Mr. Craig Oswald
Assistant United States Attorney
Dirksen Federal Building, Fifth Floor
219 South Dearborn Street
Chicago, Illinois 60604
Mr. David Buvinger
Assistant United States Attorney
Dirksen Federal Building, Fifth Floor
219 South Dearborn Street
Chicago, Illinois 60604
Mr. J. Kenneth Lowrie
Criminal Division
U.S. Department of Justice
Washington, D.C. 20530
Thank you for your response letter of March
24, 1998. The National Legal and Policy Center (NLPC) was pleased
to learn that the United States (the Government) is "not
completely satisfied with all aspects of LIUNA's reform effort."
NLPC agrees with the Government that Laborer's
International Union of North America (LIUNA) General Executive
Board Attorney Robert D. Luskin's "comments on public issues
that do not directly relate to the LIUNA reform effort constitute
no cause for his dismissal." However, Mr. Luskin's active defense
of President Clinton, as outlined in NLPC's March 11 letter, DOES
DIRECTLY RELATE to the LIUNA reform effort and constitutes a conflict
of interest which threatens the integrity of the LIUNA reform
effort.
The situation is clear:
(1) The Government's 1994 draft RICO complaint
stated, "LIUNA has been infiltrated at all levels by corrupt
individuals and organized crime figures who have exploited their
control and influence over the union for personal gain and to
the detriment of the union. LIUNA union officers and employees at all levels, including the general presidency [i.e. Arthur A. Coia] , have been chosen, subject to the
approval of, and have been controlled by, various members
and associates of organized crime." [Emphasis added.]
(2) In 1994-1995 the Government was on the
verge of taking over LIUNA as it had done with the International
Brotherhood of Teamsters in 1989. Something happen to alter that
course.
(3) As outlined in NLPC's previous letter,
LIUNA General President Arthur A. Coia and President Clinton
have close political, financial and personal friendship.
(4) As President, President Clinton controls
the U.S. Justice Department which was and is the Government's
lead agency in the LIUNA matter.
(5) The February 13, 1995 Agreement (the
Agreement) between the Government and LIUNA allowed LIUNA to "reform
itself" and Mr. Coia to keep his job.
(6) Mr. Luskin was bestowed the awesome and
difficult task of overseeing the LIUNA reform effort while
being compensated by LIUNA.
(7) In the last three months, as outlined
in NLPC's previous letter, Mr. Luskin has attacked Independent
Counsel Kenneth Starr and defended President Clinton clearing
demonstrating a partisan and biased nature favoring President
Clinton.
Aiding President Clinton in this manner calls
into question the objectivity and integrity of Mr. Luskin's
investigation into President Clinton's close political,
financial and personal friend, Mr. Coia, and thus, the entire
LIUNA reform effort.
Additionally, NLPC has obtained new information
that further demonstrates that Mr. Luskin has an overt bias and
conflict of interest making him unfit to serve as LIUNA GEB Attorney.
Mark E. Middleton is a client of Mr. Luskin.
Mr. Middleton is a close friend of President Clinton. Mr. Middleton
came to Washington from Arkansas, worked in former White House
Chief of Staff Mack McLarty's office as an aide to the President,
and has been entangled in the Adminstration's fundraising scandals
with the likes of John Huang, the Riady family and others.
Met with representatives of North China Power
Group and Lippo Group in the White House on April 22, 1994. Allegedly,
John Huang had a role in arranging the meeting
as part of larger campaign fundraising effort.
After leaving the White House, he traveled
with Charlie Trie to Taiwan in an effort to allegedly raise
campaign funds, and he reportedly passed out business cards stating
he was a special assistant to the President in order to gain influence.
He has been alleged to have raised $4 million
in foreign sources for the President's 1992 campaign.
He invoked the Fifth Amendment to avoid Congressional investigators last year.
For a more complete report on Mr. Middleton
and his longtime political and financial relationship with President
Clinton, please see the enclosed article by Eliza Newlin Carney
and Peter H. Stone, "Blind Ambition," National Journal
, June 7, 1997.
To better understand why Mr. Luskin is involved
with Mr. Middleton's troubles please read the following excerpt
from Harvey Berkman's February 17, 1997 article
in the National Law Journal :
"The size of the market for lawyers
for Washington, D.C., figures ensnared in one scandal or another
is indicated by the amount of work landed by D.C.'s tiny,
10-attorney Comey, Boyd & Luskin.
Partner Robert D. Luskin, with associate
Dan Braun, is representing former Clinton White House aide and
current international business consultant Mark Middleton
in Huangate, named for John Huang, the former Commerce Department
official and Democratic National Committee fund-raiser with a
facility for eliciting large donations from Asians, both wealthy
and not.
As former chief counsel of the Justice Department's
organized crime section, Mr. Luskin also represents a client in
the independent counsel probe of former Agriculture Secretary
Mike Espy, and he previously represented former Justice Department
official Philip B. Heymann when he testified before Congress on
Whitewater.
David R. Boyd, one of Mr. Luskin's two partners,
represented Joel I. Klein -- now the Justice Department's acting
antitrust chief but then a deputy White House counsel -- when
he was queried about Whitewater documents. Mr. Boyd currently
represents Linda Medlar, the former mistress of former housing
secretary Henry Cisneros. Her taped conversation with Mr. Cisneros
led to the appointment of an independent counsel to investigate
him.
As extensive as it is, however, Comey Boyd's work is just a drop in the proverbial bucket of mud."
There would be no problem with Mr. Luskin
representing Mr. Middleton and these other friends of President
Clinton who are wrapped up in this Adminstration's scandals,
if Mr. Luskin was not already investigating other friends of President Clinton for ties to organized crime, namely Mr. Coia.
It is as if Mr. Luskin was charged with overseeing
a corrupt organization's "reform effort" and at the
same time serving as defense counsel to political allies of that
corrupt organization. It is unseemly and has at least the appearance
of conflict of interest.
Mr. Middleton and the other aforementioned
clients, make Mr. Luskin is a walking conflict of interest. Between
President Clinton, Mr. Coia and Mr. Luskin, the opportunities
for improper influence and tampering with the LIUNA reform effort
are endless. Here is just one possibility: the Clinton Administration
could tell Mr. Luskin go easy on Mr. Coia or else undesirable
information on Mr. Luskin's client, Mr. Middleton, will be released.
Without an oversight offical who is, and
is perceived to be, totally and unquestionably impartial, the
reform effort is a joke, and the rank-and-file LIUNA member suffers.
LIUNA members deserve a corruption-free and mob-free union. They
should not have to tolerate any more corruption and embarrassment.
Mr. Luskin has an obligation under the Agreement
to perform his duties with the utmost integrity and impartiality.
But, his financial, legal and political ties to the Clinton Administration
render him incapable of performing his duties under the Agreement.
Given this additional information of Mr.
Luskin's numerous ties to President Clinton's friends who are
involved in the campaign fundraising scandal, Whitewater and other
scandals, NLPC respectfully requests that the Government take
whatever action is available and appropriate to have Mr. Luskin
immediately relieved of his duties at LIUNA. Further, NLPC requests
that the Government immediately dismiss Mr. Coia and implement
the pending consent decree as provided for in the Agreement because
of the damage done to the LIUNA internal reform program by Mr.
Luskin's conduct.
Lastly, the Government's March 24 letter stated that the LIUNA reform effort has launched "major initiatives" in Chicago, Buffalo, New Jersey and New York. Why have not "major initiatives" been launched in Providence, RI (home to Mr. Coia) and in Washington, D.C. (home to LIUNA's international headquarters)? If ridding LIUNA of organized crime were the true objective, Providence and Washington would be at the top of the list given the Government's assertions in the 1994 draft RICO complaint. Further, the Government said the LIUNA reform effort has been a "considerable success."
These words should be saved until Mr. Coia
and all other LIUNA officers who "have been controlled by
various members and associates of organized crime" are
convicted or at least ousted from LIUNA.
Thank you for your consideration of this
request.
Kenneth Boehm, Esq.
cc: U.S. Attorney Scott R. Lassar
U.S. Representative Henry J. Hyde
U.S. Representative Bill McCollum