[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 68 (Thursday, May 17, 2001)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E823]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                      LETTER FROM MELVIN HONOWITZ

                                 ______
                                 

                          HON. HENRY A. WAXMAN

                             of california

                    in the house of representatives

                        Wednesday, May 16, 2001

  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, a few months ago, I entered into the 
Congressional Record letters from individuals or their representatives 
who took issue with assertions made in the report released last fall by 
the House Government Reform Committee majority regarding the Department 
of Justice. Since then, yet another individual has written to complain 
of inaccuracies and unfairness in the majority's report. In the 
interest of a complete record on this matter, I submit into the Record 
this March 30, 2001, letter from Melvin Honowitz.

                            Honowitz & Shaw, Attorneys at Law,

                               One Maritime Plaza, Suite 1725,

                                San Francisco, CA, March 30, 2001.
     Re: Palladino & Sutherland, and Jack Palladino.
     The Honorable Dan Burton,
     Committee on Government Reform, Washington, DC.
     The Honorable Henry A. Waxman,
     2204 Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Messrs. Burton and Waxman: This office represents 
     Palladino & Sutherland and Jack Palladino, nationally known 
     private investigators [hereafter the ``client'']. We write 
     without waiver of any applicable privilege to address the 
     false allegations, accusations, assumptions, innuendos, 
     speculations and references to our client contained in 
     Chapter 10 of the Committee's report entitled ``Janet Reno's 
     Stewardship of the Justice Department: A Failure To Serve The 
     Ends of Justice.''
       The report's allegations as to Jack Palladino are premised 
     on the false assumption that Mr. Palladino, or someone under 
     his direction or control, had a ``source in the Bureau of 
     Prisons,'' and that his ``source'' obtained NCIC information 
     on Nabuo Abe. The Committee's assumption is false and 
     defamatory.
       Moreover, the record on which the Committee relies is void 
     of evidence in support of this assumption. Page 157, Section 
     1.a. of the reports is entitled ``Soka Gakkai Illegally 
     Obtained Information on Nabuo Abe Through Jack Palladino.'' 
     Except for this defamatory heading, the report utterly fails 
     to present evidence to support the accusation. In fact, the 
     only references to Jack Palladino in this Section states, 
     without supporting documentation, ``Palladino then apparently 
     contacted a source in the Bureau of Prisons who had access to 
     the NCIC data base.'' [emphasis added] This is untrue and 
     never happened.
       The report then goes on to make the untrue and 
     unsubstantiated statement that ``the source at the Bureau of 
     Prisons (BOP) broke the law, as did possibly Langberg and 
     Palladino.'' [emphasis added] In a manner more reminiscent of 
     Kafka or perhaps Alice's Adventures In Wonderland, the report 
     makes allegations of criminal acts which, prior to 
     publication, the Committee never gave our clients an 
     opportunity to refute. Accordingly, one must not only 
     question the lack of due process afforded our client, but the 
     underlying bias of the report's findings and the Committee's 
     investigation.
       Then, in Section 1.b, the report gratuitously speculates as 
     to why attorney Rebekah Poston may have sought NCIC records: 
     ``perhaps they were concerned with the reliability of Mr. 
     Palladino's work . . .'' In fact, in advancing this 
     speculation the Committee ignores its own Exhibit 62 to the 
     report which identifies where Ms. Poston obtained here 
     alleged NCIC information, and makes no reference to Jack 
     Palladino or Palladino & Sutherland or anyone under their 
     direction and control.
       Even a cursory review of the Committee's Report and 
     attached Exhibits demonstrates a complete lack of evidence. 
     The only mention of Mr. Palladino in the Exhibits supporting 
     the report is contained in unfounded and false speculation 
     and innuendo that Mr. Palladino (for reasons never made 
     clear) might have ``set up'' Poston and Manuel in some 
     undefined manner (Exhibit 97). Similar raw speculation 
     appears in Exhibits 98 and 104 and is false.
       In his letter of October 31, 2000 to the Committee, 
     attorney Barry B. Langberg clearly states the truth:
       ``Simply put, there is no evidence that Soka Gakkai, Jack 
     Palladino or I committed any crime, or engaged in any 
     improper activity whatsoever. As the report acknowledges the 
     staff failed even to interview Mr. Palladino or me about our 
     role in this matter. These charges are particularly 
     objectionable because they are not even relevant to the 
     report's central thesis, that Ms. Poston and others working 
     at her direction received favorable treatment at the hand of 
     the Justice Department. Thus, these serious attacks are made 
     almost casually, without any claim or relevance to any public 
     purpose.
       In fact, even a preliminary investigation would have 
     revealed that the so-called ``reliable source,'' Richard 
     Lucas, never met with Mr. Palladino or discussed with him any 
     of the facts or issues concerning this matter. Further, an 
     investigation would also have shown that I had no personal 
     involvement with the activity criticized in the report.''
       Mr. Langberg goes on to rebut and refute the allegations, 
     including the speculation that something was planted in or 
     deleted from the NCIC records. A copy of the entire Langberg 
     letter is attached and incorporated by reference as Exhibit 
     A, as are the four Committee exhibits referenced in this 
     letter (Exhibits 62, 97, 98 and 104) attached as Exhibits B.
       Be clear, my client did not access nor seek or direct 
     anyone to access the NCIC data base. Accordingly, we request 
     that this letter and Mr. Langberg's letter be read into the 
     Congressional Record and that the report be corrected.
           Sincerely,

                                           Melvin D. Honowitz,

                                                  Honowitz & Shaw.

     

                          ____________________