B-3-d-4
[Handwritten at top of page: “Jean”]
NOTES FROM MEETING W/ CHARLES 5/7/78
1. To our question about stopping press from reporting one-sided story about TOS [Timothy O. Stoen] in LA – he asked “What we threatened to do and actually do are two different things, right?” Said if we write or call them notice, they will merely print it and make an issue out of it. What we are overlooking is that initial charges made in New West etc. have since dissipated. All TOS is doing is rehashing. For us to go after him like that is a waste of time.
2. His most cynical analysis: As a criminal lawyer, would not admit a goddamn thing. Denounce all of it. If it becomes a courtroom thing, it is simply not true. He said something unrelated to that, but not that. Deny whole thing, since it is crazy and stupid.
3. Re. Compensating the relatives for the equivalent amount: Do it. Would not be opening Pandora’s box for others to do the same; he asked Mac would we have to put out much if everyone in the same situation demanded something back. Mac said at the most $148,000. Eric said “I would not let $148 interfere with what we are doing.” So reimburse relatives in full. And any others who should ask, tho he doubts they would.
4. Re: transfer of Richards’ to Flo etc: only if bona fide deal, through title company and realtor and loan and fair market price. Ed could not help out because of fiduciary. Would want built-in protection in case one of the recipients should die. So that kind of thing is always difficult because it is pierceable. But if we could figure out where the initial down would come from, then he might be willing to work on it with us. [Marginal note: “Right! That’s the problem!”]
5. Ask one of like how much did Dr. Estep himself do that was underhanded? Said in case our hero has an accident, he would without a doubt have documented everything. That would be open on Eric’s demise, and the cross-examine of the Dr. Estep in a court would be more advantageous than having whatever he had documented unsealed. Said that was for the record.
6. Said re: criminal charges on Rita, then the Rex would not necessarily cease to function. We pointed out relationship to José and he said what about the other minister. Would still function.
7. Wants in-depth from Bernard about George. Thinks that is the way to go. How is he earning a living? Circulate the Ukiah Daily Journal article around showing his affinity and praise for Henderson. Take copies to LA in case he comes out there. “This is what I think of Henderson,” by George. Also, tell how we gave 5 to his assistant and how he used it. Try to turn the people around who are listening to the creep.
8. On the Asian: it is on appeal. He did not say how or when he learned this – just said that in response to my question would publicity in the South stir this matter up again. He said it was on appeal by the AG, and that the man out of the office who is doing it views it as merely procedural – does not know any of the parties involved. We asked if Dr. Short might have had something to do with that, and he said no, did not think so. Said he feels the supporting trials lawyer has a strong position/we base our actions on their fuck-up and so it shall remain. Said the other side will do an opening brief on their appeal and he will respond in kind.
9. We asked how to catch up to Dr. Estep. He said if he were taking a case against Rex, then we could. I asked what if he were having one of his fellow attorneys do such a thing instead himself. He said, that would be hard to prove. Mentioned that there is such a thing as champerty. That Dr. E. is soliciting clients. Asked exactly what was going on in those meetings. What Mac related made him think this champerty would be a possibility. Wanted the tapes and personal interviews with the people who attend the meetings. This could be subject to bar discipline.
10. Said what bothers him about the course of Dr. Short is that he is not saying anything about the things he really does know. Did not elaborate for us on that, but made a Lucinda gesture. Said a desperate man might do something, and urged us not to provoke the situation.
11. Made the suggestion that we tell the media that the project will take any 5 relatives at some time, at one time. We will host them as guests, let them be one week there with relatives. Have an intercessor there, an objective party. Said he did not think they would have a leg to stand on in no time. Also did not think that anyone but friendly people would take us up on it. This is his great solution. [Marginal note: “It’s not a [illegible word] idea, but we should pick the relatives.”]
12. Wants stuff on George, including names of people at the hospital visitation meetings, any insinuations, information about any and everything. Says the study of the articles in the UDJ [Ukiah Daily Journal]. This is a very discrediting to the fool.
13. Re: Mrs. Davis: if there is a press conference in LA, then send Mrs. Davis. He arranged to meet with her and Nancy Monday. Said it would be good for her to meet the press.
14. Re: passports, they were given to us in trust to take care of. Keep those we cannot find owners for. It would be negligent to do anything other than to keep them safely.
15. At first did not want to get involved in “dickering” with Melanie and her relatives. Later agreed to let Rudy go ahead and try, on behalf of Melanie. Said we should have them sign full and complete release of all claims against anyone on receipt. Tell them how good they are, how much Hill [Jim Jones] thinks of them, that their comfort is his desire etc.
B-3-d-5
[Handwritten across top “June”]
Notes on visit with Garry 5/7/78
1. Writing to the newspapers, or calling them, re TOS “participatory – malignment results in publication, calling attention to the facts. We can’t afford a libel suit, Chaikin knows that. The initial charge has dissipated, TOS is just rehashing. We shouldn’t spend time fooling around with this small stuff.
2. Medlocks – hesitant to say anything to all of us together, but eventually said, he would deny everything, on the theory that the reason we deny is that it’s not true. He sees no way for them to get criminal charges against us. The alternative is to pay them off – he sees that we think this will open up a Pandora’s box, but he doesn’t think it will. He says they are dollar for dollar, with a specific accounting of what’s due, according to escrow disbursements, taking into account that we put them up in rent-free apartment for such and such a time. He at first disagreed completely with the idea of paying off in $1000 installments, later modified that. But he also feels that we should pay off any others who might come along with the same demand. [Marginal notes: “Ask Ed & Sarah” “I agree. EC [Eugene Chaikin]” [illegible ps]]
3. Ranch transfer – do a legitimate bona fide sale with unrecorded option to repurchase within 5 years. Where to get down payment? – “That’s the big question.” [Marginal note: “Ask Ed & Sarah”]
4. Libel suit against TOS – doesn’t want to do any civil suits, because that brings upon us right of discovery by defendant, in other words, they can subpoena our records, they can hold depositions and get on public record their questions and our answers; whereas, in criminal actions, we have the right to remain silent. If criminal action is brought against us, we do not have to answer questions, we do not have to produce. He will not bring any civil suits. He does not want to file libel suit with Marcelline [Marceline Jones] as plaintiff, or anyone else. Questioned re service of criminal warrant if we are charged with criminal suit, he says who cares, there is no extradition proceeding that Guyana will pursue. [Marginal note: “I agree. EC [Eugene Chaikin]”]
5. He likes the idea of Yvette’s mom telling her story to the press, will meet with her, and would like for her to be present at any LA press conference. If TOS holds press conference, we should be there, and we should pass out copies of the Ukiah Daily Journal article that TOS did in which he came off praising us and JJ. [Marginal note: “Talk about Herb Caen coming.”]
6. LA Quan case – The Attorney General has filed appeal; the next step is that the AG as the file an “opening brief” giving his reasons for filing appeal, then Eric files a “reply brief” and the thing is considered again by the Court of Appeals – the briefs are read by the court and then an opinion is issued. If it goes against the AG, he can appeal to the California Supreme Court, and then on to the US Supreme Court if need be. Eric did not think TOS had anything to do with influencing the AG to do the appeal, and mentions that TOS was originally JJ’s Attorney of record in the action, as if this made a difference. [Illegible marginal note]
7. Eric would like to prove that TOS is soliciting clients when he goes out looking for more “concerned relatives”, etc. Because this “champerty” is subject to the State Bar discipline process, but difficult to prove.
8. Eric mentioned for the first time that I knew of that in Grace’s custody case, her attorneys originally wanted to have the case conducted in camera – in secrecy, not public. I figure he must have had to fight that out in court but never heard about it till now.
9. He suggested sending relatives of 5 people overseas over there, we arrange transportation from Georgetown to Jonestown; they pay their way from US to Guyana. We provide meals, housing, etc. Put them up 1 week, have representatives of Guyanese or American government/embassies visit at the same time to verify these people are not being beaten, etc. What if these strangers brought subpoenas with them to serve on JJ, etc.??? “No problem if they serve him.” They should bring no pot, no booze, no weapons. We announce this publicly. If they come back to States and tell lies, no matter. Of course, clear this idea overseas first. [Marginal notes: “What about this idea?” “Service is no problem. Our best PR would be positively impressed relatives. EC.” “Agreed. Sarah.”]
10. He wants to write TOS a letter, detailing specifics of harassment – i.e., names of people he is known to be soliciting and insinuating that Burnham ask him to do it, and any other items of harassment that can be traced to TOS.
11. Service by mail in lawsuits – like the Williams case on the Lobos street property – tark [mark] return to sender and mail back but Xerox the postmarked envelope before you return to sender.