Press Release Re: Statement of the Sara Olson Defense Fund Committee November 30, 2000 Earlier this month The Sara Olson Defense Fund Committee became the focus of the Los Angeles District attorney's office. A motion that was filed as public document in Sara^s case went up on the defense committee's WEB site, www.saraolsondefense.com. More than a week and a half later the defense fund committee learned that the motion had been sealed the day after it was filed because addresses and phone numbers of defense witnesses were included in the document. The names were then removed as soon as possible. The committee was accused of endangering the lives of two police officers (one of whom is retired) by the publication of a defense motion for discovery and sanctions on the web site after it had been filed with the court. Sara and her attorneys, who have no responsibility for the WEB site, were accused of refusing to take the numbers and addresses down. Neither the Los Angeles district attorney's office nor the representatives of the officers ever contacted the committee to inform it that the motion had been sealed, what's more to request that the information in question be removed. Instead, they requested sanctions against Sara's attorney's and an increase in Sara's bail from one million to two million dollars. The committee removed the information in question in less than one business day. "The L.A. District Attorney's failure to contact the committee was the direct cause of the amount of time it took to remove the information in question." The main focus of the November 17th hearing was suppose to be the acquisition by the defense of necessary discovery evidence from the D.A.'s office. This evidence is needed by the defense's expert witness in order for Sara to receive a fair trial. This same evidence was requested by Ms. Jordan and Mr. Hanlon, Sara's former attorneys, back in November of 1999. To date it is the committee's understanding that the defense has yet to receive it. Also on the calendar was a motion dealing with chain of evidence. It is necessary for the police and the prosecution to establish that the evidence in question has been stored properly and has not been altered in any way from its original condition. The defense must be informed of any alterations or changes in the evidence. If the police and the prosecution have failed to properly maintain the evidence it means that the defense experts may not get an accurate idea of what might have occurred. In that instance the use of that evidence would not be fair to the defense. Instead, the issue of the web site became a smokescreen for the prosecution and the focus of the hearing. In the courtroom, LAPD officer Hall, who was in uniform and carrying a gun, was allowed to come forward and begin to present a written rhetorical statement. This statement was not made under oath. Tony Serra, one of Sara^s lead attorneys, made vigorous objections to officer Hall being allowed to make a statement not under oath. When officer Hall was allowed to go ahead with his statement, Mr. Serra made it impossible for Hall to read his entire statement by accusing him of slander and perjury. The judge then told officer Hall to state how he was affected by his name being listed on the website. Hall stated that "he and his family would live in terror as long as they lived at that address." He also pointed out that there were extra armed deputies in the courtroom that day because of this terror, to protect him, apparently, from committee members. Committee members and family present at the hearing were totally amazed. Tony Serra had already stood up and taken full responsibility for the addresses and phone numbers being placed in the motion. Judge James Ideman did acknowledge that he could not prove Sara had any control over the web site. Nor could he place sanctions on Sara or her attorneys. He proceeded to warn Sara and her attorneys that they were playing a dangerous game. He stated more than once that it looked like SLA tactics to him and he called the web site a terrorist web site. He advised the prosecution that perhaps they could use this to strengthen their case against Sara. The press was present while the judge blatantly played the role of prosecutor. Family and friends sat by observing, helpless to defend themselves against these slanderous allegations. The hearing then proceeded to deal with the other motions. The judge refused to consider extending the trial but did agree to appoint a discovery master who would mediate and expedite the discovery dispute. The defense had made a request for a discovery master over a year ago when it was clear the prosecution was withholding evidence. The judge was very dismissive and said, "ready or not we will start January 8th" and that he was going on vacation for three weeks. Judge James Ideman also refused to allow discovery regarding the possible collusion between the prosecution and James Bryan, the former LAPD police officer that had a 25-year lapse in memory. After 25 years of failing to recognize Sara in his official reports or under oath in front of the original grand jury in 1976, he has stated that he suddenly remembered in 1999 that she looked at him with such loathing in her eyes that he would never forget her. The judge then hinted to the Prosecution that they should think twice before bringing this witness forward as his action in suing Sara in a civil suit opens up his entire mental health history of which there is, apparently, plenty. The Defense Fund Committee is made up of friends and supporters of Sara. Our goal is to raise funds,to network and build support while keeping people informed of the proceedings in Sara^s case. We are parents, social activists, and workers struggling to do what is right. We see this case as one that is unfair and we believe that Sara is being scapegoated. If the prosecution had stuck to the original indictment, this would have been over long ago because they have no evidence in the alleged bombing attempts. It is only because they have added 22 felonies related to the SLA^many for which no one was ever indicted, and which have nothing to do with Sara since she was never a member of the SLA^ making this one of the biggest conspiracy cases ever brought against an individual. It has gone on for a year and one-half, costing millions of California dollars(estimate from attorneys:$3-5 million dollars) and ruined lives. The Sara Olson Defense Fund Committee does not publish any motion or article with any kind of malicious intent to terrorize or instill fear in anyone^s life, despite Judge Ideman's and the prosecution's contentions to the contrary. Rather, it is the committee's intent to disseminate accurate information about Sara and her case. All motions that are posted on our Web site, www.saraolsondefense.com, are public documents which have been filed with the court. The judge admitted as much on November 17 in court. We will continue to operate the web site in support of Sara, www.saraolsondefense.com. We publish all of the defense motions which are not under seal as well as various articles and letters of support. We continue to ask for your support. Sincerely, The Sara Olson Defense Fund Committee
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : 12/02/00 EST