PAGE NO. 45 2 3 5 ratification the U.S. and Panama had agreed to the same Panama. 6 7 8 10 What's more, and I have just referred to this, It is as simple as that. the President and, even worse, the exclusion of all U.S. 13 I stress "nonresident" 14 15 16 citizens from certain offices of the U.S. Government agency the Panama Canal Commission is not a binational commis sion; it is a U.S. Government agency imaginable violation of the U.S. Constitution and of the privileges and immunities of U.S. citizens, as I have 19 20 21 outlined in my statement. This double fraud, which stares you in the face. on the record, if you only had the record, which of course nobody has, except the bureaucracy, has been perpetuated 24 24 25 to date by bureaucratic coverup and stonewalling. 2 3 5 Mr. Chairman, you and your subcommittee are to be commended for calling these hearings to bring the legally pertinent facts to light, and much credit is due, in particular, to Senator Paul Laxalt, of Nevada, who has insistently called for these hearings. CHARLES H. BREECHER 1654 Thirty-Second Street, N.W. Washington, D. C. 20007 (202) 338-5218 12 July 1983 The Honorable John P. East, Chairman S/Committee on Separation of Powers, Senate Committee on the Judiciary Washington, D.C. 20510 Dear Mr. Chairman, Re Hearing 6/23/1983 At the conclusion of the hearing 23 June 1983, you said the record would remain open for additional comments for a limited time. I assume this allows comments postmarked prior to 7/15/1983, and accordingly submit the following additional comments. They refer to the letter by the State Department Legal Adviser HANSELL to the Chairman of the Merchant Marine Fisheries Committee of the House, dated 20 September 1979 and attached to my sworn deposition 3/17/1983, also added to the record by me 6/23/83. 1. Hansell admits that there's an obvious requirement that to ratify a bilateral (I repeat bilateral) treaty the parties must agree to the same text. So any further discussion re: this obvious requirement is ruled out. 2. Hansell then says the Panamanian unilateral statement consists of one paragraph only, citing it. That's absolutely untrue. The existence of the easier to understand unilateral paras 2 & 3 in both Panamanian instruments of ratification is a matter of record and was admitted by the State Representative 6/23/1983. 3. Hansell says the Panamanian unilateral statement (one para. according to Hansell) was agreed to by President Carter in the Protocol. (A meeting of minds on that point expressed in writing). Again that's absolutely untrue. On the record, the three famous Panamanian paragraphs are specifically labelled a unilateral Panamanian statement in the Protocol, not agreed to by the U.S. 4. Hansell claims that the Senate leadership and the Senate Foreign Relations Committee approved the Panamanian instruments of ratification after 18 April 1978 and that the Foreign Relations staff (sic) made some helpful suggestions re: their wording. Not only would this be irrelevant (2/3 of the full Senate would have had to approve), but it is again absolutely untrue. Not one of the Senators queried by Mr. Harman, as outlined in detail in his statement, remembers as much as have seen the draft Panamanian instruments of ratification. Further, State is unable to produce the draft Panamanian instruments of ratification. Mr. Chairman, I underline that I have submitted sworn testimony as an expert witness in my deposition 17 March 1983. Further, I insisted to testify under oath before the Panama Canal Sub-Committee of the House 26. March 1981. You may contrast my sworn deposition with the unsworn, unsupported and unsupportable testimony you received from the State Representative on 23 June 1983. All he said was that the three Panamanian unilateral paragraphs in the Panamanian instruments of ratification did not mean a thing. That's an insult to any knowledgeable American citizen who has the full record. Mr. Chairman, I further note that not a word was heard by me on 23 June 1983 to explain or justify the startling admissions by former President Carter, former Ambassador David Popper and Mr. William D. Rodgers, the three "smoking guns". Mr. Chairman, I repeat in conclusion my charge that what we have here is the worst documented fraud, admitted moreover in published documents, ever committed against the U. S. Senate and the American people. Sincerely, шали нашелся Attached please find a list of questions relevant to your testimony before the Subcommittee on Separation of Powers on June 23, 1983 concerning legal and constitutional aspects of the ratification of the Panama Canal Treaties. These questions and your answers to them (as well as the whole of your deposition before the Subcommittee on March 17, 1983 including the questions and answers at that time) are a permanent part of the hearing record. Please answer them as fully and expeditiously as possible, preferably in typewritten form. If you have any additional materials to submit for the record, please make them available to the Subcommittee with your answers to these questions. As you can appreciate, it is important to send the transcript to the printer as soon as feasible in order to expedite the publication of the hearing. Thank you once again for your testi mony and cooperation with the Subcommittee. Sincerely, John P. East John P. East United States Senator JPE: SW |