Free the Cuban Five press conference: 8/9/05

Moderator:
Good afternoon ladies and gentleman and welcome to the "Cuban Five Win New Trial" conference call.

Gloria LaRiva (GLR):
Thank you, I'm from the National Committee to Free the Cuban Five. We're extremely happy to announce that the Cuban Five have won a new trial. The press conference today will feature four of the attorneys, and as soon as I finish speaking we'll hear from them, then we'll have questions and answers.

For ourselves and for the many, many supporters around the world, for the 11 million Cuban people who have been struggling for their freedom, we can only imagine the joy of the Cuban Five which we are sharing in. And we know, which we have said all along, as the Cubans have said and the Cuban Five have said, they will be free. They will return home. But we'd like to hear, now, on the legal case, and from… first, Phil Horowitz (PH), who is the attorney for Rene Gonzalez (RG) who is in Marianna Prison in Florida, and he will speak. Phil…

Phil Horowitz:
Good afternoon. On behalf of René González and his co-defendants and compatriots, we welcome the 11th Circuit's opinion and we look forward to having a new trial in a proper venue and we are confident that René and his friends will be vindicated. Thank you.

GLR:
Thank you. That's Phil Horowitz, attorney for René González. Now we will hear from Richard Klugh (RK) who is deputy chief of appeals in the federal Public Defender's Office in Miami who has played a very key role as part of the appeals team. We will hear now from Richard Klugh.

RK:
Thank you. On behalf of the Public Defender's Office and my client, Fernando González, we just feel that it's a very courageous and fair decision by the Court of Appeals and we're very gratified by the Court's rigorous adherence to the rule of law. It's a good day for the rule of law and I'm very happy for the defendants and for everyone in this case.

GLR:
Now we will hear from Leonard Weinglass (LW) who is the appeals attorney for Antonia Guerrero (AG) who is imprisoned in Florence, CO. And Leonard, if you could begin by explaining to the press what the decision is about. Thank you.

LW:
Well, first I want to express on behalf of Antonio Guerrero and the Five, as well as the legal defense team our gratification and pleasure at this opinion. This is really an historic opinion. Never before in the history of the United States has a Federal Circuit Court of Appeals reversed a trial court's finding with respect to venue. This is a first. And in writing their opinion, which covers just one issue of the 8 or 9 issues we raised on appeal, that issue being venue, the Court analyzed in great detail virtually every facet of the case of the community, of the publicity, the attitude of the jurors, the actions of the prosecutor, and the motions that were made during trial and after trial. It is as extensive and factual in detailed an analysis on the issue of venue that I have ever seen in a written opinion by any court anywhere. And so this is a remarkable decision. An incredible tribute to the vitality of the Appellate Court and it's just a marvel to read. We all feel very appreciative and grateful for this decision.

GLR:
We will now take questions from the press. And after this call is over, this press conference will be available for the next 24 hours
by recording. We ask that you call our office in Sana Francisco at 415-821-6545 to get the information how to get the recording by phone and also any other interviews with the appeals attorneys. Again this is the National Committee to Free the Cuban 5 office that you will be calling afterwards. We will now hear from the press.

PMcK:
Gloria, this is Paul McKenna (PMcK). Can I make a brief statement…

GLR:
Oh! Yes… Paul McKenna is one of the other attorneys. He is the attorney for Gerardo Hernandez (GH) who had two life sentences and who is in Victorville Prison. Please, Paul McKenna…

PMcK:
Thank you. Well, it's been a very long, seven-year trip with a lot of twists and turns and I have to say that there were many times when I doubted the outcome. But I have new faith in the Court of Appeals and the system of law and this proves conclusively that we are truly a nation of laws and not men. And the one person that never doubted this outcome was my client, Gerardo Hernández, who told me in letters and telephone calls over the last 7 years that we would prevail. And he was right.

GLR:
Thank you very much Paul…

[Instructions for Q&A]

Associated Press:
I was just wondering where you would seek to have this new trial if Miami is just impossible to get a fair and impartial trial here, where will you try to go and also, will your arguments be basically the same as what was presented back in 2000, 2001?

GLR:
Who would like to answer that?

[LW]:
Paul, do you answer that?

PMcK:
I've already been asked that once today. My answer is it's too early to tell. We're going to have to sit down, read this opinion many times. It's a 93-page opinion. And … all I know, my preference would be not in the southern district of Florida. And we're going have to take it from there. There are a lot of logistical questions in terms of what courthouse can handle it and things of that nature that we're going to have to explore. But, right now, I'm not ready to say where. All I know is that the Court of Appeals got it right and it really can't be in the southern district of Florida.

AP:
And as far as arguments that you'll present at the new trial?

PMCK:
Well… as far as what happens next, now it's the US attorney's move. You know, this is their prosecution. For my part, the first question that I want to address is my client. I want to get him out of that maximum security prison in California because he's not convicted of anything anymore. He doesn't have any more life sentence. He's innocent right now like he was at the beginning of the trial. We want to get him back to the southern district of Florida. And I want to address the issue of his bail. He's been confined for 7 years. And I want to see if I can fashion some kind of a situation where he could be released from jail and live under house arrest or something, just because he's been waiting for 7 years which is extraordinary! That's what's first on my agenda.

AFP:
Hi, my name is Randy Newman with AFP, the French news agency. When was the opinion published? This morning? Last night, or?

PMCK:
Yeah, this is Paul McKenna, again. I got– my office got a call this morning.

AFP:
OK…

PMCK:
… at about 9:30. And a clerk from the US Court of Appeals informed my secretary what had happened. And then she faxed the opinion. So it was this morning.

AFP:
OK, thanks.

Reuters:
Hi, I'm with Reuters News. I was hoping for a kind of housekeeping issue where people could just spell their names correctly for us. And secondly, my real question: Does this ruling potentially have any other implications for other cases or does it set a precedent of any sort for anything that's being related to Cuba going through southern district of Florida courtrooms?

GLR:
I think what we'll do is have the second question answered and then give the names of the five men.

Reuters:
That sounds good.

GLR:
Len, can you answer it?

LW:
This is a published opinion which means this opinion becomes part of the body of laws in the United States. And so far as I can determine, this is probably one of the most extensive opinions written on the issue of venue and fair trial. It will be regarded as a landmark case in history just in the legal point of view. This case will be cited by many defendants presently facing charges, and in the future, as probably the finest example of a judicial analysis of what's required for a fair trial in the United States. It's the most extensive, factual analysis of what constitutes fairness in terms of a trial. So I think this case will be cited frequently, will be used as a precedent, not just in southern Florida, but throughout the United States and into the future. So, I think the court wrote this opinion with history in mind. And I think they were aware of the fact that they were creating a new way of analyzing and looking at the reality of bias and prejudice in the circumstances of a fair trail. So we're very grateful for that. I think this case will be taught in law schools and will be lectured upon years to come. There are a few cases in our history dealing with fair trial, this will rank right up with the best of them and the most important one.

GLR:
The names of the Five are: Gerardo Hernandez, g-e-r-a-r-d-o Hernandez. He is facing– He had 2 life sentences in Victorville Prison. Antonia Guerrero. Antonio, last name, g-u-e-r-r-e-r-o. He had a life sentence plus many years and he's in Florence, CO. Ramón Labañino, Ramón, l-a-b-a-ñ-I\i-n-o. He had a life sentence in Beaumont, TX. René González, René González, g-o-n-z-a-l-e-z. He is in Marianna Prison. He has 15 years. And Fernando González, with a "z" at the end, Fernando is in Oxford Prison, Wisconsin.

Reuters:
Thank you very much for that. I was also hoping to double check the spelling of the attorney's names.

GLR:
Yes … It's Paul McKenna, m-c-k-e-n-n-a, capital k, attorney for Gerardo Hernandez. Bill Horowitz, h-o-r-o-w-I-t-z, the attorney for Rene Gonzalez. Leonard Weinglass, w-e-i-n-g-l-a-s-s, attorney for Antonio Guerrero. And for more information on the details of the legal appeals that were filed before, you can look at the website www.freethefive, spelled out, dot org.

RK:
the last name for Richard Klugh, k-l-u-g-h. And the Federal Public Defender is Kathleen Williams, we represent Fernando Gonzalez. Thank you.

GLR:
Sorry Richard. [RK: that's alright.] And we'll now have the next question.

Bernie Dwyer[?]:
Hello and congratulations to everybody! As Paul said, it's been a long, hard road, especially for the five who are still there now. And what I'd like to know if possible, how long more are we going to wait. How soon can we see this process beginning to move? And if you could give me just a little bit more detail, please, about the findings of the 11th District Court of Appeals… just a little bit more detail on their decision. Thank you.

PMCK:
Bernie, by the way, thank you for those words… I appreciate that. This is Paul McKenna, again. This opinion as Len was stating before is a very complex opinion with many issues. But basically, what the Court of Appeals did is they went through the trial from the beginning to the end and cited all the kinds of antics that were taking place within the trial, whether it was prosecutor's comments, whether it was a witness, Mr. Basulto calling me a communist spy during my examination of him. No matter what it was, the Court of Appeals just went through point-by-point just showing how this trial was infected with prejudice from the beginning until the end. And, in the final analysis they said, we realize this is going to be a very unpopular decision, but the Constitution of the United States demands nothing less. And that was in their final page. They alluded to Cuban Americans, a finding that … they knew that this was going to be an unpopular opinion but they reminded those same Cuban Americans that it's exactly the Constitution that they came to the United States for, that protects all people's right. And they made a point to put that in their final paragraph.

As far as the timing of things goes, the very next thing that's going to happen is that the defendants are going to have to be released from their places of confinement and sent back to Miami. And they'll be sent back here because the case is going to revert back to square one, just as they were before they were tried. And decisions will have to be made about bail, about where they're going to be housed, about where the case will take place in the future. There's a lot of future decisions that have to take place. But as far as what's going to happen in terms of the prosecution, that's a question that has to be addressed to the new United States Attorney, Mr. Acosta.

GLR:
Paul, this is Gloria. I would like to ask, when you say they will be sent to Miami, will they be in detention?

PMcK:
Well, I'm sure they will when they first get here. But as I said earlier, I think their detention status has to be revisited because circumstances are different now. These men have been in jail for 7 years. Some of the defendants are near completion of their sentences. I know Mr. Horowitz's client (René González) maybe near completion of his sentence, and perhaps Mr. Campa (Fernando González) may also be near conclusion of his sentence. I'm not exactly sure. But I think when you have a period of 7 years when somebody has been incarcerated, you can revisit bail and I intend to. And I intend to see if the Court could find some way of releasing Mr. Hernández to someone's home or under house arrest, or some other condition than jail, because he's been waiting 7 years now.

Hastin[?]:
Hi, my question is, not having the benefit of reading the full opinion, if there were other specific instances of perceived prejudice that blend into the trial beyond the incident of Mr. Basulto on the witness stand that were cited in your appellate brief?

GLR:
What media are you from please?

Hastin[?]:
I'm sorry. I'm from the Miami Herald.

PMcK: I'm going to let Len answer that, but I'll just say it's choke full of incidents. I mean, they must cite over a hundred different incidents, beginning with jury selection, comments made by jurors, to newspapers being in the courtroom, to the press following jurors to their cars with video cameras rolling. I mean, there's too many different incidents to cite. But I think the biggest instances were … one incidence where Jose Basulto, prominent member of the community, called me an agent of the Cuban intelligence service during the trial. And that was a watershed moment. We all renewed our motions for a change of venue at that time and that's what the Court of Appeals zeroed in on.

GLR:
Len, (momentarily away from the phone) I think the gentleman from the Miami Herald, was asking what other examples of prejudice were found beside the Basulto comment.

LW:
The court spend 90-plus pages analyzing every aspect of the case, from before trial to more than a year after the trial, including the government's conduct in the Ramírez case where they sought a change of venue because Miami could not give their client, the then attorney general, a fair trial. So this is the broadest possible sweep looking at venue issues from the very beginning to even a year after the trial.

They cited the remarks of the jurors during the voir dire. They cited the fact that so many of the jurors knew the victims or the victims' family. They cited the fact that there was a great deal of publicity about the case beforehand and that that publicity fed into the way the trial proceeded. They cited the episodes during the trial where the jurors were followed by television cameras and complained about it to the Court. They cited the fact that there was a demonstration at the start of the trial. They cited the fact that when the jurors were deliberating, the most sensitive part of the trial, they complained about the way the press was following them. They spent a great deal of time focusing on the closing arguments that were given to the jury that heightened the prejudice.

And then they spent a fair amount of time on the Ramírez case which followed the trial by a year, quoting extensively from the papers that we filed with the Court, in the appendix, showing that Dr. L. Perez opined that they could not get a fair trial in Miami. Going back to the many surveys showing the bias against Cuba that exists in Miami. Even going so far as to refer to the fact that the person who conducted the survey, Dr. Moran, had a run-in with the trial court years before when the State–when she (Judge Joan Lenard) was sitting as a state court judge.

In other words, every conceivable fact in the record that bore on the issue of bias and prejudice was examined and looked at by the Court. And finally on pg 91, the Court summarized its impression referring to this as the perfect storm. Using that phrase, "the perfect storm" of a case of bias and prejudice against five men who were accused. You will not find if you look through all of the decided cases throughout history, a more complete analysis of the facts bearing on the issue of prejudice than are contained in this 93-pg opinion.

Maria Verda:
Maria Verda from Venezuela TV, Channel 8. I wonder if this case is going to be used for the Posada Carriles case? When Posada Carriles has been a case of really showing the United States is not really fighting against terrorism. And the case of the Five is showing the abuse of rights, human rights, and abuse of prejudice in the judicial like you said, so I am wondering what reaction you have comparing the case with Posada Carriles?

LW:
This is Len Weinglass. I don't think you can compare the cases. Most cases have differences, but I will say this about this opinion. For 4 or 5 pages in this opinion, the Court did something which I think none of us anticipated it doing. It reviewed the evidence of the terrorist actions directed against Cuba by the paramilitary groups that exist in southern Florida, and it included that in its analysis because it felt that is part of the framework in which the case should be reviewed, and particularly the venue. So while we didn't anticipate that the Court would go into that in a venue context, the Court took the trouble, in footnote 168 which appears on pg 45, of going into the record that the trial lawyers had developed in the trial, showing the history of terrorists' actions directed against Cuba from southern Florida. And that was a remarkable reference in the opinion, and that is an acknowledgment on the part of the Court of Appeals that that too was part of the case.

GLR:
Thank you, Leonard. And before the next question… this is Gloria La Riva. I would like to comment that the struggle against terrorism which Washington has financed for 46 years against Cuba is not over. And I'm glad that the sister from Venezuela mentioned this because there will be a protest on the opening day of trial of Posada Carriles in El Paso, TX. And we are calling for his extradition immediately to Venezuela. He's responsible for the killing of 73 people on a plane, a Cuban airliner in 1976. His hearing will be August 29, on Monday. We hope all the press will be there because there will be many people witness to demanding his extradition.

And the Cuban 5, this is a press conference about their legal case and really the political case, the Cuban 5 were fighting and preventing terrorism and they prevented– they saved the lives of many people in their actions. This is what must be known as well, throughout this country.

David Brooks:
David Brooks of La Jornada. I just have a basic next step questions. One is… can you just… does this decision mean that all the convictions are now null and void? And secondly, if this means that it goes back to the same venues where … same communities … is this troubling? And thirdly is one of the US attorney's options to appeal this? Is that a possibility out of my sheer ignorance of law?

PMCK:
I'll take a whack at that. This is PMcK. The United States Attorney's Office could appeal the decision. They could ask for what they call an en banc review where all the judges of the Court of Appeals would have to review this decision.

I tend to think that this decision won't be vulnerable to that because what's at stake here is a constitutional issue that the Court spoke about in very strong terms. And I think the way this opinion is written is it's not going to be changed.

As far as your other question about next steps, yes, all the defendants have a clean slate. All their sentences are vacated which means they're gone. They're no longer serving any sentence at all. And they are again defendants in a criminal proceeding where they are presumed innocent and have to be sent away from their jails and sent back to the district where they case started which is here, in Miami. And as far as the judge goes … now that she has instructions from the Court of Appeals about the venue being improper in Miami, I think that's the only thing that she needs to take to heart and then from there we'll just proceed again.

DB:
Thank you.

Gary M:
Yes, this is Gary March from the Chicago Tribune in Havana. I think the question was asked earlier and I wasn't sure if the question was answered. What are going to be your arguments if the US Attorney decides to prosecute this case? My understanding is all the defendants have admitted to being Cuban agents, so isn't it a given that they would therefore be convicted of not registering as foreign agents? Again, excuse my ignorance, but it seems like that's fairly clear-cut. If you could answer that, that would be terrific.

PMcK:
My client, Gerardo H, was given a life sentence for conspiracy to commit murder and a life sentence for conspiracy to commit espionage. Those other offenses you mentioned, being an unregistered foreign agent in the United States, those only carry small prison terms. I think the maximum is five years. He's already been in jail for seven years. So, it's the big counts that carry the big time, and those, that's not a question– they didn't admit to that. No one ever admitted that they had committed espionage or had conspired to commit espionage. No one ever admitted that they conspired to commit murder. That was hotly contested throughout the trial from beginning to end.

What is the potential sentence for conspiracy to commit espionage?

PMcK:
Life. That's the potential sentence and that's the sentence that was meted out.

GM: OK. And that's the same for murder.

GM:
OK. When do you expect to hear from the US attorney in southern Florida? When does that usually take place, the answer? About whether or not they're going to re-prosecute the case?

PMCK:
I don't know. You have to ask them. I wish you'd call them up right now. I'd like to hear the answer. [chuckles]

GM:
I will call them up right now.

And, Paul, it wasn't clear to me, but you were the one who as Basulto said, called a communist agent, is that correct?

PMCK:
Right. I was the one.

GM:
OK. Thank you very much.

Peter Erlander:
Thank you. Actually it's not a question. I'm one of the lawyers who was asked to join the call. I'm not a lawyer for one of the defendants but I was a lawyer for the National Lawyers Guild who filed an amicus brief in the case, focusing on the Ramírez case and the misrepresentation in the US Attorney's office and I just wanted to add to Len's comment, if I can, that this case, in terms of fair trial issues and due process issues, I think is going to be significant for a very long time. The 11th Circuit went through a very detailed analysis of all the Supreme Court precedent-related cases I think it came to the right conclusion but threw it together in a way that's unique and therefore I think will strengthen the fair trial issues in the future.

GLR:
It's good to hear from you, Peter, and congratulations to you, too.

Paul Peterson:
This is Paul Peterson. I'm from the Militant newspaper. My question is if they… well they are returning to Miami. What are the conditions that the Five heroes will face? Are they going to be able to communicate with one another? They're separated in five separate prisons currently? And if they are detained … if they are able to retain bail, of course. And then also on the fight for visitation rights and other cruel and unusual moves that have been carried out against them, could you comment on those. And also just one thing … on the time table on getting a new trial, what are we looking at? And you said a couple of the Five maybe getting close to their sentences, could you say their names and any facts on what the…

PMcK: Yes, I'm not exactly sure, you know, what the numbers are, but I know that René González, he might have received either 10 or 15 years, I'm not exactly sure right now, but he's at 7 years. And Ruben Campa (Fernando González) might be in a similar situation. But that could affect the US attorney's office's decision on those cases. I don't know. You'll have to ask the US Attorney's Office.

But as far as the other cases go, that wouldn't be true because they're facing potential life sentences.

Now what was your other question again? It was about their custody status?

PP:
In their condition heading to in Miami, what…

:
Oh, yes. …when they get back here … they have to be treated like all pre-trial prisoners. You have unlimited access to your attorney, you can use the telephone, … when there's a joint defense, like there was in this case, they get to meet together, they get to spend time together with their lawyers, with each other and prepare the defense. That's exactly what we did before. They were granted special access to classified materials with their attorneys, things like that… that was all done to prepare for the defense. And I'm sure that's going to take place just like it did before. There are a lot of rules and regulations. How it's done, But it is done. And I don't expect anybody will be kept in solitary confinement. That happened when they were first arrested and we fought over that. They spent many, many months in solitary confinement and it was hard on them. It was very difficult. We filed motions in front of the judge and finally they were released after I think almost a year. And I would expect that they will be in the general population when they first get to Miami before bail issues are addressed.

PP:
And family visits from Cuba?

:
Well, to the extent that we can get one. Because my client's wife has been barred from visiting him for the last 7 years. And I've tried every way that I knew how to get her a visit here. That hasn't come to pass. Maybe now. I'll try again.

GLR:
Yes, the very next step for anyone who's supporting their case, of all the committees around the world and in the United States, in the National Committee to Free the Cuban Five, will be to demand immediate entry for the two wives who've been denied. Some of the family members have been given visas recently, not frequently enough.

Fernando González has 19 years to answer your question. René González has 15 years. Or had, had, it's in the past.

Kim Pagette:
Hi this is Kim Pagette from Time magazine. Just a real quick court question. Was this a unanimous decision or was it two to one?

:
It was unanimous.

KP:
Unanimous. Thanks.

BD:
Yes, I was just wondering… Bernie Dwyer here, Radio Havana Cuba. I was wondering is there anything in that the US Attorney General's office can do to stop this going ahead? Can they overturn this decision? Can they counter-appeal this decision? Or is it now and [unintelligible] so the process can now go ahead?

LW:
Well, I'm not sure if this has been already answered, but what's available to the US Attorney at this point is to ask the 11th Circuit to convene in en banc, that is to convene all of the judges to review the opinion of this 3-judge court to see whether or not that opinion should be reversed. But as I think Paul indicated, the way that this 93-page opinion was written, we're very optimistic that if the government does make that attempt that attempt will fail. Then the government has available to it an attempt to have the US Supreme Court review this by petitioning the court to take the case. In that instance as well, whenever a petition is made for the Supreme Court to review a criminal case, over 90% are rejected. And we think because of the extensiveness and the clarity and the completeness of this opinion, that attempt would be rejected and the US Supreme Court will not take the case.

So the government has several steps. They can ask for an en banc ruling hearing and they can ask the Supreme Court to take the case. We believe upon reviewing the opinion that neither of those attempts will prevail and the case will be sent back to Miami where it will be processed as a new criminal case for trial.

BD:
Thank you very much…

GLR:
Leonard, I have a question. If the government does appeal the decision, will they be kept in the prisons that they're currently in now?

LW:
That's a question I can't answer because I don't know. They very well might be. Because, if in fact the government prevails and the 11th Circuit agrees to review the case, there's no reason to keep them in Miami. They should probably, from the government's point of view, be maintained where they are. So I think they'll probably be kept where they are, unfortunately, for a short period of time ahead until the appellate process is resolved. Once the appellate process is resolved and a mandate issues from the 11th Circuit, at that point they'll probably be sent back to Miami.

GLR:
And do you know if they will be notified, immediately? Do they know yet?

LW:
I don't know. I know Paul has been trying to reach his client. I've been trying to reach mine. And it's not easy because they're held in maximum conditions. But I have a pending call in. I think Paul does, also…

PMcK:
Yeah. I've also called and left a message that there's an urgent appellate issue I need to let my client know about.

LW:
Yeah, I tried the same [laughs] … That doesn't get us a quick response, but…

Gary Marx:
Yes, I'm sorry to get back to you guys, but just a quick question. So the case has been overturned based on a change of venue. If the US Attorney's office in Miami decides to prosecute this case, can they again prosecute in Miami or is that completely out? If it's being prosecuted again, it's got to move somewhere else. Can you please clarify that for me? Thanks.

LW:
It's inconceivable given the thrust of this opinion that there will even be an attempt to re-prosecute the case in Miami. Perhaps the government could argue that the passage of time has ameliorated the condition, but that would not answer the thrust of the opinion of the Court which has indicated pretty clearly that Miami, by virtue of its socio-political and economic condition is not a suitable place. The case did not rely on pre-trial publicity, alone. So I don't think there will even be an attempt to site this case in Miami again.

Marx:
Thank you.

Josh:
Hello, I wanted to ask>

GLR:
What media are you from?

Josh:
I'm with the New York Sun. The names that you folks gave earlier are not exactly the same names that are in the caption of the case. Is there some difference there in the government's version and the names that these five gentlemen prefer to use? And also can each of the attorneys on this call say whether they intend to seek bail? I only heard one say definitively, maybe I missed it. Those are my basic questions.

GLR:
Thank you. Very quickly, Ramon Labañino is known as Luis Medina in Beaumont, TX. And Fernando González is known as Ruben Campa, c-a-m-p- a. Len and the other attorneys?

Josh:
Sorry the question was on bail… does each of the attorneys intend to seek bail now or not necessarily?

:
I imagine all of the attorneys will seek bail for their clients... at the appropriate time.

Josh:
OK. Also, do you guys see any political overtones… I guess the case began under the Clinton administration and sounds like it continued under the Bush administration. Did you detect any shift in the tenor or tone or vigor of the prosecution over that time period?

PMCK:
This is Paul McK, I didn't. I thought that they were relentless from the first day until the last time I talked to them. And they're a good team of prosecutors. They're formidable adversaries and they never changed. They were that way from the beginning until the end.

GlR:
Len, would you like to comment?

LW:
I wasn't in the case at the beginning. Paul has the complete history in the case and I don't. So I agree with his observations from my limited time in the case.

G:
This is GLR. I think what's important to also note was in Miami the role that one particular person played in his bragging… He boasted about having demanded of Janet Reno that the five be prosecuted, and that was Hector Pesquera who was the head of the FBI Bureau in Miami. And he has many links really to the whole issue of terrorism. He was seen embracing terrorists like Jose Basulto during the trial. It's very questionable what his role was in really supporting the network of terrorists in Miami, overlooking their attacks, their plots, their plans, while vigorously persecuting the anti-terrorists who are the Cuban 5. And much of that information, again, is on this website, freethefive, and antiterroristas-dot-cu. And again for any information for the recording of this press conference that you can hear by calling in within the next 24-hours, you can call our office at 415-821-6545 to hear this again.

And the next question?

Moderator:
At this time I have no further questions.

G:
OK

LW:
OK

G:
Any closing remarks by the attorneys?

[pause]

OK. We will go ahead and end the press conference. We want to congratulate the attorneys for their hard work, for never giving up, and for brilliant preparation of the case. We thank you very very much. We want to thank everybody who has been involved in supporting them. We want to extend a big embrace to the wives, the mothers, the fathers, the children and hope that they are with each other very, very soon. We want to give full recognition to the Cuban people who have fought all these years and who always said, "volverán," "they will return." Thank you so much and that will conclude the press conference.

[end of session]