Wednesday, March 16, 1999 -- In a February 26, 1999, editorial entitled "Legal Standing: The Real Right to Sue," attorney Bonnie-Ann Brill Keagy asked some important questions about the Landmark Legal Foundation. On February 11 of this year, Landmark Legal petitioned the Special Division of the US Court of Appeals (D.C. Circuit) with a "Judicial Notice and Writ of Prohibition" concerning the Justice Department's review of Ken Starr's possible prosecutorial abuses -- an investigation that Landmark wants to stop at any cost. And, for some reason, the Special Division ordered Janet Reno and Kenneth Starr to respond.

In her article, Ms. Keagy asks:

"Where is their standing to file that?É A little known fact of the American courts is that parties to an action are required to have some sort of stake in the outcome. This is the 'standing' requirementÉ.The three judge panel, in orderingÉReno to respond, is saying that Landmark Legal has the right to bring a request to their court in a case in which they have no legal involvement. Judicial noticeÉ means that whatever fact is alleged is accepted by the Court as truthÉ What special rights has Landmark been granted by thisÉpanelÉ? What secrets does Landmark want hidden? Why is this panel allowing Landmark to proceed where no other person or group would be permitted to do so?"

It begins with the Chief Judge of the three judge Special Division -- the panel that appoints and "oversees" the independent counsels -- Judge David Bryan Sentelle.

Judge Sentelle, a Reagan appointee on the powerful US Court of Appeals (D.C. circuit), was Supreme Court Chief Justice Rehnquist's hand-picked replacement for the previous Special Division Chief Judge, George MacKinnon.

Curiously, there was no reason given for this sudden replacement (MacKinnon did not ask to be removed), but sources such as MacKinnon's son have said that Judge MacKinnon did his job too well: it was he who appointed life-long conservative Republican Lawrence Walsh to investigate the Iran-Contra affair.

But why would Sentelle be considered a problem today? First, we have to look at how Sentelle got to where he is now.

Not only was Sentelle appointed to the Court of Appeals by Ronald Reagan, he cut his political teeth as a Republican activist in conservative North Carolina. A known supporter of right-wing hardliner Jesse Helms, Sentelle chaired North Carolina's state Republican convention in 1980. Judge Sentelle further endeared himself to the powerful right wing when he joined ultra-conservative fellow Appeals Court justice Laurence Silberman in overturning Oliver North's Iran-Contra convictions. According to Lawrence Walsh in his 1997 book Firewall, "Sentelle had been the swing voteÉ" by supporting Silberman's obvious disdain for Walsh's investigation.

But the Sentelle story involves more: one of Walsh's fears when dealing with judges during Iran-Contra was their possible affiliation with a little known group called the Federalist Society. In Firewall, Walsh confided, "I was concerned about theÉ political allegiance of Republican judges as manifested in the Federalist Society."

He goes on to point out:

"É[T]he Federalist Society seemed to speak for right-wing RepublicansÉ. [O]ne of White House Counsel Boyden Gray's assistants openly declared that no one [who was] not a member of the Federalist Society had received a judicial appointment from President Bush."

The Federalist Society is a conservative, tax-exempt legal organization that supports staunchly right-wing positions. That in and of itself doesn't mean much -- except when you consider that they seek to take over our judicial system by numerous means. Through active recruitment of young law school students, grooming for possible judicial appointments, and networking of judicial activist attorneys and judges throughout the country, the Federalist Society -- aided by Nixon, Reagan, and Bush appointments -- has helped establish a shadow justice system within our justice system.

They make no secret of their goals, though they do not use particularly political rhetoric to declare their intent. However, according to Society executive director Eugene B. Meyer in a 1996 press release:

"[L]inks Federalist Society lawyers with like-minded groups and individuals needing legal assistanceÉ. In sum, theÉ Society educates the legal community and the general public about the proper role of the legal system, activates legal professionals on behalf of conservative causes, and provides assistance to friendly local, state-wide, and national groups."

If the Society's own words aren't enough to show their right-wing penchant and desire to establish a judicial system biased toward their conservative beliefs, let's look a few members of the Federalist Society's Board of Trustees:

-- Robert Bork, ultra-conservative author of Slouching Toward Gomorrha and the former Solicitor General in the Nixon Administration who fired Archibald Cox in the Watergate "Saturday Night Massacre."

-- Senator Orrin Hatch, conservative Republican legislator and scathing Clinton critic.

-- C. Boyden Gray, former White House Counsel to -- and 12-year employee of -- former President George Bush.

-- Holland Coors, member of the ultra-conservative Coors family and wife of Iran-Contra financial contributor Joseph Coors. She is also a board member of the Heritage Foundation.

-- Edwin Meese III, former Reagan Attorney General, participant in the Iran-Contra cover-up, and Attorney General during Sentelle's appointment to the Special Division bench.

If you look on the Society's website, there is a section explaining how law students can start new Federalist Society Chapters. Within that online "manual" there is a list titled, "Past Participants." On the list is Judge Sentelle. He shares that distinction with others like Reagan, Bush, Chief Justice Rehnquist, Bill "The Death of Outrage" Bennett, Impeachment Managers Bob Barr and Henry Hyde, former Dole running-mate Jack Kemp, and a former Reagan Solicitor General you may have heard of: Kenneth W. Starr, relentless Clinton inquisitor.

For clarification, Judge Sentelle appointed Ken Starr to replace Robert Fiske following Clinton's renewal of the Independent Counsel statute. Furthermore, "conservative members of Congress lobbied the judges to dump Fiske" (Washington Post, Jan. 10, 1995). It's also worth noting that in June 1997, Sentelle "stated publiclyÉ that he believes an independent counsel should come from a different party," according to a February, 1998, Washington Post report. In actuality, Sentelle appointed former Reagan administration U.S. attorney Joseph diGenova to investigate the Bush administration in 1992 for misuse of Clinton's passport records.

Also, in the Federalist Society website "calendar of events," we find that Judge Sentelle gave a speech to the Lawyers Division of the Federalist Society in Milwaukee this February 26th. Since his court is in Washington D.C., one wonders who exactly paid the expenses. Admittedly, Sentelle isn't the only distinguished speaker for the Society: his post-impeachment speaking engagement preceded a March 8th event in Miami with Rep. Charles Canady, a ferocious Clinton critic and "coup d'etat" House Manager. Ronald Reagan's attorney general, Edwin Meese, bats cleanup in Salt Lake City this coming May. I wonder who is footing the bill for Messrs. Canady and Mr. Meese.

So there are some known connections between the Federalist Society and Judge Sentelle -- not only are they linked philosophically, but in cold reality. That brings us to the question of what any of this has to do with the Landmark Legal Foundation -- what ties the two groups together?

Three little words: Richard Mellon Scaife.

By now, unless you are a recluse, you probably know who Richard Mellon Scaife is -- an eccentric billionaire of right-wing persuasion who hates Bill Clinton. Often portrayed in a cartoonish fashion, Scaife almost seems to cultivate his Clinton-bashing public image. He claims Clinton can snap his fingers and have people killed by the Federal government. Appearing harmless on the surface, most people know nothing of Scaife's politics, the scope of his influence, how much money he distributes to right-wing causes, or what organizations he gives to Ð such as the Federalist Society.

My cursory research into Scaife's financial records reveal that his "Sarah Scaife Foundation" gave $475,000 to the Federalist Society in the years 1994-96; the Federalists also received an additional payment of $50,000 from his "Carthage Foundation" in 1994. That's a total of $525,000. Records for 1997 or 1998 were not available.

Understandably, some people will dismiss the influence of these financial contributions as inconsequential. However, in a country like ours, and particularly in a town like Washington, D.C., money talks. Money gets you in the door; money gets you heard; money gets you favors. The cause-and-effect relationship of money and power has been proven again and again throughout world history. Its influence is undeniable in American politics. And Scaife is a long time donor to conservative recipients.

For instance, according to an April 27, 1998, report on CNN's AllPolitics.com, "He was the second-largest donor to the Nixon-Agnew campaign in 1972, giving $1 million." A contribution of that size would undoubtedly garner presidential attention -- particularly in the economy of 1972. Later, Scaife was appointed by Reagan, and subsequently by Bush, to the commission that oversees the US Information Agency (the parent of "Voice of America" propaganda radio).

Scaife does not limit his influence to monetary giftgiving. He also sits on the boards of numerous conservative think tanks and foundations, and of course gives generously to them. For example, Scaife is the vice chairman of The Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank to which he has given millions since its founding in 1973. In its AllPolitics report, CNN reported $3.5 million went to the Heritage Foundation "in the most recent three years on record." In turn, the Heritage Foundation gave millions of dollars to the right-wing publication The American Spectator, whose Scaife-financed "Arkansas Project" was a years-long investigation to dig up dirt on the Clintons.

This leads to the conclusion that Scaife does not give away huge sums of money without his expectations being met. Case in point: after The American Spectator negatively reviewed his pet reporter Christopher Ruddy's book endorsing the "Vince-Foster-was-murdered" conspiracy theory, it found all further grants from Scaife immediately withdrawn. This quid pro quo is only logical -- after all, how many of us would give away our money without expecting a certain result?

But keep in mind that Scaife is making tax-deductible donations to tax-exempt organizations that are run by rich, white, Judeo-Christian right-wing power players. In essence, this is a case of the rich giving to the rich, with the "donations" being written off in taxes. The kicker is that many of these tax-exempt organizations Scaife gives money to vigorously disrupt or investigate the lives of the Clintons and anyone associated with them at his behest.

We have an admitted Clinton hater financing right-wing groups including the Federalist Society, tied to both Judge Sentelle and the man he oversees, Ken Starr.

So where does Landmark Legal Foundation come into this? First, some background.

Founded in 1976, Landmark is a non-profit, tax-exempt organization run by former Reagan administration official Mark R. Levin. Formed the same year that Democratic liberal Jimmy Carter was elected president, it is also probably no coincidence that in the year Clinton took office Landmark brags it became "the first conservative legal foundation to institute a government accountability program." Landmark represents conservative issues like individual property rights, and it defended officials like Edwin Meese against what Levin calls "unconstitutional conduct" by independent counsel Lawrence Walsh. We have yet to see Landmark defend anyone relative to the Clinton administration, however.

Landmark is secretive about who works for the organization -- and from where it draws its support. One thing that is known is this: Landmark's vice-chairman is former client, Reagan Attorney General, and Federalist Society board member Edwin Meese III. However, what is more interesting is that Mr. Scaife just donated a total of $525,000 to Landmark Legal, according to published news reports. And in my research of Scaife's "Sarah Scaife Foundation" for 1997, I found a disclosed grant of $375,000 to Landmark.

Therein lies a key element of the answer to the question of why Judge Sentelle permitted Landmark Legal's attempt to block an investigation of Starr.

And the history of Landmark's attempts to use the court system to their own political ends precedes their petition to the Special Division court, and a correlation could be inferred between their intensified filing of anti-Clinton suits and donations from Richard Mellon Scaife. Landmark recently brought legal action against the U.S. Justice Department, petitioning it to investigate Larry Flynt's foray into politician's private and political lives as "obstruction of a congressional investigation" -- even though the Lewinsky matter was not a congressional investigation but in fact an independent counsel investigation.

In another assault on the First Amendment, Landmark petitioned the government to prosecute the on-line magazine Salon, alleging it received the Henry Hyde adultery scoop from the White House Ð despite not only the fact that a Florida retiree, Norm Sommer, had been single-handedly attempted to publicize this story (over fifty press outlets declined to pursue it) and a prepondrance of evidence that exonerated Clinton officials.

Landmark Legal also took action against Pentagon officials when personnel information concerning Linda Tripp were made publicd. An interesting tie-in to this is that Linda Tripp's former attorney, James Moody, has done a significant amount of work for Landmark Legal. Tripp and Moody claim the link is a coincidence.

Much like the right-wing Judicial Watch Inc., which just received over half a million dollars from Richard Mellon Scaife and has filed no less than 18 lawsuits against the Clinton administration, Landmark Legal Foundation has used a series of questionable legal ploys to delay and bully an already embattled Justice Department.

But don't take my word for it: In his filing to the Special Division on March 8, even Ken Starr recognized the stink of Landmark's meddling:

"ÉStarr urged the court not to heed a conservative legal group seeking an order to block Justice from investigating himÉStarr asked the judges to dispose of the matter simply by finding that the foundation lacks the legal standing to enter into the matterÉ" (Washington Post, on-line, March 9, 1999)

Furthermore, Landmark Legal -- tied financially and by its staff to Reagan and Bush era conservatives -- has joined forces with other right-wing groups like Judicial Watch to pin the Clinton Administration under the jackboot of relentless and arguably abusive legal maneuvers. Behind the shield of Scaife's funding, Landmark Legal filed their petition not only to conceal Starr's possible offenses but also to block disclosure of unethical or illegal collusion between members of the judiciary, the Congress, and these right-wing foundations.

Landmark Legal knows that too much truth about the right-wing establisment has started to be revealed during the last fifteen months -- and now it's time for damage control. Sadly, it is the minor players, low-level government employees, and the American taxpayers who lose the most in the process: massive legal debts are accumulated while rich conservatives keep greasing the non-profit machine that wears them down. Conservatives, apparently realizing they have lost the battle for our hearts and minds during the Lewinsky scandal, are now hiding behind tax-exempt organizations to impose their will.