Wednesday, June 1, 2016

It's the Water, Stupid: the Ascendancy of Nancy Rice (and Greg Hobbs and Rebecca Kourlis), and Related Topics

Nancy Rice, presently chief justice of the Colorado Supreme Court, was a Denver District Court judge in 1992 when I first had contact with her.  This post is a quick exposition of why Gov. Romer plucked her out of Denver District Court, for placement directly on the Colorado Supreme Court.

It had to do with the Snowmass Creek instream flow (ISF) water right.

In around October 1992 I had been tapped by a nonprofit legal foundation called the Land and Water (LAW) Fund of the Rockies to represent Aspen Wilderness Workshop pro bono in AWW's contest against the Colorado Water Conservation Board's sudden vote to "not enforce" the decreed instream flow water right for Snowmass Creek.  It did this because the Aspen Skiing Company wanted 40% of the stream to make snow with.  I was available, having been canned by the Colorado Attorney General's office in July 1991 at David Robbins's behest.  And I was a water attorney.  I was also involved with a LAW Fund attorney at the time, Bruce Driver, so I was known to them.

The ISF case had been filed in Denver District Court by Stewart McNab, who, with LAW Fund director Kelley Greene, had already been denied a temporary restraining order.  He could not continue on the case, because his law firm had been informed it had a "conflict" with the Ski Company.  Had I been the one to file this case initially, I would have filed it in water court, and I still wanted to transfer it there; however, I was required to subordinate my independent judgment to that of the LAW Fund's board of directors, per my agreement with them. The case stayed in Denver District Court--and to my chagrin was assigned to Courtroom 7, Judge Nancy Rice.

"To my chagrin," because I had, in January 1992, filed my original complaint against Lois Witte and Linda White over that very canning from the AG's office.  That case had also been assigned to Nancy Rice in Courtroom 7.  We'd had no proceedings in it, because I had been hoping to negotiate a settlement.  Failing that, in September, I amended to add the top dogs in the Attorney General's office, as well as other claims.  So both these politically sensitive cases, one in which I was the plaintiff and one in which I was the lawyer, were before the same judge, a very embarrassing situation for me.

This was my first exposure to the manipulation of case assignments in Denver District Court.  There were 19 district court judges then.  The odds of two unrelated cases being assigned to the same judge were .0029, meaning it was extremely probable that the second assignment was not done randomly.

But I didn't need to calculate the odds, because Judge Rice herself admitted the assignment was not random.  In December, she informed the parties in the Snowmass Creek case that, although she was being transferred to another courtroom (per the Denver court's year-end "rotation" of judges), she was taking the ISF case with her because it had been "personally assigned" to her.

There is no such thing as a "personal assignment" in a neutrally operating judicial system.  I should have moved for recusal right then and there.  And I should have filed a complaint, but I didn't.  Although I was relieved to have the cases before two different judges, the damage to my client in the Snowmass Creek case was already done.  Judge Rice knew extremely embarrassing facts about Aspen Wilderness Workshop's attorney which AWW did not know, itself, at the time.

CWCB moved for summary judgment, and so did we.  I had co-counsel on the original brief, Reed Zars, who moved to Wyoming in early 1993, so I was solo on the case after that point, even after moving to Craig, Colorado, myself at the beginning of March to take up the position of city attorney.  I came back to Denver to do the argument on cross-motions for summary judgment in front of Judge Rice, a hideous experience.  She never once made eye contact with me, although I was standing about 15 feet in front of her for at least half an hour.  She looked down at papers on her desk the entire time. I addressed my argument to the court reporter down below, therefore, who was at least looking at me.

Judge Rice proceeded to grant the CWCB's motion for summary judgment and dismissed all seven claims in our case.

In 1998, Gov. Romer rewarded her with appointment to the Colorado Supreme Court.  Judges are selected in Colorado by the governor, after three names are submitted to him by a committee.  That's why we end up with such terrible ones, unqualified people and people with conflicts, whom the public never has any opportunity to vet.  Romer--a real estate developer (see depo page 31)--in 1996 had also appointed Greg Hobbs to the Supreme Court.  Hobbs is a water lawyer who had written an amicus brief in the Snowmass Creek Supreme Court case arguing that the CWCB had no trust responsibility to the ISF water rights, despite taking the exact opposite position in a published article some years before.  And in 1995 Romer had appointed Becky Kourlis to the Supreme Court.  Kourlis had been the district court (and water) judge in Craig, so had firsthand knowledge about the contempt proceedings I was subjected to as Craig City Attorney beginning in Sept. 1993.

I remember Al Knight, an editorial writer for the Rocky Mountain News, analyzing these judicial appointments to anticipate how Hobbs and Kourlis would rule in criminal cases.  He did not seem to realize the common denominator in their appointments was their rulings or activities in water cases. Forty percent of what the Colorado Supreme Court does is water, since appeals of water cases go directly to the Supreme Court from the water court, bypassing the Colorado Court of Appeals.  Sec. 13-4-102(1)(d), C.R.S.

I realized as soon as these three Supreme Court appointments were made that cases seeking to keep water in the streams, or cases I was to bring personally, would never be successful again--as indeed was the case.  I further believe Greg Hobbs was personally involved in the disciplinary vendetta I was subjected to from 2006-11, because I had exposed substantial criminal acts by his buddies who are water attorneys.  Was Nancy Rice also involved in the vendetta? Well, she certainly did not stop it.

As for the appeal of the ISF case after Rice dismissed it, I had to file that with the Colorado Court of Appeals, but then succeeded in getting direct review by the Colorado Supreme Court.  However, as mentioned, since September 1993 I had been defending against this onslaught of contempt proceedings in Craig, another hugely embarrassing situation to admit to my client (and which, I have realized since, was exploited by the water developers to get me off the ISF case.  See my June 20, 2015, comment to the post linked to above.)  Beleaguered, I volunteered to withdraw, and the LAW Fund found another pro bono attorney--unfortunately not a water attorney.  She did not understand the key concept of res judicata, which in a water case means that decreed water rights cannot be collaterally attacked.  Although the appeal to the Supreme Court (901 P.2d 1251 (Colo. 1995)) was successful on other issues I had identified and developed, such as that a water decree could not be administratively modified and that the CWCB had a trust responsibility to the ISF, the legislature changed all that after the Supreme Court's opinion came down, transforming the instream flow right into an inferior water right.  It can now be modified (read:  reduced, since the ISF can't be increased this way) administratively by the CWCB whenever any developer, like the Aspen Skiing Company, wants to take it.  They only skip off to court later, hand-in-hand, to get a rubberstamp.  This legislation was drafted by Greg Hobbs in 1996, right before he became a Colorado Supreme Court justice, himself. I wrote a critical examination of it in a law review article, and later got Hobbs recused from a second instream flow case I brought to the Colorado Supreme Court.

So I won that battle, therefore, but lost the war:  Kourlis wrote the opinion and held against us in that case.

An additional insult:  the Colorado Water Congress, which exists for the purpose of facilitating the removal of water from streams, held a panel discussion with four attorneys in early 1993 about the Snowmass Creek instream flow case.  The case was the biggest thing around at the time and caused quite a buzz.  Did the CWC invite me, the plaintiff's attorney, to participate?  Of course not--it invited David Robbins to "represent the environmental interest."  David was not on the case and had nothing to do with it, although he had been in the Attorney General's office in 1975 when the original ISF was adjudicated.  And he is no environmentalist.  The other three on the panel were, of course, water developers just like him. 

One last disagreeable realization I had is that the (undeserved) contempt proceedings against me in Craig were likely prolonged at Romer's behest, to get me off the ISF case.  Yet another weird coincidence in the string of weird and harmful coincidences I have endured in my life was that the City of Craig had a private water attorney working for it, Jim Lochhead, when I came on board, even though its new city attorney--moi--was a water attorney.  Lochhead thus came in as "conflicts counsel" for the city when the contempt proceedings were initiated against me.  The judge responsible for initiating the contempt, Mary Lynne James, had dismissed the City almost immediately, as I showed him; however, Lochhead treated the case as still "live" against the City, filing motions and so forth for several months, causing me even more embarrassment with my employer.

Lochhead was a member of the CWCB himself at the time.  He had been influential in getting the rest of the board to vote for slicing off 40% of the ISF off so the Aspen Ski Company could make snow in October.  He did this by lying about the water right the Ski Company would be using for its diversions, saying it was senior to the ISF.  It was not senior for the use of snowmaking, however, since it was not decreed for that use (and snowmaking, I argued in the later case, is not a beneficial use in Colorado law in the first place).  So did Lochhead purposely keep me twisting in the wind, to get rid of the case against the Colorado Water Conservation Board?

For all his good work in the service of water developers, Lochhead was appointed by Roy Romer to be director of the Department of Natural Resources in the spring of 1994.  Ken Salazar, who had also been on the CWCB helping trash Snowmass Creek, as Romer's director of DNR, went on to become Colorado Attorney General, senator from Colorado, and Secretary of Interior under Obama, in which  capacity he trashed a lot of other stuff, like the Gulf of Mexico.

Romer, for his part, took substantial campaign contributions in 1992-94 from persons associated with the Aspen Skiing Company, as I learned for the first time when I got these records in 1998.  They certainly look like a quid pro quo for his slicing off 40% of the ISF in Snowmass Creek.  I've been able to identify the following as associated with the Aspen Skiing Company:

Bob Maynard (no relation to me!)--president of the Aspen Skiing Company--$2,000, 8-10-93;

Marvin Davis (whose entities MKDG III and MKDG IV--"Miller Klutznick Davis Gray"--were partners in the Ski Company),  $25,000 to Romer on Feb. 12, 1993.  LOOK AT THAT:  $25,000!  No checks on campaign contributions in Colorado whatsoever.  There are many such contributions in these pages.

A. Steven Crown; James S. Crown; Lester Crown; and Susan Crown, partners of the Aspen Skiing Company at the time (and General Dynamics, with intimate mob ties), $4,000, 8-10-93;

Suzanne C. Goodman (another Crown), $1,000, 4-1-93; 

Harris Sherman (Ski Company's lawyer, who went on to be Undersecretary of Agriculture under Obama), $2,000, 8-12-93.  I encountered Mr. .Sherman for the first time in Rice's courtroom during that summary judgment proceeding, by the way.  He came over to my table to talk to my client before we began, inserting himself between us to lean toward her with his back to me in a pointed snub, without introducing himself. 

There are several other skiing-related entities and their lawyers who gave money to Romer, as well, as those pages show.

Note:  I will link to my briefs as soon as I locate them.  It is possible I don't have them, since I turned my case file over to the attorney who succeeded me.












Wednesday, March 16, 2016

TRICK OR TREAT, DENVER!©*

With a blood moon risin’, another scary big money issue was thrust upon Denver residents--and approved by ghost voters--at the November 3, 2015, election. I speak, of course, of the National Western Stock Show initiative, which will pump nearly $1 billion into the private bank accounts of people already so rich it makes one heave. We are told it passed by 65% to 35%. I’m here to tell you that’s as phony as the goblins and ghosts who came to your door on Hallowe’en (and no less beggary).

It passed because, although every real Denverite you will ever find opposed this ballot issue, Denver elections are rigged to deliver lopsided outcomes. Let there be no doubt: Denver voters really, really love this tax!

The outcome of mail ballot elections is easily co-opted, the reason they are favored by the beneficiaries of big money issues such as bonds and taxes; and in Denver, there are no checks against graft. Take a look at these five mail ballots received at one resident’s address, for example. None of those people, his former roommates, lives there anymore. I communicated with one who now lives in Alaska, where she registered to vote in 2012. Although the Denver resident who received these ballots was too upstanding to vote them, other people have no such scruples; and if you believe election officials can separate real ballots from forgeries--or even care--you may well deserve all the tricks the ghouls play on you.

I have special knowledge about Denver’s mail ballot elections, since I represented former election commissioner Jan Tyler (pro bono) in a 2007 court case contesting the special election held by mail ballot on Jan. 30, 2007. This election amended Denver’s Home Rule Charter to abolish the Denver Election Commission, vesting power over elections not simply in the clerk and recorder, but in an appointee of the clerk and recorder over whom the clerk & recorder has no supervisory power!  Denver residents were not even aware this election was taking place, because there was no published notice of it (see p. 6). There was also no publication of the text of the charter amendment itself. These omissions were brazen violations of the Colorado Constitution, Denver Charter, Denver ordinances, and state laws governing charter amendments, and meant this amendment was--and continues to be--void on its face.

On Dec. 26, 2006, a published notice did appear, but only of a hearing on Council Bill 831 to be held that evening—the day after Christmas!--at 6:00 p.m. The text of this bill was not even published, despite false certificates saying it was (pp. 39-40 of 47; and Exhibit D), made by officials whose signatures are not legible, undoubtedly because they knew they were pulling a fast one. Moreover, this notice appeared in only The Daily Journal, which is not the “newspaper of general circulation” required by law (pp. 10-11). Quite the opposite:  The Daily Journal caters to the construction trades and is available literally nowhere. In our case, nonpublication of the charter amendment, as well as of the calling of the special election on a date only 35 days away—when Denver ordinance prohibits any special election to be held within 60 days of the call--were central issues. Either one on its own meant the election was void, as the court cases I cited established. The single subject requirement was also violated: Denver City Council purported to exempt itself, in the body of Council Bill 831 (which became Ordinance 851), from its own law (§3.3.5(B), D.R.M.C.) requiring each legal effect of the bill to be expressed in the title.  That exemption was not expressed in the title.  (And see this one, where the City Council did away with restrictions on the use of public funds to promote  candidates shortly before then, again not expressed in the title.)

The manner in which the Jan. 30, 2007, special election was conducted also overwhelmingly militated for throwing the result out. The amendment was approved by 36,934, out of 54,481 votes reported cast—68% for and about 32% against, another ridiculously lopsided outcome--while 133,000 ballots were wholly unaccounted for and an additional 50,000 ballots were returned as undeliverable (pp. 12-14 and 74-76).  Contrast this travesty with a polling place election, where every single ballot is accounted for.  Ironically, even though thousands of mail ballots can be unaccounted for with gay abandon, it remains a criminal offense to remove a single ballot from a polling place (Sec. 31-10-1512, C.R.S.)

Even the U.S. Postal Service complained to the Secretary of State about the gross mismanagement of this 2007 election.  USPS said it processed 310,000 ballots, which was 22,611 ballots more than the number of voters the Denver Election Commission said were registered for the Jan. 30 election and 36,122 more than were registered for the Nov. 2006 election. Exhibit C to our amended complaint.  Thus, the DEC knowingly sent out a flood of bogus ballots.  To whom did these spurious ballots go?  Were they voted?  Under the direction of John Gaydeski, the staff ran this election like the Keystone Kops, chasing in circles waving nightsticks (pp. 68, 71-77)

The Jan. 30 election was the more suspicious because of the debacle of the November 2006 polling place election which preceded it.  The electronic registration system broke down (they said), and thousands of voters were made to stand in line for up to four hours, many leaving in disgust without voting.  This screw-up—followed directly by the “solution” of the January special election by mail ballot--looked, even then, like a set-up, manufactured to make Denver residents so fed up with the Election Commission they would scrap it, and bombard them with so much propaganda about the superiority of mail ballot elections that they would get rid of their time-tested, reliable polling-place elections, as well.  Both Denver newspapers shamelessly pushed this “solution” to the imaginary problem.  In fact, a blue-ribbon panel convened to study the DEC the prior summer had concluded no changes were needed.

There’s more.  John Gaydeski--even after resigning in the wake of the November  2006 debacle--magically reappeared to mess up the Jan. 30, 2007, special election, too.  The clerk and recorder in Nov. 2006, Wayne Vaden, was kicked upstairs to a “consulting contract” with the City paying $150/hr.  The DEC’s “technology chief,” Anthony Rainey, placed on administrative leave for two months after November 2006, collected over $14,000 during that period before leaving for real on Jan. 21, 2007.   Over and over, we see those officials responsible for election fraud castigated to a limited degree publicly, and then quietly compensated--handsomely--after it all blows over.  

Given the handling of Jan's complaint by the Denver judge, Michael A. Martinez--and Martinez’s subsequent elevation to Chief Judge of the Denver District Court--we can conclude Martinez was one of those same beneficiaries (and benefactors) of city bosses.  He ignored this case, initially filed by Jan before the election and amended after I came on on March 9, 2007, sitting on our request for injunction and cross-motion for summary judgment and response to Denver’s motions to dismiss for two months.  The hearing he held on June 7 he then specifically said was NOT on our request for injunction.  It was on Denver’s motions to dismiss, variants of which the city filed three times, primarily based on insufficient service of process.  This, although Denver was in the case vigorously defending, with two attorneys who filed motions on a wide variety of subjects, and called witnesses.  This meant the defense--even if it had merit, which it didn't--was waived.  

So, let’s focus on what’s important here, eh, Judge?  

After three hours of hearing on June 7, 2007, Judge Martinez held service was proper!  However, in a sweet syrupy voice he went on to hold that there was “no jurisdiction” to rule on our request for injunctive relief, and that the city council was “immune from suit” (around 5:34) because the judicial branch has no power over the legislative (city council).  This was clear error.  I had provided him several cases where ordinances, as well as elections, were invalidated for failure to follow procedures specified by law.  The courts in these cases called them “pretend elections.”  Injunctions against the implementation of completed legislative acts do not constitute “judicial interference with legislative authority,” as any first-year law student knows.  Martinez even concocted an excuse for nonpublication which the City had not dared make, based on two blizzards which shut Denver down in the last days of December 2006.  He regarded it as more important to let this hastily and ill-conceived greed-train barrel through unimpeded, than to uphold the Colorado Constitution.

The most damaging blizzards suffered by Denver residents over that Xmas/New Year's holiday thus were from bogus mail ballots, as longtime editorial writer Vincent Carroll wryly noted in two columns in the Rocky Mountain News.  He received three ballots for unknown people at his home.  I tried to get one of his columns into evidence, and Judge Martinez excluded it as hearsay (pp. 69-70), even though C.R.E. 807 permits hearsay which has substantial guarantees of trustworthiness.  Jan and I did not know Vince Carroll.  He was not trying to benefit Jan’s case.  Unlike in the Nov. 2015 election to feed the Stock Show piggies, we did not have other evidence of a voter's receipt of multiple ballots.

In short, we did not just get a pretend election in Denver, in 2007. We got a pretend hearing, too.

A case can be made that we were also before a pretend judge.  Martinez was admitted to the bar in 1987 and started his career on the bench as a magistrate in the 17th Judicial District (Adams County), sometime before 1997.  His admission to the bar and appointment to the bench may come back, again, to Notre Dame grad John Moye, who sat on, and chaired, the Board of Law Examiners from 1981-91 (and, incidentally, represents the National Western Stock Show!)  In his capacity as a bar examiner Moye had access to the bar exams before as well as after they were given, and oversaw their grading, even while running a bar refresher course.  During the same period, Moye sat on the 2nd Judicial District nominating commission, which is Denver.  I have seen, but now cannot find, a reference that he instituted a loan program for law students, as well.
 
In other words, a great number, if not all, of the Catholic lawyers and judges in Colorado, particularly Hispanics under cover of affirmative action, may owe their careers to John Moye.  As a “good businessman,” he is the type to call in his chits.  While there are other powerful operators in Denver, the official positions he held link Mr. Moye to the flood of judges having thinly veiled contempt for the law, along with dispiritingly poor legal ability, in the Colorado judicial system since the 1980's.  See these previous posts, as well as my four posts on John Gleason, who I've shown was just given a "bar ticket" in 1985, since he has no undergraduate degree.  Michael A. Martinez's role is to legitimate politically expedient outcomes such as Denver's rigged elections, law be damned.

I had later encounters with Martinez which buttress this view.  I filed a complaint in Denver District Court in 2010 alleging the collusion of Rebecca Alexander, the attorney for Gary Magness—the billionaire against whom I got a sizable judgment--with April Seekamp, the disciplinary prosecutor who pursued me for over four years, on instructions from Gleason, without a client complaint.  As in the present matter, Martinez dismissed my case in blatant violation of the rules, in the same breath slapping me with a $100,000 attorney fee sanction, an obvious punishment for exposing this corruption.  His subsequent elevation to Chief Judge of the Denver District Court ­makes it abundantly clear how much his patrons value Martinez's protection of their rackets.
­­­­­­­­­­­­_______________
            *This is being published way late, obviously.  I wanted to review the audio of the court proceedings first.  It took me awhile to get that, and even longer to play it, because listening to it disgusts me all over again.  Not like anyone would have been able to contest the NWSS election even if this had been published sooner, however.   They would be in Denver District Court undoubtedly before Michael A. Martinez, themselves.

           **3-24-16:  Just googled "Trick or Treat Denver," and in 27 pages of Google results this post does not come up.  Then I saw that the option to comment had been removed--a box was checked that I had never checked.  I think it is fixed now!

Sunday, January 17, 2016

THE UNDEAD AMY BIEHL©*

Over 22 years ago, the world was rocked by the violent murder of American voting rights activist and Fulbright scholar Amy Biehl in South Africa.  She was a blond, blue-eyed Stanford graduate aged 26 when she was pulled from her car in Guguletu Township outside Cape Town on August 25, 1993.  While a mob of 300 black students shouted, “One settler, one bullet!” and “Kill the settler!” hoodlums pulled her from her car, stabbed her in the heart, and bludgeoned her head with a brick.  One day after her death, a professor of Amy’s at Stanford, Larry Diamond, pinned blame for the murder on the Pan Africanist Congress, “a relatively small, extremely militant political fringe group in the black community in South Africa … that has been more inclined to commit violence against whites.” 

The Los Angeles Times on Sept. 2, 1993, recounted the heart-wrenching personal visit Melanie Jacobs, Amy’s best friend and roommate in South Africa, made on Sept. 1, 1993, to Newport Beach, California, to bring Amy’s ashes to her parents.  Melanie was accompanied by her 14-year-old daughter, Solange.  It was Melanie who identified Amy’s body after the murder.  According to the L.A. Times, Amy—amazingly--climbed into a police vehicle after being mortally injured, and was driven not to the hospital, but to the police station, where she died on the floor.  Melanie, summoned to identify the body, recognized Amy by the “clunky black shoes sticking out from under the pink blanket.”  She could not bear to look at the face.  Melanie herself died tragically from a fall from a balcony in 1998.

Amy’s parents, Peter and Linda Biehl, went on after Amy’s murder to form the Amy Biehl Foundation Trust, a charitable organization committed to providing skills training, such as bread-baking and knitting, to impoverished black Africans in South Africa.  Scholarships were created in Amy’s memory all over the globe, including two Fulbrights named for her.  The Amy Biehl Foundation provided a scholarship to Solange Jacobs to study at Stanford.  The University of the Western Cape, where Amy was on the Fulbright, created the annual Amy Biehl Memorial Lecture, and a high school was named for her in Albuquerque.  Stanford University created a veritable shrine, a repository of Amy’s senior thesis and materials produced by the Biehl Foundation (although, surprisingly, only two photos of Amy).  Her Stanford thesis adviser Kennell Jackson was effusive in his praise:  Amy “knew everything about Africa” and “had been all over Africa,” including in Namibia.  Larry Diamond said he had seen her just three weeks earlier in South Africa, and had worked with her recently by telephone on the details of her admission to Rutgers University, where she was supposed to start work on a doctorate the month she was killed. 

Possibly the hardest piece of news for the average American to comprehend was Linda and Peter Biehl’s almost immediate forgiveness of their daughter's murderers.  The Biehls were lauded for their resilience.  They shook the murderers’ hands and hugged their family members.  Even more difficult to comprehend, the Amy Biehl Foundation gave two of Amy’s murderers scholarships to attend Stanford, after they were pardoned by the Truth and Reconciliation Commission.

At least, the foregoing is what was reported.  There are curious inconsistencies in the reportage, however.  The March 1994 Stanford Magazine article says Amy went to high school in Albuquerque, New Mexico; the L.A. Times says not only that she attended Newport Harbor High School, but that she was valedictorian there.  The 1985 yearbook of Newport Harbor High School does not even list her in the index.  The Stanford Magazine article--written (oddly) by a Sports Illustrated writer, Phil Taylor—quotes Linda Biehl as saying Amy’s ashes were “sent to us.”  Linda says again, here, that Amy’s ashes came home in an American Airlines bag.  But no—they were personally delivered by Melanie Jacobs, weren’t they?  Solange, now 36, remembers that she and her mother were so mobbed by press on that trip, they were escorted by airport personnel through a tunnel at Heathrow.

More inquiries pulled up more things, making this story start to smell like old tuna casserole from the back of the fridge.  The official list of Fulbright winners does not contain the name “Amy Biehl.”  She was not a Fulbright scholar, therefore, despite the New York Times, Los Angeles Times--and other publications around the world--insisting that she was.  There is no death certificate for Amy, either in the United States or in South Africa.  As an American citizen, she would have had a Social Security number, and her death would have been reported in the Social Security Death Index; but she is not listed on the SSDI.  She was never registered as a student at the University of the Western Cape.  She never had a California driver’s license, even though she registered to vote in California both in 1986 and 1992, and listed 647 Irvine Ave., Newport Beach, California as her permanent residence in a 1991 application to the State Department.

There is an autopsy report prepared on August 26, 1993, but this document does not bear her name, nor state her hair and eye color.  It describes her physique as “small”--5’4½” and 117 lbs--although Solange Jacobs, who lived with Amy for 10 months, says she was 5’6” or 5’7”.  The report was signed by the state pathologist for South Africa, Gideon Knobel, M.D., the son of a former Nationalist Party member of Parliament.  It mentions only one stab wound.  In October 1993, Knobel added an addendum to address an odd dissection of “Amy Biehl’s brain” two months after her cremated remains had been delivered to her parents.  This addendum bears the only mention of the name “Amy Biehl” in the report. 

The South African Police produced almost nothing in response to requests for records—and the photos it did provide do not indicate that any crime, at all, occurred.  No pictures of a body, no blood, not even the “mustard yellow Mazda” Amy supposedly drove and was pulled out of (described in the court judgment as “beige”).  The SAP refused access to witness statements, because to provide them would constitute “too large a diversion of resources.”  It also withheld autopsy photos, because it wishes to protect the public from such “graphic photos” and to “protect the human dignity of the parents and family.”  To date, after over almost a year and a half of effort I have been provided none of the records from the trial which was held, resulting in—four convictions, as is evidenced by the applications for amnesty to the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, and as reported by the L.A. Times in 1998?  Or was it three, as a Stanford press release reported in 1994?  The L.A. Times told us in 1993 that only three suspects were taken to trial.  So, three defendants; four convictions.  Whatever, the convictions were based on confessions and secret evidence taken by the judge from unnamed witnesses in a non-jury trial.  The L.A. Times took care, however, to report the horrifying laughter which burst from the gallery during the trial, when a prosecution witness described the vicious stabbing of Amy Biehl.  

The people laughing may have known something L.A. Times readers didn’t:  that the whole thing was a hoax.  Most problematic for the official story is that there is a person who shares Amy Elizabeth Biehl’s date of birth (April 26, 1967) and address of 647 Irvine Ave., Newport Beach, California, named Amy Elizabeth Byrd.  In November 2014 Amy Elizabeth Byrd came up in Intelius and similar services as “associated with” Amy Elizabeth Biehl, as well as Amy Biehl’s father Peter, mother Linda, sister Molly Corbin, and brother Zach Biehl; along with several Byrds.  In January 2016, Intelius added the helpful detail “Stanford” to Amy Byrd’s profile, as well as the name “William Biehl,” Amy’s grandfather.  There are two other addresses for Amy E. Byrd, in Albuquerque, New Mexico, and Warrenton, Missouri.  At these addresses, too, she is listed as associated with Amy E. Biehl. 

So it appears Amy is alive.  She just got married and changed her name.

Walking in the Shoes of the Hoaxsters.
            Peter J. Biehl, who died at age 59 in 2003, met and married Linda while a student at Whittier College in California in the 1960’s.  At Whittier, his passion was acting and he appeared in several student productions.  His dramatic experience would be an obvious plus in his later role as the father of a murdered female activist. 

Peter had an amazing career.  He took his young family to Tucson, Arizona, as is apparent from Amy’s second-grade class picture at “Harelson School, Tucson,” included in the Stanford Magazine article.  As a newly minted college grad and father in 1967, Peter became employed in the company headed by his dad, Fry Consultants, Inc., the Southwest regional office—and Peter rose to head it, himself.  Then, Peter became the CEO of American Atomics in Tucson, which made luminous watch dials.  He ran into trouble in 1979 when the company was tied to tritium-contaminated food in school lunchrooms.  Tritium-contaminated food??  Huge amounts of tritium were unaccounted for.  Arizona governor Bruce Babbitt had to order the National Guard in.  How this could happen was never explained, any more than was the placing of drama major Peter Biehl at the helm of American Atomics. 

So the Biehls, along with American Atomics, evaporated from Tucson.  At some point, Peter and Linda became associated with three different residence addresses in Newport Beach, California (Orange County), as well as one in La Quinta, CA (Riverside County).  At all four they accumulated a huge pile of tax liens, both from the IRS and the State of California.  There are also releases recorded after 1993 for most of those liens.  Strangely, no deeds come up in Peter and Linda’s names for any of the Orange County addresses, including 647 Irvine Ave. and 9 Kamalii Court in Newport Beach, which Amy used for voting registration in 1986 and 1992.  Amy also gave 647 Irvine Ave. as her permanent address in her 1989 passport application.  How can there be liens in Peter and Linda’s names recorded against properties they did not have title to?  Although Orange County property records prior to 1982 are not available online, there are no deeds from 1983 to 2016, either, showing these properties were ever conveyed away.  And, according to this letter, Amy was in high school in Santa Fe in 1985!  The liens must be bogus, which makes it highly probable the releases functioned as a payoff mechanism, convenient because the payor is not identified.  So much for the investigatory acumen of the Los Angeles Times reporters.  They sure missed the boat.  Except:  the L.A. Times was on the boat.  Consider these sly headlines, “Life After Death” and “Biehl’s Living Legacy.”  Stanford University was on the boat, too.

Maybe Peter’s most important role in life was to take the missing tritium to Los Alamos.  And maybe that’s why he died of cancer at age 59.  But at this point I am connecting dots rather far off the page.  Sure, there could be lots of reasons why the Biehls moved to Santa Fe!  Or was it Albuquerque?  Or Newport Beach?  Whatever. 

Peter’s brother, David “Larry” Biehl, had a role to play.  Larry is an investment adviser who appeared regularly on “Wall Street Week” in the 1980’s.  Those appearances stopped in 1987.  Larry is a Stanford graduate, too.  It would appear he is the “money man” for the Amy Biehl Foundation, since he resides in San Marcos, California, where the foundation is based.  Larry is a founder of the “Da Vinci Society,” whose website, after my first inspection of it, a few days later came up “Page Not Found.”  In a preface he wrote on behalf of the Da Vinci Society for someone else’s book, he talked about “transpartisanship,” a word I had never encountered before.

But there is another Larry interested in “transpartisanship,” that being Larry Jay Diamond, the Stanford professor—who, in fact, is not listed in the Stanford Yearbook of 1989, the year Amy graduated, so maybe he never knew Amy Biehl at Stanford, at all.  In fact, when asked for an interview, he denied knowing Amy very well.

Diamond’s name may be prophetic, because South Africa is all about diamonds, and gold.  The Stanford professor has been involved in “democracy movements” not only in Africa, but all over the world.  Importantly, he is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations, the Rockefeller-funded and -operated think tank which controls the major U.S. media outlets.  The CFR tells the Central Intelligence Agency and State Department what to do.  The Fulbright Foundation has also been pegged as a CIA front, which explains why it would go along with the false information that Amy had won a Fulbright fellowship.  It is fair to say Larry Diamond is more interested in regime change in the service of corporate interests than in actual democracy, therefore.  For example, he “served as the inspiration” for a documentary which went viral, entitled “I am a Ukrainian,” purporting to be a grass roots production but, in reality, linked to “shadowy NGO’s that have been directly involved in starting phony ‘color revolutions’ in the past.” 

The conclusion is inescapable that the Biehls are a spook family.   More evidence is the company both William and Peter worked for in Tucson, George Fry & Associates--“Fry Consultants, Inc.” by 1968--represented vaguely as a “management and marketing firm.” George Fry, listed in “10,000 Famous Freemasons,” was a partner in spy contractor Booz, Fry, Allen & Hamilton, now Booz Allen Hamilton, owned by the Carlyle Group.  Booz Allen Hamilton was Edward Snowden's employer.  Under William Joseph Biehl’s stewardship the company had 250 of Fortune Magazine’s “Top 500” companies for clients, a remarkable achievement which can only with difficulty be conceived as the result of simple hard work.  

As for Amy, maybe she was truly passionate about Africa and felt the permanent erasure of her identity was worth it, to “further democracy.”  Phil Taylor and Kennell Jackson, Jr., both black men, might similarly have played along in the belief they were furthering a noble cause.  That cause would be the first multiracial elections in South Africa, set for April 27, 1994—and specifically, victory for the ANC.  The dead girl’s birthday fell on April 26th, the day before, providing an opportunity to bring it up all over again, to remind the electorate about Amy Biehl the dedicated white activist murdered by the Pan Africanist Students’ Organization, while the voting was going on.  The CIA wanted the people, 17 million of whom were black Africans voting for the first time, to give a mandate to Nelson Mandela and the African National Congress, presented as the peace candidates (despite their own extensive history of violence).  It did this at least in part by portraying the Pan-Africanist Congress as the murderers of Amy Biehl. 

It is beyond the scope of this article to examine to what extent Mandela and the ANC were creatures of the CIA, but it is clear, in retrospect, that they were--and are.  Patrick Bond, a South African economist, has analyzed the ANC’s role in permitting the largest companies, such as Anglo-American and DeBeers, to change their location of ownership from Johannesburg to London, causing an irretrievable currency crash.  While ANC chiefs ride around in limousines, 35% of South Africans are unemployed, struggling with high crime rates, frequent power outages, and substandard education and health care.  As dozens of striking mine workers executed in cold blood by ANC goons in 2012 found out, you stand up for your rights in South Africa, you die. 

Despite the U.S. government’s profession of anti-apartheid goals, American corporate interests were always entwined with the Nationalist Party—the Afrikaners.  The CIA’s desire, and strategy, would be to protect and perpetuate the privileges these economic interests enjoyed under Nationalist Party rule, even while creating the illusion of a huge shift to majority rule.  The CIA would not stand idly by, to only passively observe such a momentous event as this 1994 election, which might jeopardize the interests of American and multinational corporations.  It is well within the ambit of known CIA behavior to concoct psy ops such as the “murder of Amy Biehl by the PAC” to influence the election.  The bimonthly trips made by CIA asset Linda Biehl to South Africa in connection with the Amy Biehl Foundation later, not to mention the $500,000 initial grant to it, also ought to raise a few eyebrows.  Is she smuggling diamonds?  I'm not making that comment entirely in jest.

            In particular, now we know why it was so easy for Linda and Peter Biehl to be “resilient,” and forgive their daughter’s murderers.  There was no murder to forgive.  


(Thanks to Anne Berg for fleshing out the Booz Allen Hamilton info!)