Cubadebate (English) » Kathleen Cardone

El Paso Diary: The Sound and Fury of Otto Reich

José Pertierra — Wed, 06 Apr 2011 14:51:05 +0000

El Paso Diary: Day 38 of the Posada Carriles Trial

By José Pertierra

Portada de Newsweek. Foto: Página web de Otto Reich www.ottoreich.com

The defendant’s name was barely mentioned in court in today. Instead, Judge Kathleen Cardone allowed the defense attorney to put the New York Times, its journalist Ann Louise Bardach and the Republic of Cuba on trial.

Last week, after 11 grueling weeks and 23 witnesses, the Government rested. The prosecution’s final witness was Ann Louise Bardach. Now it is the defense’s turn to present its case-in-chief.

A brief biography of the witness

Luis Posada Carriles’ first witness was Otto Reich. He came to court dressed like a banker, wearing a tailored dark blue suit with a light blue tie that stood out from his starched white shirt.

Reich told the jurors that he was born in Havana in 1945 and immigrated to the United States in 1960. “I was 14 years old. My father decided to make our home in North Carolina, because he couldn’t find work in New York,” he said.

“Did you perform military service for our country?” asked defense attorney Arturo Hernández.

“Yes. From July of 1966 to November of 1969,” answered Reich. He did not say and was not asked if he’d served in Vietnam during that period. With evident pride in his voice, Reich told the jurors that he’d worked for President Ronald Reagan and also for both Presidents Bush.

Some pearls of wisdom from Otto

After Reich testified that his duties under Reagan included matters relating to Cuba, Judge Cardone ruled that he could testify as an expert witness. As such, he need not limit his testimony to facts he has witnessed. He may testify about what he thinks, rather than only what he knows.

As an “expert on Cuba,” Reich offered these pearls of wisdom to the jury:

• There are 50,000 soldiers being held prisoner in Cuba and not for insubordination.
• The rafter crisis of 1994 occurred because burly construction workers on Havana’s seaside Malecón hit people over the head during an uprising.
• Our FBI and CIA agents are decent people who obey the laws and rules of humane conduct, whereas their counterparts in Cuba’s intelligence service do not and even kidnap people and kill them.

Since he had been declared an expert, there was no need to establish a foundation for his opinions. Reich’s putative gnosis carries a weight all its own.

His expert opinions, however, fly in the face of well-established wisdom.

According to the International Institute of Strategic Studies in London—hardly a lefty think tank—Cuba’s troop strength is believed to be somewhere between 50,000 to 60,000. To posit that 50,000 of those troops are in prison, as Reich maintains, means that hardly anyone in the Cuban armed forces has escaped incarceration to defend the country from invasion. Moreover, neither the CIA, the State Department or human rights groups remotely suggest a thing. Only Otto Reich is out on a limb on this issue.

According to Amnesty International, the 1994 rafter crisis was caused by a combination of events—notably the downturn in the island’s economic conditions due to the collapse of the Soviet Union and Eastern European nations, Cuba’s long-time trading partners. The U.S. embargo, coupled with laws that virtually guaranteed the legalization of Cubans who took to the seas to illegally immigrate to the United States also fueled the exodus, said Amnesty International. To allege that “burly construction workers” precipitated a mass exodus because they allegedly hit some people over the head at a demonstration is naïve—at best—and irresponsible.

Hasty generalizations are never recommended and ought to be avoided by expert witnesses. Otto Reich’s expert opinion that U.S. intelligence officers “are people who obey the law and the rules of human behavior… whereas Cuban intelligence officers do not” also flies in the face of established fact. According to the U.S. Army Criminal Investigation Command, army soldiers as well as American intelligence officers and contractors were responsible for physical, psychological and sexual abuse of prisoners, including torture, rape and sodomy.

Prosecutor Reardon objected vigorously, throughout Reich’s direct examination. “Objection, relevance!” he said repeatedly. Curiously, the prosecutor did not object that the statements were wrong, naïve and without any foundation—nor did he point out that any one of Aesop’s Fables contains more truth than all of Otto Reich’s testimony today.

Judge Cardone overruled virtually all of Reardon’s objections, because she found Reich’s statements relevant for the purpose of impeaching previous witnesses.

It is curious, however, that to impeach the testimony of the two Cuban witnesses, Reich directed his testimony against the country of Cuba. He has no personal knowledge of either the Cuban investigator or the Cuban forensics specialist who testified previously, so he could make no reference to them. But Judge Cardone, by allowing Reich to attack Cuba, allowed him to attack them vicariously.

The Office of Disinformation and Propaganda

Among the posts that Reich held under President Ronald Reagan was Director of the so-called Office of Public Diplomacy, from 1983 to 1986. “It was the first time that the State Department created an office to get ahead of the critics of our foreign policy,” said Reich.

An investigation by the U.S. Comptroller General found that at the end of the 1980s, the office headed by Reich had tried to influence public opinion in favor of the Nicaraguan Contras using “prohibited, covert propaganda.”

Here in El Paso, the Government passed on the opportunity to ask him about a report, dated September 7,1988, from the House Foreign Affairs Committee, which evaluated the work of the office directed by Reich and concluded:

“…[S]enior CIA officials with backgrounds in covert operations, as well as military intelligence and psychological operations specialists from the Department of Defense, were deeply involved in establishing and participating in a domestic political and propaganda operation run through an obscure bureau in the Department of State which reported directly to the National Security Council rather than through the normal State Department channels.”

The report added that “…the Department of State was used, and perhaps compromised, by the CIA and the NSC to establish, sustain and manage a domestic covert operation designed to lobby the Congress, manipulate the media and influence domestic public opinion.”

“My office was investigated and they didn’t find anything,” Reich stated today. However, in his first speech as Assistant Secretary of State for Latin American Affairs at the State Department, Reich joked about the controversy and greeted his “former colleagues” and “unindicted co-conspirators.”

The alleged biases of the New York Times and Ann Louise Bardach

Perhaps because of Reich’s extensive knowledge about how to misinform and manipulate the media, the defense attorney wanted to bring him to El Paso. Attorney Hernández asked him to give the ladies and gentlemen of the jury his evaluation of the pre-eminent newspaper in the United States, the New York Times.

“The New York Times is biased against Cuban Americans in general and against anti-Castro Cuban-Americans in particular,” the expert testified. He also offered an opinion about Ann Louise Bardach, the journalist who wrote for the New York Times and to whom Posada Carriles had confessed to being the mastermind behind the 1997 bombings in Havana.

Using the phrase made famous by Fox News, the rightwing news channel, Attorney Hernández asked, “In your opinion, is Ms. Bardach fair and balanced?”

“She is anything but fair and balanced,” answered Reich.

Hernández then read aloud—in a mocking tone—various phrases from one of Bardach’s books, where the author mentions Reich. Without asking for explanations, he asked Reich if Bardach’s information was correct. “No, it isn’t,” Reich answered tersely.

None of the cited passages had to do with the indictment against Luis Posada Carriles. The essential point of Reich’s testimony consisted of character assassinations of the New York Times and Bardach. “She manipulates information and falsifies things,” stated Reich with the same self-assured tone he used earlier to opine about Cuba.

Eileen Murphy, the vice president of corporate communications for the New York Times, responded this afternoon to the witness’s opinions: “Otto Reich has not demonstrated any factual errors in the [Bardach] stories, nor has anyone else in the 13 years since their publication,” she said.

From Santa Barbara, California, Bardach also responded to Reich’s statements. “Reporters with bias against exiles are not granted interviews with Orlando Bosch, Antonio Veciana, Salvador Lew, Juanita Castro, Angel Alfonso, Raúl Masvidal—and literally scores of Cuban-Americans in Miami I have been granted. The well-deserved criticism of Otto Reich—known for his vendettas with journalists and his perceived critics—by myself and many other reporters is not a reflection on any other Cuban-American,” she said.

It is noteworthy that Judge Cardone would not allow Otto Reich to share his opinion about Luis Posada Carriles with the jurors, yet she permitted him to render vacuous opinions about Cuba, Venezuela, Latin America, the New York Times and Ann Louise Bardach.

No mention of the Venezuelan coup d’état or of Orlando Bosch

In El Paso, no one touched on Otto Reich’s role in the coup d’état in Venezuela in 2002, his criticism of the Venezuelan democratic process and his immediate support for the coup plotters when he was working in the State Department of George W. Bush.

In April of 2002 The Guardian revealed that sources in the Organization of American States (OAS) confirmed that during the months immediately preceding the coup, Reich had a series of meetings with the principal organizers of the coup, where details of the coup were discussed, including its timing and chances for success, which they believed to be excellent.

The day of the coup, according to the Guardian, “Reich summoned ambassadors from Latin America and the Caribbean to his office. He said the removal of Chávez was not a rupture of democratic rule, as he had resigned and was ‘responsible for his fate.’ He said the U.S. would support the Carmona government.”

Prosecutor Reardon also did not ask the witness about the cables from the State Department in 1986 and 1987, which confirm that Reich, then the U.S. Ambassador to Venezuela, asked Washington repeatedly for information about the possibility that Orlando Bosch might enter the United States, despite his long history of terrorism and his having been a co-conspirator with Posada Carriles in blowing up a passenger airliner.

Cuban culture

Reardon did ask the witness about the bombings in Havana in 1997. Despite considering himself an expert on Cuba, Otto Reich admitted that the only thing he knew about that terrorist campaign is what he had read in the papers. “I haven’t studied the incident of the bombs,” he said.

“Do you believe that the bombs in Havana in 1997 affected tourism on the island?” Reardon asked the expert. “Mr. Reardon,” explained Reich, as though he was teaching a course on international relations to high school sophomores, “violence is part of Cuban culture.”

Macbeth

What did the jurors think of Otto Reich’s testimony in El Paso? It’s impossible to tell, although he did communicate an allegiance to the Republican administrations of Ronald Reagan and both Bushes. It was also evident that Reich doesn’t care for communists or for the New York Times. And it was obvious that he personally detests Ann Louise Bardach.

Yet it was also plain that Reich had absolutely nothing to say about the bombings in Havana in 1997 or about Posada Carriles’ voyage on the Santrina in March of 2005. He was not in Havana in 1997 nor in Isla Mujeres in 2005. He said that he met Posada Carriles for the first time last night in El Paso.

Reich’s testimony in El Paso recalls Macbeth’s speech at Dunsinane Castle:

“Life’s but a walking shadow, a poor player
That struts and frets his hour upon the stage
And then is heard no more: it is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing.”

Sidebar

I first met Otto Reich in December of 1999, when we both appeared on PBS’s NewsHour, in one of the first televised debates about the Elián González case.

During our several debates over the course of the next several months, Reich defended the proposition that the child should remain in Miami with distant relatives, and I argued that it was up to the father to decide where his son should live. “Elián is not your son, Otto,” I told him many times. I was part of the legal team that represented Elián’s father. I’ve not seen Reich since we won Elián’s case. The little boy returned to Cuba to live with his father 11 years ago. When we saw each other last night at the hotel, Reich mentioned our debates, “Pertierra, I haven’t seen you since the Elián case.”

“Otto, that case we won,” I reminded him.

José Pertierra practices law in Washington, DC. He represents the government of Venezuela in the case to extradite Luis Posada Carriles.
Translated by Machetera and Manuel Talens. They are members of Tlaxcala, the international network of translators for linguistic diversity.
Spanish language version: http://www.cubadebate.cu/noticias/2011/03/26/diario-de-el-paso-el-cuento-de-otto-reich

El Paso Diary: Judge Cardone

José Pertierra — Tue, 15 Feb 2011 14:14:57 +0000

Judge Kathleen Cardone

El Paso Diary: Day 20 in the Trial of Posada Carriles

By José Pertierra

Judge Kathleen Cardone continued the case of Luis Posada Carriles in El Paso until next Tuesday, February 22, 2011, at 8:30 a.m. The defense attorney, Arturo Hernández, moved last week to dismiss counts one through three of the indictment: those having to do with his client’s false statements about the bombs that exploded in Havana in 1997. This morning, the judge was supposed to have announced her decision regarding that motion, but she surprised everyone by deciding to delay the case another seven days to “deliberate calmly.”

Good morning

Both the defense and the prosecution met yesterday behind closed doors with Judge Cardone. This is a judge who enjoys many such meetings, even some ex parte, meaning that she meets first alone with the defense and later with the prosecutors (or vice versa). Although it is permitted, this is rare during criminal litigation.

Today’s hearing lasted less than ten minutes. The judge entered the courtroom with a worried expression on her face. After a dry “good morning,” she asked the attorneys, “Are you ready for the jury?” No one said no. It would have been logical for at least one of the attorneys to ask about the pending motion for dismissal, yet none did. They remained at ease at counsel table-like characters in a chronicle of a case foretold.

The members of the jury filed in and walked slowly toward their seats. When they were all situated, Judge Cardone told them, “Oftentimes there are complicated matters that require a lot of thought, and I still have some legal matters to resolve.” She apologized for the delay and told them, “I want you to know that I don’t take these steps lightly.” She then continued the case until Tuesday, February 22nd. The judge reminded the jurors that they could not read or listen to news about the case nor conduct research about it on the Internet. Her smile appeared strained as she dismissed the jury until next week.

The jurors filed out of the courtroom with no clue about the legal controversy that had precipitated yet another delay in the case. Judge Cardone rose, and without looking at the faces of the attorneys still in the courtroom or saying a word, opened the door to her chambers and made her exit.

The FBI cables

Things came to a head after Luis Posada Carriles’ attorney lodged objections. Arturo Hernández asserted that the prosecution had not shared two declassified FBI cables that would have exculpated Posada Carriles. The first, dated September 24, 1997, reported that an FBI informant had said that Fidel Castro was responsible for the bombs exploded in Havana. From this FBI “source,” Attorney Hernández deduced that “the bombing campaigns were the opportunistic brainchild of Fidel Castro, then absolute dictator of Cuba, and his intelligence services, for the purpose of deflecting attention away from the upcoming visit of Pope John Paul II.”

The U.S. government attorneys, alleged defense counsel, had failed to turn over this FBI report to him until only a few weeks ago, which resulted in him not having had time to subpoena the author of the document or identify the source that provided the information so that both might be brought to El Paso to testify.

The prosecutors responded to these arguments yesterday. In a pleading filed with the court, they discounted the credibility of the source that provided that information to the FBI, because “the United States has conferred with the FBI Agent who wrote the September 25, 1997 document, who stated that the document was based on the statements of an uninformed source who was biased against Cuba.”

The prosecution added, “the FBI eventually conducted a more thorough investigation of the Havana bombings, which did not reach the conclusion that the Cuban government was in any way involved in planning the bombings.”

Posada Carriles’ lawyer also complained in his motion that the government had failed to disclose to the defense a second FBI report that contains “extremely important exculpatory material.” Arturo Hernández summarized the document dated November 18, 2004 as having stated that the “Castro regime had undertaken a plan to assassinate the Defendant in the year 2004.”

This, Hernández, “is evidence of extreme bias against the accused by the Castro regime.” In its response yesterday, the prosecution discounted this FBI report as simple conjecture from an unreliable source, and further cited as an example a third FBI report dated May 11, 1999 that says that the government of Guatemala-not Cuba -had organized the attempt made on Posada Carriles’ life in the 1980s.

The prosecution characterized all three FBI reports as “unreliable, unfounded conjecture.” Consequently, wrote the prosecution in its response to Posada Carriles’ attorney, the reports are not relevant to the case.
Posada Carriles’ complaints about the Cuban inspector

Another of the complaints from Posada’s defense attorney is that the Cuban inspector who testified last Wednesday, Roberto Hernández Caballero, is allegedly a Cuban counterintelligence agent. We don’t know if this is true, because the judge abruptly interrupted the prosecutor’s direct examination of the inspector and the question had not been posed to him yet.

But in their answer to attorney Hernández’s motion to dismiss, the prosecutors did challenge the defense’s underlying major premise. “The defendant’s entire premise is based on his argument that the fields of criminal investigation and counterintelligence are somehow contradictory.” The prosecutors pointed out, “In fact, in the United States, the Federal Bureau of Investigation is responsible for investigating counterintelligence matters and has a Counterintelligence Division within its National Security Branch. It is certainly possible that a foreign government could also assign counterintelligence duties to its FBI agents.”

Trial or travesty?

Judge Cardone said that next week she will rule on the defense motion and decide whether to dismiss the counts related to the defendant’s role in the bombs that exploded in Havana in 1997. If she throws out those charges, none of the three Cuban witnesses will testify, and the trial against Posada will be reduced to whether the defendant lied about his manner of entry into the country: whether he came by boat or by pickup truck-a true travesty.

Cardone

The case is now in the hands of Judge Kathleen Cardone. She was born in New York in 1953 and moved to Texas to attend law school at St. Mary’s University in San Antonio. She graduated from St. Mary’s in 1979.

In Texas judges are elected to their positions unless a vacancy occurs, at which time the governor appoints the judge. In 1995, a vacancy in Texas’ Judicial District 383 arose, and the governor at the time-George W. Bush-named Kathleen Cardone to the post. Her tenure was short, however, because she had to submit to an election the next year and lost. Judge Cardone went back to work as an attorney and began teaching at a local community college. She also became an aerobics instructor.

Governor Bush, however, had not forgotten her. In 1999, state officials created Texas Judicial District 388, a new judicial district, and Governor Bush quickly named Cardone to fill the slot. Judge Cardone’s joy was again short-lived, however. The next year, she had to stand for election to retain her seat on the bench and the voters defeated her once more.

Perhaps out of gratitude to George W. Bush for having placed so much faith in her, in 2000 Kathleen Cardone made a $500 contribution to Bush’s presidential campaign. Her candidate of choice was declared the winner of that controversial election and became the next president. On May 1, 2003, President George W. Bush named Cardone the federal judge in El Paso: the third time he had given her a judicial position. Since federal judgeships are lifetime appointments, Judge Cardone need never again worry about losing another election.

In a 2004 article about Texas judges who lost state elections but later received a lifetime appointment to the federal bench-Judge Cardone mentioned among them-University of Houston professor Robert Carp is quoted as saying, “Judgeships often go to people who have served the party in some way. It’s not an uncommon phenomenon or situation for someone who moves to the federal bench to have some political ties.” (Joe Black, “Judge who lost election in line for a lifetime job,” Houston Chronicle, Washington Bureau, May 20, 2004)

Barely four years after President George W. Bush named Cardone a federal judge, the case of Luis Posada Carriles fell on her doorstep. And on May 8, 2007 (less than five months after the case had begun), Judge Cardone dismissed it. She ruled that the government had deceived and entrapped Posada Carriles-and that it had done so to get him to make false declarations so that the government could later indict him for perjury. Judge Cardone was scathing in her criticism, “The Government’s tactics in this case are so grossly shocking and so outrageous as to violate the universal sense of justice. As a result, this Court is left with no choice but to dismiss the indictment.”

The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, whose jurisdiction includes the federal court in El Paso, reviewed the record on appeal. The Court remanded the case for trial, ruling that Judge Cardone had committed reversible error by dismissing the case. “…There simply is no basis for the district court’s conclusion,” wrote the appeals court in its 35-page decision issued on August 14, 2008.

Two questions

Once again the case is at a critical juncture. Judge Cardone has already dismissed the indictment once. Is she inclined to do so again?

If she throws out the indictment-or any of the counts therein-Judge Cardone would have to be certain that the Court of Appeals would not find grounds for reversing her decision again and level still more criticism against her reasoning. She would need to find solid legal ground for a decision to dismiss. Could this be the reason she needs more time to deliberate?

José Pertierra practices law in Washington, DC. He represents the government of Venezuela in the case to extradite Luis Posada Carriles.

Translated by Machetera and Manuel Talens. They are members of Tlaxcala, the international network of translators for linguistic diversity.

Spanish language version: http://www.cubadebate.cu/especiales/2011/02/11/diario-de-el-paso-arenas-movedizas

El Paso Diary: Quicksand

José Pertierra — Thu, 10 Feb 2011 16:55:50 +0000

El Paso Diary: Day 19 in the Trial of Posada Carriles

By JOSÉ PERTIERRA

Today Judge Kathleen Cardone did not allow the Cuban inspector Roberto Hernández Caballero to testify and postponed the trial of Luis Posada Carriles until Tuesday of next week. Posada Carriles’ attorney threw a roadblock before the proceedings that brought the trial to a temporary halt. Prosecutor Timothy J. Reardon had planned to continue with his direct examination of the Cuban witness, but first thing in the morning Posada’s attorney made two motions: one to compel the government to share new allegedly “exculpatory” evidence about his client, and another to dismiss the charges against the defendant.

What attorney Hernández found among his papers last night

“Last night I discovered two declassified FBI reports in my files that the prosecution gave me on the eve of the beginning of this trial,” Arturo Hernández told the court in an extremely loud voice first thing this the morning. “I didn’t realize it because my mind was focused on something else, but I found the documents last night.”
With great fanfare, attorney Hernández announced that the documents he discovered among his papers during the evening hours were an FBI report dated September 25, 1997, and another dated November 18, 2004. Both, he said, corroborate Posada Carriles’ innocence.

The prosecution had them, he said. Although the government was obligated to provide copies to the defense, it delayed too long in doing so, he argued. Attorney Hernández said that the 2004 report tells how the FBI warned Luis Posada Carriles that the Cuban General Directorate of Intelligence (DGI) had made plans to kill him. The report is dated less than three months before the former president of Panama pardoned Posada on August 26, 2004.

Posada had been sentenced for crimes related to an attempt against Cuba’s President Fidel Castro in 2000. The plan included detonating 20 pounds of C-4 explosives at an auditorium filled with students at the University of Panama.

After ex President of Panama, Mireya Moscoso, pardoned him, Posada Carriles went underground again and reappeared in Miami in March of 2005. His attorney did not disclose how the FBI had warned him about the supposed threat on his life, or if the FBI knew his whereabouts. A few months later, Panama’s Supreme Court declared the pardon unconstitutional.

The second FBI Report that attorney Hernández found in his file last night was drafted exactly three weeks before the murder of Fabio Di Celmo on September 4, 1997. Posada Carriles’ attorney told Judge Cardone that the document makes reference to an “intelligence source” that told the FBI that the Cuban Interior Ministry (MININT) and Armed Forces Ministry (MINFAR) were responsible for the bombs that exploded in Havana that year. “MININT and MINFAR did this in order to blame Posada Carriles for the rebellion,” said Hernández, feigning intense indignation.

The accusations against the Cuban inspector

“But there’s more,” Posada Carriles’ attorney said with great seriousness. “I’ve learned that yesterday’s witness, Roberto Hernández Caballero, is a Cuban counterintelligence agent.” Hernández told the judge that the prosecutor had purposely withheld that information from him.

I do not know whether Mr. Hernández Caballero works with Cuban counterintelligence nor do I believe it matters. I’m sure that if he were asked, he would tell the jury. Until now, it has not occurred to anyone to ask him, including Posada’s defense attorney. I know that he is a Lieutenant Colonel with the Interior Ministry. He has said so publicly on a number of occasions. It seems logical to me that an investigation into a terrorist campaign that endangers the national security of a country would be assigned to an institution like the MININT. Wouldn’t any other country do the same, including the United States? What does Hernández think? That the Al-Qaeda terrorist attacks on the Twin Towers were only investigated by the NYPD?

Without offering an iota of proof, Posada Carriles’ lawyer alleged to the Court that the Cuban inspector had falsified evidence in other cases: that of the three persons who were accused of hijacking a Cuban plane in 1996 and who were acquitted by a court in Tampa the next year: José Roberto Bello, Leonardo Reyes Rámirez and Adel Given Ulloa. Despite being completely bilingual, Posada’s attorney gets tongue-tied when he pronounces Spanish language names. He called them: Hosaah Belo, Leeonahdo Oo-ayes and Ahdehl Gweeven Uiloa. Why? I don’t know.

Brady documents

“Your Honor,” said the lawyer, practically shouting, “I move to dismiss the case because the prosecutors have shown a continuous pattern of refusing to disclose Brady documents to me: at a minimum I move that the Court dismiss counts one through three.” The first three counts of the indictment are those relating to Posada Carriles’ false statements regarding his involvement with the bombs in Havana in 1997 and the murder of Fabio Di Celmo.

Brady documents are potentially exculpatory documents in the prosecutor’s possession. They are called Brady after a case in which the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that not sharing them with the defendant is a violation of his right to due process. Reardon: “Defense counsel’s arguments are ridiculous.”
“Mr. Reardon?” said the judge.

Prosecutor Timothy J. Reardon slowly arose from his chair leaned over to pick up some papers from his table and approached the judge. He began his response in a solemn, quiet voice. “Your Honor, I came this morning to renew my direct examination of the witness, and I find this docudrama in court that has nothing to do with the facts of this case,” he said, gesturing toward Posada Carriles’ attorney.

“Counsel today has delivered us a bravura performance deserving of an Oscar,” said Reardon. “His breathless presentation, topped with an alleged inability to represent his client, was delivered with blistering and blustery attacks against the record of this case”, Reardon declared. “The government,” he said-his face flushed with anger-”has to defend the record.”

“The defendant’s motion to dismiss is ridiculous,” said Reardon. “It is part of defense counsel’s strategy to always file something at the last minute to get to the podium and toss out wild accusations,” said Reardon as he pointed toward the defense attorney. Reardon is a veteran litigator, who gives the impression that he has seen a quite a few docudramas in his life.

“There is no evidence whatsoever that the witness has falsified evidence in this or any other case,” said Reardon. “The defense attorney is speaking to an audience beyond this court,” exclaimed Reardon, in an obvious reference to Cuban-American extremists in Miami. “He is wrong about the law, and he is wrong about the facts. The Court should recognize that this is nothing more than a strategy and confront it as such,” the prosecutor continued. “Poets may use poetic license-attorneys may not,” he concluded.

Suddenly, Judge Cardone interrupted Reardon and told him, “I have before me a motion that alleges that the witness is a DGI agent from Cuba and that it was not disclosed to the defense. I also have allegations that say that the government has received accusations that the witness fabricated evidence. I have to decide what to do with this.”

The source of the complaints against the Cuban inspector

The defense attorney’s allegations that the Cuban witness has falsified evidence come from an attorney in Tampa who represented Adel Ulloa, one of those accused of hijacking a Cuban plane in 1996. In a motion that Posada Carriles’ attorney presented in writing a few hours before the beginning of today’s court session, he says that he contacted Ulloa’s attorney in Tampa yesterday, and it was he who had informed Hernández that Cuba had falsified evidence in that case. Posada’s lawyer claims that the Tampa lawyer told him he has evidence that would impeach the Cuban witness, Roberto Hernández Caballero, but that “it cannot be divulged now for reasons of national security.”

Defense counsel did not identify the attorney with whom he spoke. But the electronic federal court records contain the entire legal history of the Ulloa case under a file number of 2:96-cr-0007. The only counsel retained by Ulloa (the others were court-appointed attorneys) is Rafael E. Fernández of Tampa, Florida. This attorney wrote a letter dated December 12, 1997 to Congressman Jim Davis, complaining that Roberto Hernández Caballero is “a counter-intelligence expert who tortures anti-Castro and dissident elements in Villa Marista, Cuba.” The allegation was made with no supporting evidence.

The Tampa attorney is Cuban-American and the author of a report about Cuba dated January 22, 2003. In it he maintains that “Fidel Castro is a terrorist,” an allegation that is also unsupported. Using that premise, the report goes on to conclude that Cuba is a terrorist state involved in drug trafficking. Since Posada’s attorney said that his friend from Tampa couldn’t divulge the basis of the allegations against the Cuban witness, we are left to wonder whether they have any foundation at all.

Is there meat on the bones?

“The accusations of Posada Carriles’ attorney rest on quicksand,” said Prosecutor Reardon. Judge Cardone said, “I don’t know if these defense allegations have any meat to them and I want to do the right thing.”

She ordered both sides to commit their arguments to paper, and she continued the case until after Valentine’s Day. The trial will resume on Tuesday, February 15, at 8:30 a.m. We will all be there.

José Pertierra practices law in Washington, DC. He represents the government of Venezuela in the case to extradite Luis Posada Carriles.
Translated by Machetera and Manuel Talens. They are members of Tlaxcala, the international network of translators for linguistic diversity.
Spanish language version:http://www.cubadebate.cu/especiales/2011/02/11/diario-de-el-paso-arenas-movedizas

options trading strategies

jfdghjhthit45