x-4-f-1
PART V
EXCERPTS FROM THE
FEDERAL FILE OF
JOSEPH A. MAZOR VS.
CALIFORNIA ADULT AUTHORITY
—–
x-4-f-2
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. INTRODUCTION
BACKGROUND TO INVOLVEMENT OF JOSEPH A. MAZOR WITH THE FORMER MEMBERS OF PEOPLES TEMPLE
II. EXCERPT FROM THE FEDERAL FILE “JOSEPH A. MAZOR VS. CALIFORNIA ADULT AUTHORITY, ET AL.”
—–
x-4-f-3
INTRODUCTION
We have called the “investigative” work of Mr. Joseph A. Mazor to be most questionable. He has been hired by a number of people who are former members of People’s Temple and antagonistic to the church.
He has made several television appearances and submitted his copy to the local press. He has called the Ambassador to the United States from Guyana trying to cause trouble. His remarks are inflammatory and without basis in fact. We question his role in this “investigation.” The excerpt from his file included here speaks for itself.
—–
x-4-f-4a – 4b
[Federal rap sheet of Joseph A. Mazor]
—–
x-4-f-5
[Letterhead of David B. Fechheimer, Attorney at Law]
October 4, 1977
Charles R. Garry, Esq.
Garry Dreyfus McTernan Brotsky Herndon & Pesonen Inc.
1256 Market Street San Francisco, Ca.
RE: PEOPLES TEMPLE
REPORT OF INVESTIGATION
A confidential source in the California Adult Authority reports that Joseph A. Mazor’s wife’s brother is the leader of La Nuestra Familia.
This information has not been confirmed. Please advise if you wish further investigation.
/s/ David B. Fechheimer
David B. Fechheimer
—–
x-4-f-6
POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
STATEMENT OF FACTS
A. Conviction; Parole and Revocation
Petitioner is presently incarcerated in the California Medical Facility at Vacaville pursuant to the Judgment and Commitment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County entered on June 25, 1965, sentencing him to state prison for the term prescribed by law (6 months to 14 years) , following conviction on his plea of guilty to violation of Penal Code section 476 (Fictitious checks) . [Footnote: “This offense was committed while petitioner was on parole for a 1963 Los Angeles County conviction for violation of Penal Code section 476a (insufficient funds check). The sentence on this conviction expired as fully served in March, 1968. See Exhibit B (Judgment and Summary of Sentence Data – 1963 Conviction)”] Exhibit A. Petitioner was paroled on May 22, 1967, with his term set to expire on July 7, 1970. This parole was suspended and his term reset at maximum on May 2, 1969 and he was returned to prison where parole was revoked on June 27, 1969. See Exhibit C (Summary of Sentence Data – 1965 Conviction)
On November .19, 1969, petitioner’s term was rest at seven years, to expire on July 7, 1972, and on February 15, 1970, petitioner was paroled to the Riverside Unit, Los Angeles County. See Exhibit C. Petitioner was released to a parole program which included employment as a research law clerk for John C. McCarthy of the law firm of Young, Henrie and McCarthy in Pomona, California. Petitioner s parole release had been advanced from March 10, 1970, to accommodate the needs of this employer. See Exhibit D at 2. At his initial interview with petitioner the parole agent explained to petitioner that he could neither open checking account nor sign any contracts without permission. Petitioner informed the agent that he intended to divorce his wife and continue his relationship with Madelynn Beth Boyum, also known as Mazor and Williams. Id. at 3. The parole agent’s ’
—–
x-4-f-7
continuing summary (2-19-70 to 6-30-70) indicates that petitioner received an interlocutory decree of dissolution April 16, 1970.
The report further notes chat petitioner was, at one time, considered near totally blind but had received eye refraction and could read with little or no difficulty. [Footnote: It should also be noted that petitioner obtained an [line cut off]] Petitioner changed his employment to the law firm of Jaffee and Mallory on May 5, 1970, and Mr. Jaffee indicated he would sponsor petitioner in taking the bar exam. Id. at 5. The agent’s summary (7-1-70 to 12-14-70) discloses that petitioner was arrested on November 30, 1970, at the request of the parole agent Id. at 6.
On December 16, 1970, a parole violation report was submitted, recommending parole suspension and revocation on the basis of eleven charges as follows:
- Joseph Allen Mazor violated Condition 10 of the Conditions of Parole as evidenced by his obtaining a passport without the knowledge or permission of the Parole Agent.
- Joseph Allen Mazor violated Condition 10 of the Conditions of Parole as evidenced by his making reservations on a United Airlines flight to New York, without the knowledge or permission of the Parole Agent.
- Joseph Allen Mazor violated Condition 10 of the Conditions of Parole when he bought a 1965 Jaguar without the knowledge or permission of the Parole Agent.
- Joseph Allen Mazor violated Condition 12 of the Conditions of Parole as evidenced by his forging the signature of his fiancée to her income tax refund check
—–
x-4-f-8
in the amount of $693.62.
- Joseph Allen Mazor violated Condition 12 of the Conditions of Parole by making a fictitious automobile purchase draft in the amount of $450.00.
- Joseph Allen Mazor violated Condition 12 of the Conditions of Parole by writing and depositing a $300.00 check on a closed account.
- Joseph Allen Mazor violated Condition 12 of the Conditions of Parole by attempting to sell furniture which he had rented from another firm.
- Joseph Allen Mazor violated Condition 12 of the Conditions of Parole by drawing welfare assistance while he was employed.
- Joseph Allen Mazor violated Condition 12 of the Conditions of Parole by misrepresenting an automobile, and consequently causing his employer a loss of $1,795.00.
- Joseph Allen Mazor violated Condition 11 of the Conditions of Parole as evidenced by his being charged by the District Attorney’s Office with failure to provide (270 P.C.).
- Joseph Allen Mazor violated Condition 13a of the Conditions of Parole by establishing numerous credit accounts without the knowledge or permission of the Parole Agent. Id. at 9/10.
The report also set forth supporting evidence for each charge, Id. at 10-13, a resume of parole adjustment, Id. at 14, and reasons for the recommendation, Id. at 15.
On the basis of this report, petitioner’s parole was suspended and his term reset at maximum on January 8, 1971. See Exhibit E. Petitioner was returned to prison on January 14, 1971, and was received at the California Medical Facility at Vacaville
—–
x-4-f-9
on January 25, 1971. See Exhibit C. On March 5, 1971, petitioner appeared at a parole revocation hearing. The panel then found him guilty of charges 5, 6, 7, and 11, dismissed charges 1, 2, 4, and 9, and submitted charges 3, 8 and 10 for investigation. See Exhibits F and G. On March 10, 1971, additional information was submitted pursuant to this investigation. See Exhibit H. In addition this report provided supplemental information indicating that petitioner cashed a check indorsed by the named payee and himself, but the named payee returned the check to the firm which cashed it, denying by affidavit, that she had indorsed it; and that petitioner had purchased a typewriter on a 90-day conditional sales contract, had paid no money (one year had elapsed), and was believed to have sold the typewriter. See Exhibit H at -2.
Subsequently, on April 14, 1971, while at the California Institution for Men at Chino, petitioner made an unscheduled appearance before an Adult Authority Panel. [Footnote 3: “We have been informed that two Deputy Attorneys General 29 from the Los Angeles Office were observing Adult Authority hearings conducted at Chino for informational purposes. They had no particular interest in nor any connection with petitioner’s case. Petitioner was informed that they were visitors and gave his [last line cut off]”]. As a result, his
case was submitted for review on April 20, 1971. No change was made in his status, the Authority resolved the three charges which were submitted, finding him guilty of charge 8, and dismissing charges 3 and 10, and his case was scheduled, for consideration again by the entire board on May 17, 1971. Documents relevant to this meeting are, or will be when received, attached as Exhibit J.
B. Medical Condition and Treatment.
As stated above, petitioner was returned to prison on January 14, 1971, and on January 25,
—–
x-4-f-10
California Medical Facility at Vacaville. By letter dated January 26, 1971, Riverside General Hospital forwarded a summary of petitioner’s examination and treatment. The report recommended an investigation by neurology staff and consideration for angiogram studies. The “final diagnosis” set forth in the. report is “Rule out Leptomenigeal cyst, meningioma, vascular disorder.” See Exhibit I.
Reports dated March 1, 1971, (Dr. Prout) and March 2, 1971 (Dr. Wright, Consulting Neurosurgeon), see Exhibit I, reveal that petitioner was under the care of the medical staff almost immediately upon his arrival at Vacaville. For instance, skull x-rays were taken on January 27, 1971, an EEG was made, an ophthalmolgist was consulted on February 10, 1971, and a neurosurgical consultation took place on March 2, 1971. Dr. Prout’s letter notes “Our consulting radiologist, R. F. Chambers, M.D., interprets the recent skull x-rays of January 27, 1971, as “abnormai skull evidence of atrophy involving the right hemisphere with probable vascular malformation. Contrast studies would probably be informative.” Subject had contrast studies in Fall, 1970, at UCLA Hospital but refuses to sign a release for these records upon advice of his attorney.” Dr. Wright’s report also indicates that petitioner refused to make the September studies available to the doctor despite being told no meaningful opinion could be rendered without them. Petitioner also refused to consent to angiography in the institution. Dr. Wright recommended further tests. A report dated March 4, 1971, indicates that Dr. Prout concurred in this recommendation. See Petition, Exhibit A.
By letter of March 22, 1971, to the California Supreme Court, Dr. Carter Noland of Riverside General Hospital stated, [last line cut off]
—–
x-4-f-11
that, “We have since learned that further studies have shown a need for immediate surgery in order not to endanger his life.” Petition, Exhibit B. By letter dated April 1, 1971, addressed to the chairman of the Adult Authority, Dr. Prout indicated that neurological studies should be undertaken, that they could be performed within the Department of Corrections, but only with petitioner’s consent, which he refused to give, and that petitioner was willing to be hospitalized at Riverside General Hospital. Out of concern for petitioner’s health status, the doctor recommended that the Adult Authority review his parole status and reinstate parole to permit petitioner to return to Riverside General Hospital. SeeExhibit I; Petition, Exhibit C.
No change was made in petitioner’s parole status, but after consultation, the Department of Corrections, pursuant to Penal Code section 2690, arranged for his treatment at Riverside General Hospital, and on April 9, 1971, transferred him to the California Institution for Men at Chino, where he was housed in the institution hospital. Petitioner was available for whatever studies or surgery staff at Riverside General Hospital wished to undertake.
The report of the studies conducted at Riverside General Hospital indicates that petitioner was uncooperative during the physical examination, and, refused to release to the hospital the angiograms done at UCLA. The report shows that SMA, CBC, and EKG tests or studies were within normal limits. Skull films reveal multiple radiolucent defects in the right cranial vault, and subtle abnormality, but no gross abnormality. Apparently, further surgery was unnecessary because petitioner was discharged with the recommendation that skull films be done in two years. The report is attached, or will be when received, as Exhibit K.
—–
x-4-f-12
Petitioner was returned to Vacaville on April 27, 1971. He is presently under a “medical hold” which means that he cannot be transferred to an institution without medical clearance. He will be transferred back to Chino when approved by that institution’s medical officer as space becomes available.
ARGUMENT
PETITIONER’S PAROLE WAS PROPERLY REVOKED AND THERE HAS BEEN NO DENIAL OF ADEQUATE MEDICAL TREATMENT; THUS, NO CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION IS PRESENTED.
Petitioner has filed in this Court a petition for writ of habeas corpus which, although emphasizing his physical condition and apparently objecting to the medical treatment afforded him, seeks only a determination that California procedures for revoking parole are unconstitutional, in that in his parole revocation, he was denied counsel, the right to confrontation, the right to present witnesses. See Petition at 12. [Footnote 4: “On March 26, 1971, petitioner tiled a nearly identical petition tin the California Supreme Court. The Court denied the petition on April 22, 1971. The Court had been informed that petitioner had ‘been transferred for treatment pursuant to Penal Code section 2690, and had available the documents submitted herewith as Exhibits A-I.”]
From the facts as stated above, it is. obvious that there is no present issue concerning petitioner’s treatment. Petitioner does not even suggest what test or procedure is presently necessary and unavailable. There is simply no federal question presented. Cf., Haggartv v. Wainwright, 427 F.2d 1137 (5th Cir. 1970).
It is also clear from the records submitted herewith that no federal question is presented by Adult Authority action in revoking petitioner’s parole. There is no right to counsel, to confrontation of witnesses, or to call witnesses. All that is constitutionally required is cause for the revocation. See Allard v. Nelson, 423 F.2d 1216 (9th Cir. 1970); Mead v. California Adult Authority, 415 F.2d 767 (9th Cir. 1969); Dunn v. California Department of Corrections, 401 F.2d 340 (9th Cir. 1968); Eason v. Dickson, 390 F.2d 585 (9th Cir.), cert, denied, 392 U.S. 914 (1968). Ample cause is shown here.
—–
x-4-f-13
Petitioner was found guilty of five of the eleven violations charges. The supporting evidence provided for these charges discloses conduct clearly in violation of parole. (Ex.D 10-13; Exh. H.)
Petitioner alleges that he was unable to present documentary evidence of his innocence because of his blindness, that the Adult Authority would not consider this evidence and that counsel now have possession of this documentary evidence of his innocence of all charges.
We submit that this record clearly shows that the Adult Authority did consider most carefully the evidence presented to it including petitioner’s story and his documents, if any. At the time of the hearing four of the charges were dismissed. Three charges were submitted for further investigation. This conclusion is supported, even by petitioner’s allegation that Mr. Valachi stated, “I hate this damned paperwork. We cannot support the charges and we will investigate.” See Petition at 5. It is a mere conclusion unsupported by facts that because the panel returned the documents they did not consider them.
Although petitioner claims that he has documentary evidence that he is not guilty of any of the charges, he has not provided this Court with this evidence nor indicated what it is or to which specific charges it may be relevant. Moreover, although the Adult Authority will not permit counsel to be present at a revocation hearing, counsel is free to present written argument and documentary support to the Adult Authority for their consideration. Apparently, no effort has been made even to do this.
Finally, The Adult Authority is routinely provided with a Readmission Summary which includes a medical report. The report: in this case, we are” informed, included information on both
—–
x-4-f-14
petitioner’s blindness and possible brain tumor.
CONCLUSION
It is obvious from this record that the allegation of the imminence of petitioner’s death is overstated, as is the allegation of total blindness. His claim of denial of due process in his parole revocation hearing lacks both legal and factual substance. In fact, the record shows that petitioner has had a roost thorough consideration and review of both his condition and his status. In the circumstances shown, no federal question is presented. We respectfully request that the petition for writ of habeas corpus be denied, that the order to show cause be discharged, and that the proceedings be dismissed.
Dated: May 10, 1971.
EVELLE J. YOUNGER, Attorney General
of the State of California
EDWARD P. O’BRIEN
Deputy Attorney General
(Mrs.) GLORIA F. DeHART
Deputy Attorney General Attorneys for Respondents.
—–
x-4-f-15
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
JUDGMENT
Department No. 100
June 25, 1965. Present Hon. DAVID W. WILLIAMS Judge
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, vs JOSEPH A MAZOR 304175
Deputy District Attorney Janos Johnsen and Defendant with counsel Deputy Public Defender L. Schoenhait present. Probation denied. Sentenced as indicated.
Whereas the said defendant having duly pleaded guilty in this court of the crime of ISSUING FICTITIOUS CHECK (Sec 476 PC) , a felony, as charged in the information
It is Therefore Ordered, Adjudged and Decreed that the said defendant be punished by Imprisonment in the State Prison for the term prescribed by law.
—–
x-4-f-16
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
JUDGMENT
Department No. 100
March 8 1963. Present Hon. DONALD R. WRIGHT Judge
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, vsJOSEPH A MAZOR 269421
Deputy District Attorney Malcom Harris and the Defendant in propria persona present. Each count: Probation denied. Sentenced as indicated.
Whereas the said defendant having duly pleaded guilty in this court of the crime of ISSUING CHECK WITHOUT SUFFICIENT FUNDS (Sec 476a PC), a felony, as charged in each of the Counts 1, 2 and 3 of the information
It is Therefore Ordered, Adjudged and Decreed that the said defendant be punished by imprisonment in the State Prison for the term prescribed by law, on said Counts.
Sentences as to Counts 1, 2 and 3 are ordered to run CONCURRENTLY with each other.
—–
x-4-f-17a
CAROL MCCOY’S VISIT WITH MAZOR: 10:00 – 10:45 a.m. 10/24/77
M: You have two children in Guyana?
C: No, four children
M: What are their names and ages?
C: Pat-13 Lowell- 11 LuAnn- 8 Marcy- 7
M: You did not give permission for them to go?
C: No
M: When did they go to Guyana?
C: July
M: What is your mother’s name?
C: Edith Cordell ( he stopped writing and looked at me for a couple of seconds and said oh: is that Harold or Rick’s wife?) (I said neither, it’s their great aunt)
M: You said your mom had guardianship over the children. What kind of guardianship?
C: What do you mean?
M: Was it filed in court?
C: I guess I left that up to Tim (Stoen)
M: Who did the guardianship?
C: Tim Stoen. That’s why I didn’t worry about it or think anything about it
M: Who notarized it?
C: I don’t now. It was done in his office
M: Was anyone else in the office? The D.A..’s office?
C: I think his secretary
M: June Crym?
C: No, I know June, it wasn’t her
He paused for a while and we stared at each other, them he asked me if I had read the guardianship papers and if mom had permission to send the kids out of the state? I told him that I glanced at it but don’t remember what it said because I really didn’t care. I told him that I had trusted Tim. He said that that was how the Temple got the hold on so many children and other people as well as me said there was several things that could be done. The first thing was to find out if the guardianship had been filed. (He doubted that it had). If it hadn’t then the next move would be to notify the State Department in Washington and get papers. He said the only way I could get the kids back was to pressure Jim with abduction charges. If the papers were filed then the first step would be to resolve them and get back my rights. I told him I didn’t
—–
x-4-f-17b
want to hurt Mom, and then I had an outside involvement that knew nothing of the church or where my children were, and that I was hoping to get them back without much fuss. He said that would be hard to do, that I didn’t have to worry about hitting the front page of the papers, but that I would have to hurt Mom, that it couldn’t be avoided.
He said that if papers were filed (since I didn’t read them) there might be some clauses in them gave Mom permanent custody, and in that case I would have to go to civil court and then I still wouldn’t get anywhere until I pressed charges of kidnapping against the Temple. I asked if Mom would be arrested, and he said no, it would be Jim. He said that it would finally come down to Jim being told to send the children back or face extradition for abduction. He said Jim would send the children back first. [Marginal note: “Guyana & US have extradition terms set up & Guyana would eventually extradite JJ is forced into it.”]
He said the parents had gone over on their own had not gotten past Georgetown. (In telling it, Carol said he mentioned a father who had recently gone, and had fixed it so that he would never see his child again, he had raised so much hell and had been unsuccessful. TA) He said the government is very pro-Jones now, but there are a few who have doubts. He said four children have been sent back, and the last one was a weekend and a half ago. (That’s when I told him I had thoughts of going over there on my own, but figured I would get nowhere since as far as I knew no one had gotten their children back.) He said that’s not true, that it’s hard to get them that there is hope. He said Jones was smart, and for most of Jones’ moves he (Mazor) moves backward to avert them, and has been pretty successful at doing this.
He said that there was a person in Guyana that has access to immigration papers and when names come up this person keep a close eye out. Mazor said that he already had my name. He said his contact does this so that Mazor can be notified right away of troubled children leaving the country, if Jones should pull them out.
—–
x-4-f-17c
He said that it would take a lot of money in order to get my children back. He said he would not try to encourage or discourage me. But it’s going to cost, and there’s always a chance I may not get them. “I think you stand a good chance, though. About a 70% chance of it.” He wouldn’t quote any prices. He said that that would be according to what had to be done.
He said that several passports have come up missing, and that they think JJ is selling them on the black market. He said that some have already turned up in Tiberia (unsure of this name) and some other place.
He said they had had thoughts of getting a plane load of parents together and go down there and demand the children to be given back. But it was abandoned because they couldn’t get farther than Georgetown and the money would be spent uselessly. He said one father tried it just recently. He (Mazor) had told him not to go, but he did anyway, and got nowhere and as a result will probably never see his child again. He said that pictures or movies are taken of Port Kaituma; of an agricultural mission owned by the government. He said he has signed affidavits of a photographer that took the movies. He said the child that just came back said that there was no school there, so therefore there are no educational facilities there. He said he had tapes of Harold and Rick threatening people and asked me if my Mom knew about anything like that. I said I was sure she didn’t.
He gave me a lecture about how the kids were American citizens, and if I didn’t find to get them back they would lose that: that the government was apolitical and they could change at a moment’s notice. [Handwritten insertion: “Today they might be socialist & tomorrow they might be a dictatorship.”] He said he looks for Jones to get tired of those thousand people there and pick up and leave with the money and leave them stranded with no passports or anything. I told him he had certainly given me some things to think about and that it would take a few days.
—–
x-4-f-17d
I told him I would see if Mom had a copy of the guardianship papers and if she did I would get them. He said if I can get a hold of them to call him, that he would be back in his office after 4:30 and that he could tell me how my chances stood.
He did say it would take a lot deeper background to go into the case if I decided to go ahead, and he felt I would be deeply wrong if I didn’t. He said he’d get started right away. He said everything had to be done legally, that doing it any other way was no good.
He did in the course of the conversation say something about going in and kidnapping the children. I asked him how can one get in there with the guards and wire fence and all that was supposed to be there. He said, “Oh, there’s a way. But it has to be done legally.”
He said Jim may stay and take over the country someday, or somebody may end up shooting him [handwritten insertion: “he may get shot down”]. Then the people would be without a leader. And they would wake up to nothing.