followed Laylin’s advice and paid the claim.

Laylin and other firm partners frequently- but non-specifically- speak of Dean Acheson’s “attractiveness” in obtaining new clients. Acheson rejoined the firm on January 21, 1953, the day after leaving the office of Secretary of State. He registered as an agent of a foreign government in only one instance: in August 1959, to aid the Venezuelan government in its successful attempt to extradite the ousted dictator Marcos Perez Jimenez for trial for fiscal corruption. But as a private citizen, Acheson spoke with the authority of a former Secretary of State on issues involving foreign governments which Covington and Burling had represented. He argued to the House Foreign Affairs Committee in 1970 against commercial strictures against South Africa, and he had friendly words for the junta government of Greece. And Acheson also did favors for Presidents. The public awareness of which is not harmful to a Washington Lawyer. President Kennedy used Acheson to pass word to the West German government he wanted a different German Ambassador in Washington, and the sooner the better, and to help through the NATO crisis precipitated by Charles de Gaulle’s withdrawal of France. President Johnson first utilized Acheson as an advisor on civil rights matters, and found him a faithful follower of his Vietnam policy. And President Nixon brought Acheson out of retirement in 1971 to help beat down an attempt by Senator Mike Mansfield to cut U.S. troop commitments to NATO.

Laylin is the Covington and Burling partner responsible for training new associates who intend to work in the international field. He looks for men with a background parallel to his own: an emphasis on political science, history, and government in undergraduate school, then a heavy load of international law courses. After his own graduation from Harvard Law, in 1928, Laylin interviewed at Sullivan and Cromwell, the big New York law firm. This was an era when one could make a serious case for the position that Sullivan and Cromwell outranked the State Department in the conduct of U.S. foreign policy. Both John Foster and Allen Dulles came through that law firm, and Laylin says John Foster Dulles “arranged for an appointment for me to work with Dwight Murrow, who was then our Ambassador in Mexico City. I learned much there about how business is done with foreign nations. It was invaluable.” (Covington and Burling which avoids hiring lawyers from the government actually scouts the Foreign Service for bright people). After two years with Marrow, Laylin returned to Sullivan and Cromwell; although he yearned for an independent practice, some homework was in order. “Talk all you want to about being an ‘international lawyer,’ Laylin says, “first you’ve got to learn to be a good lawyer. I handled all sorts of small cases; the principles are pretty much the same- how to develop a factual situation; what is important to your case; where to draw the issue; how to argue it.”

Notably while stating that Covington & Burling had its start as an arm of the U.S. State Department owing to its hiring by the government of Iran, his book states on p 50 that:

“But Covington and Burling’s longest time client has been Pakistan, for which it has served as permanent solicitor around the world. “We have advised them from the beginning, when they first came into existence in 1947.” The first case involved a dispute with India over water rights in the Indus River basin. Laylin prepared a World Court brief, but India refused to accept the court’s jurisdiction,. And what followed is why Laylin thinks international law is a fascinating way to make a living. “In international law,” he told me, “you about have to create your own forum. If you have a really hot dispute, they certainly are not going to arbitrate.” So Laylin began searching for someone to whom he could argue Pakistan’s cause. He learned that India had asked the World Bank for financing of a dam on its side of the Indes- one which would enable it to halt the flow of water to Pakistan. “I persuaded the World Bank and its directors to adopt a policy under which they would not lend money for structures on international rivers before the parties had agreed on an equitable distribution of water,” Laylin said. India protested the regulation, for she knew exactly why it was being proposed, and by what lawyer. But India also needed the dam, so she agreed to negotiate the settlement of the Indus issue with Pakistan. To tighten the lid on his victory, Laylin also succeeded in persuading the International Law Commission, a UN group, to pass a declaration on the rights of riparian states to waters from international waters.

Laylin worked fourteen years on the Indus River, and very profitably. Pakistan paid legal fees ranging from as high as $125,000 per year during the period, according to foreign agent registration statements filed by Covington and Burling with the Justice Department. Also remunerative is a commercial and political intelligence operation Covington and Burling runs for the Hong Kong General Chamber of Commerce. The firm periodically reports on “proposed legislation introduced in Congress and on matters raised with the Tariff Commission and with other agencies concerning imports in which the members of the Chamber and/or Federation [of Industries] may be interested.” In 1968 alone, Covington and Burling received $33,450 for its reports on tariff matters. But foreign representations carry with them the potential for nickel and dime cases a firm as august as Covington and Burling would normally shun- for instance, a lease dispute between Guinea and the New York World Fair Corporation, and a row between client Canada and Ghana over who was responsible for repairs to a nine-inch-tall brick fence and retaining wall separating their respective embassies.

And on p 53 it states:

“Actually, Laylin continued, Covington and Burling once had an even more intense internal dispute over representation of a nation at the other end of the political spectrum. “We were attorneys for Poland before it went Communist. On that occasion, we resigned at the insistence of one or two partners- not including Mr. Acheson, I might add. I was dead set against resigning. We were helping them prepare paperwork for an Export-Import Bank loan for construction of coal cars that would service all of Europe. The coal was badly needed, for this was the period of great economic stress, the years right after the war. The State Department was most upset by our decision, for Americans in Poland were having trouble obtaining counsel. I argued, but I lost, and we had to drop Poland.

Laylin was silent for a moment. “You know,” he finally continued, “some of these younger people don’t seem to understand the proper role of a lawyer. We are not here to save the worked, or to force our own ideas on someone else, but to represent clients.”

Poland went communist in 1947.
Read more ►
 

Copyright © Freedom of Diet Design by O Pregador | Blogger Theme by Blogger Template de luxo | Powered by Blogger