STATEMENT OF PLAINTIFF TERRY K. REED
RE: LRC 94-634
REED v. YOUNG, et al.
On July 5, 1991, one month shy of 5 years ago, my wife Janis and
I mustered up the courage to register ourselves as plaintiffs in
a civil law suit that we knew was seeded with political land
mines. That original lawsuit, LRC 91-414, filed in federal court
in Little Rock, Arkansas, and later to evolve into case number
LRC 94-634, has transformed into an all-consuming endeavor, for
not only Janis and me, our team of lawyers, but many concerned
American citizens as well.
We knew all along, as well did Little Rock Federal District Judge
George Howard, Jr., that this case was not only about the
violation of our civil rights, but carried with it the burden of
re-educating the Court, the jury, and the American people about a
painful period known in the annals of history as Iran-Contra.
Slowly but surely, we and our legal team have been penetrating
layer upon layer of government disinformation created for the
sole purpose of preventing the truth to surface concerning the
Reagan Administration's efforts to assist the Nicaraguan Contras
in Arkansas. The Executive branch's by-passing of congressional
restraints designed to prohibit or restrict military aid to the
Contras through the law known as the Boland Amendment was in
great part carried out on Arkansas soil with the full knowledge
and complicity of our now-sitting President, Bill Clinton.
Some of the CIA's activities which took place at Bill Clinton's
Mena, Arkansas were patriotically driven and justified. Other
activities, however, those which included the importation of
cocaine and money laundering, can never be justified in the
domain of the public. For this reason, there has been a
concerted and bi-partisan effort to keep the subject matter known
as MENA from becoming legitimized through the court process.
Judge Howard's court has at times condoned our efforts to amass
non-partisan evidence to not only prove our case, but to also
re-write history and do what Independent Counsel Lawrence Walsh
either feared or failed to do after conducting a $40 million
investigation: to tell the truth about the CIA's activities in
Mena, Arkansas in the mid-1980s.
To begin, let me recap our motivations for suing Raymond (Buddy)
Young, then a captain with the Arkansas State Police and serving
as Bill Clinton's gubernatorial chief of security. Young is now
the director of Region 6 of the Federal Emergency Management
Authority (FEMA) and based at Denton, Texas. From his position
at FEMA he still finds time to protect Bill Clinton by
threatening former Clinton bodyguards whenever they come forward
with evidence which may embarrass the President or hint of
We felt then, as we feel now, that Mr. Young was a dangerous and
unethical man who should never have been allowed to wear a badge.
Yet, there he was in 1987, officing out of the Governor's
mansion, drawing from the resources of the state of Arkansas, and
behaving as any modern day crime family "enforcer" as he provided
"security" for Arkansas' first family, Bill, Hillary, and Chelsea
Providing security: what does this encompass? That is what this
case was destined to expose. Does it include destroying the
lives of people who innocently become a political liability to
powerful politicians, namely his boss, Bill Clinton?
Well, the senior federal judge in Wichita, Kansas, Frank G.
Theis, ruled in 1990 that these "security services" included at
least the orchestration of phony criminal indictments against
myself and Janis. The question is, why? We wanted to answer
that question in Judge Howard's court. We already knew the
answer. I had worked at the Mena airport and could connect
prominent Arkansan power brokers and politicians to some very
nefarious activity. Simply said: Janice and I were liabilities
and had to be dealt with.
As Judge Theis clearly saw, Young was not a solo actor as he
conducted the despicable deed of trying to wrongfully and
illegally cause innocent people to be incarcerated or killed.
Theis concluded that Young had at least one accomplice, Tommy Lee
Baker, of Little Rock, Arkansas, another former Arkansas State
cop and sometimes private detective. Mr. Baker now sells alcohol
to some of Little Rock's lower socio-economic groups through his
liquor store on East 9th Street.
Judge Theis, the senior federal judge for the 10th circuit
district, had witnessed Young and Baker shuffling through his
court room on more than one occasion between 1988 and 1990 as
they emerged as the star witnesses in a U.S. Government
prosecution designed to imprison Janis and myself for 20 years
each -- for a crime we knew absolutely nothing about.
Yet, Young and Baker, through their own perjurous lips, and
manufactured material evidence, had convinced a Kansas U.S.
Attorney that Janis and I were drug smuggling airplane thieves
who were so "armed and dangerous" that we and our young children
could have been shot on sight by any overly wary or trigger-happy
law enforcement officer. Young, by his own admission, fabricated
and authored a criminal profile that presented us as a modern day
Bonnie and Clyde.
But miraculously, by November, 1990, through two and one half
years of effort, a lot of money, and a little bit of luck, Janis
and I and our criminal defense lawyers were able to set the
record straight in Judge Theis' courtroom. The judge exonerated
us of *all* alleged criminal wrong-doing by finding me "not
guilty" and at the same time lashed out at the
government-embraced accusers. In the judge's own written words,
sworn statements made by both Baker and Young were "made with at
least reckless disregard for the truth."
On my day of judgement, November 9, 1990, when I was acquitted, I
quietly vowed to bring Buddy Young and Tommy Baker to justice --
to expose them for the dregs that they are -- simply bad cops
hiding behind tarnished badges and taking instructions from
corrupt power-brokers and politicians who likewise should be
prosecuted and forced from office to an awaiting prison cell.
But that is not going to happen in Judge Howard's courtroom, and
not through the five years of sweat and effort that Janis and I
have devoted to this uphill and horrendously expensive legal
Judge Howard, for reasons unexplained but clearly understood, has
decided to protect these scoundrels, and in so doing protect
those who assigned Young and Baker their "targets". In recent
months Judge Howard has gutted our lawsuit and in the process has
exposed the strings to which he is attached -- strings that are
obviously being pulled from Washington, and more significantly,
the White House.
So who is Judge Howard protecting? I can't fathom it would be
the enemies of civil liberties like Young and Baker. Why is a
federal judge, who up until recently appeared to be so
sympathetic with civil rights issues, ordering me to *not* put on
the evidence we have amassed that can clearly prove WHO was
instructing Young and Baker to violate our civil rights?
The judge, by his own order, has specifically forbidden me to
introduce the following evidence, evidence my lawyers desperately
need to prove motive on behalf of Young and Baker and other
Pending before the Court is defendants' December 4th motion
in limine to exclude the following matters: ....... These
general areas will be referred to as the "Mena" evidence or
.......Even if the Court were to find that the complaint
adequately states sufficient facts to make the
allegations....... relevant to the alleged overt actions of
these defendants, the probative value is substantially
outweighed by the dangers of unfair prejudice, confusion of
issues, the potential for misleading of the jury and
considerations of undue delay and waste of time. The
following description will control:
Any reference to the plaintiffs' participation in programs,
operations or missions sponsored by the Federal Bureau of
Investigation or the Central Intelligence Agency or any other
agency of the United States government, covert or otherwise,
as well as any organization sponsored by or aligned with the
United States government specifically including, but not
limited to, any programs, operations or missions conducted in
southwest Arkansas regarding the training of Nicaraguan
nationals, the funding and support for any factions involved
in the Nicaraguan conflict and any contact or communications
with operatives or officials of the above-named agencies or
organizations. Any reference to President or Governor Bill
Clinton and/or Hillary Clinton and the Mena or Nella
Airports. Any references to Barry Seale [sic] and any
alleged drug smuggling operation or other references to the
Mena and Nella Airports, or to a business relationship of
Barry Seale [sic] and Dan Lasater, Lasater and Company and
the Arkansas Development and Finance Authority (ADFA) and
ADFA's former Director, Bob Nash.
.......IT IS SO ORDERED THIS 8th day of March, 1996.
George Howard, Jr. [signed]
United States District Judge
Judge Howard, through his own order, has exposed himself.
Unwittingly, he and his integrity have now been compromised.
By dissecting his order, one can clearly see two things.
1. Judge Howard is eliminating evidence that he has not yet
even seen. Most of our 110 witnesses were not deposed prior to
trial. The judge, and even worse, the defendants, don't know
what our witnesses would say on the stand... and that's the
problem, isn't it? Heaven forbid the unadulterated and
unedited and unrehearsed and uncensored truth spill out within
the walls of a federal court house.
2. Judge Howard is protecting people and government agencies
not even named in the lawsuit. This is abundantly clear when
one notes the names of Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Dan
Lasater, Bob Nash, and the Arkansas state agency known as ADFA.
Bill, Hillary, Dan, Bob and ADFA are not defendants in the
suit. One can only conclude from this judge's bizarre behavior
that there has been wrongful, unethical, and illegal
communication between the judge and the White House.
Otherwise, these names wouldn't appear in the Order --
especially that of Bob Nash. Bob Nash has never been
officially accused of any wrong doing, although I have
knowledge of same, and this would come out in court. And where
is Bob Nash? He's in the White House -- Director of Personnel.
As a former U.S. Air Force intelligence professional, I am
making the following observation: this Democrat appointed
judge is running interference for Bill Clinton in this election
year. Mena will not be *allowed* to become a political issue
in the 1996 race for the Presidency. Judge Howard has been
appointed to be our road block to justice. At the same time he
is cleverly putting Janis, me and my lawyers in a suicidal
posture. We can go to trial, we just cannot put on our
And speaking of suicide, imagine the forces that are causing
judge Howard to fall on his sword. When this is over, surely he
will have no judicial integrity or respect. But I guess that is
a price one pays when one is securely employed for life.
And what was the judge's response when my law team filed a 20
page motion on April 23, 1996 giving him the alternatives to:
1. Reconsider his March 8th gag order, or
2. Hear oral arguments on our evidentiary dispute, or
3. Allow us to appeal this evidentiary dispute to the 8th
Circuit Court of Appeals prior to trial
His succinct response was
Plaintiffs' April 23rd motion for reconsideration and
clarification or, alternatively, for leave to file interlocutory
appeal (#55) is denied for the reasons contained in the March 8th
order and defendants' May 6th response.
.......IT IS SO ORDERED THIS 10th day of May, 1996.
George Howard, Jr. [signed]
United States District Judge
Devastation does not come close to describing our feelings.
After years of dragging this case through the federal civil
justice system, Judge Howard has manipulated us into the
following legal posture: we can go to court but we cannot put on
critical evidence, therefore we will lose. That loss, even
though we could appeal it (and the appeal would consume at
minimum another year of our lives and tens of thousands more
dollars), will be interpreted by the Clinton spin doctors as a
victory. There will be no mention of the fact our hands were
tied, and our mouths were gagged, and the so-called "trial" was a
travesty of justice. They will attempt to convince the media, at
a critical point in the election process, that Mena is a figment
of my imagination, even though the Mena evidence was not allowed
to be presented in court.
Proudly being a former member of the U.S. armed services, I was
trained to win wars, not lose them. I refuse to repeat my
Vietnam experience and not be *allowed* to win.
When we rather naively filed the original complaint, our sons
were ages 4, 6, and 8. They are now 9, 11, and 13, and have
little or no memory of their parents not being consumed in the
efforts to properly litigate this case. For the sake of our
children, and the sanity of our family unit, we are making a very
difficult and painful decision.
Ruefully, after 59 months of a stressful, tumultuous and at times
triumphant struggle, we are being forced to conclude that the
subject of Mena will never be presented within the confines of a
federal court room, and that Janis and I will not see justice
served. Instead, we now cynically view the federal court house
in Little Rock as a monument to federal corruption, and a slap in
the face to all Americans who believe in the separation of powers
provided under the Constitution.
With tears in our eyes, lumps in our throats, and knots in our
stomachs, we are instructing our attorneys to non-suit this case.
To the hundreds of people who directly participated in our
struggle, we would like to remind them of the many victories
achieved throughout the course of our ordeal. In many ways we
did win -- at least in the court of public opinion. Our numerous
depositions, which were funded in great part by public
contributions, have clearly established the fact that the CIA's
activities at Mena, Arkansas *did* take place, and that prominent
politicians from both parties either were complicit in the
illegal activities that swirled around this covert operation, or
even worse, were directly involved or benefited.
I would like to think that my personal hero, Harry S. Truman,
would be proud of our accomplishments, even in the face of
overwhelming odds. At times of strife he was encouraged by the
average citizen to "Give 'em hell, Harry!" I too have heard
voices who backed me shout, "Give 'em hell, Terry!" I hope I've
lived up to the task.
And to Raymond (Buddy) Young, Tommy Lee Baker, and those working
with the Arkansas political establishment who have successfully
undermined my efforts to take this material to trial, I will now
quote from another hero of mine, Douglas McArthur: "I will
Terry K. Reed [signed] 3 Jun 96