Why was Mark Lane reluctant to hand over the tape/transcript

[Bud]

Over on the nuthouse I stated that Mark Lane balked handing over the
materials pertaining to the conversation with Helen Markham. This drew
this response from Ben Holmes..

" ...Mark Lane gives an entirely consistent and CREDIBLE reason for not
initially handing over the tape."

I want to examine this claim, and see if it holds water. First, this is
what he told the WC about his reluctance...

<Quote On>

Mr. RANKIN. Do you have any writing from Mrs. Markham in connection
with the interview that you referred to in your testimony?
Mr. LANE. Any document which Mrs. Markham wrote? Is that the
question?
Mr. RANKIN. Either that or anything that she signed which purports to
be her statement or affidavit or other recording.
Mr. LANE. I have nothing that she signed or that she wrote.
Mr. RANKIN. Do you have anything that you made up yourself from any
interview with her?
Mr. LANE. Yes; I do.
Mr. RANKIN. Do you have that with you?
Mr. LANE. No; I do not.
Mr. RANKIN. Will you describe that document? Is it a paper or a tape
recording, or what form does it have?
Mr. LANE. It is a tape recording and a transcript of the tape
recording in writing.
Mr. RANKIN. Was the tape recording made by you?
Mr. LANE. I think we are now moving into an area where I would prefer
not to answer questions, quite frankly. I have given to the Commission
the results of my investigation, and I think that the Commission are
aware of the fact that I have an attorney-client relationship
existing. The Commission is now asking for working papers of an
attorney. The Supreme Court has been quite plain, I think, on the
question of the sanctity of working documents of attorneys. And I
think, therefore, that the questions are no longer in a proper area.
I might also indicate to the Commission that when I was retained by
Marguerite Oswald to represent the interests of her son before this
Commission, and the Commission declined to permit me to so represent
Lee Oswald, it made it impossible for me to conduct the kind of cross-
examination before this Commission of witnesses that I would have
ordinarily conducted, and that entire conversation would have been in
the presence of the Commission, obviously, had I been permitted to
function as counsel for my client.
Mr. RANKIN. Will you describe to the Commission the attorney and
client relationship that you claim to exist?
Mr. LANE. Yes. I should think the Commission would be well aware of
that since I wrote to the Commission on the very day that I was
retained and sent, as I recall, an affidavit from my client, detailing
the purpose, the purpose of my being retained. I think that was during
the very early days of this year.
Mr. RANKIN. Who was the client?
Mr. LANE. Marguerite Oswald retained me to conduct an investigation in
reference to the charges that were made against her son, then
deceased, and to represent his interests before this Commission.
Mr. RANKIN. And do you claim that that attorney-client relationship is
one that exists now?
Mr. LANE. It does exist at the present time in relationship to a
matter peripheral to this investigation. It certainly did exist at the
time of my discussion with Mrs. Markham, and my discussion with Mrs.
Markham took place solely because of the existence of that
relationship and to further that relationship.
Mr. RANKIN. Will you state what the peripheral matter is that you
referred to?
Mr. LANE. It is the matter that Mrs. Oswald called you and spoke with
you on the telephone about yesterday, sir.
Mr. RANKIN. What is that?
Mr. LANE. It is in reference to a matter regarding the son of Mrs.
Markham.
Mr. RANKIN. Will you tell whatever else there is in regard to that?
Mr. LANE. Mrs. Oswald has specifically requested that--in fact, has
specifically directed me not to discuss that matter publicly--inasmuch
as you have that information--because she talked with me only after
she spoke with you, Mr. Rankin. And when she did speak with me, she
told me what she had told you precisely early in the day she had told
me. I think that the Commission does have that information.
Mr. RANKIN. Are you refusing to disclose it, then?
Mr. LANE. I have a specific direction from Mrs. Oswald, who retained
me in this peripheral matter just yesterday, not to discuss this
matter sir. She is presently herself involved in investigating this
matter, and told me specifically that any publicity in reference to
this matter would be harmful to her investigation. I would otherwise
be very happy to discuss the matter with you, as I have discussed
everything else quite publicly.
Mr. RANKIN. And that is your reason for not disclosing it at this
time?
Mr. LANE. Yes; coupled with the fact that the Commission has this
information, because I assume that Mrs. Oswald did speak with you
yesterday. She told me that she did, and she gave you all the
information she had in this regard. I believe she gave you more
information than she gave to me, as a matter of fact, judging from
what she said to me.
Mr. RANKIN. Do you claim to be acting for Mrs. Oswald on any other
matter than that in connection with her son? That is Helen Markham's
son?
Mr. LANE. At the present time?
Mr. RANKIN. At the present time.
Mr. LANE. No; I am not.
Mr. RANKIN. When did that relationship terminate?
Mr. LANE. I don't recall the exact date, but it was sometime after my
testimony here, which was, I believe, on the 4th of March of this
year.
Mr. RANKIN. Can you fix it more precisely?
Mr. LANE. I believe it was within 2 weeks after that date. I did not
bring with me the letter that I wrote to Mrs. Oswald explaining that I
could not function before the Commission as counsel because the
Commission would not permit me to function as counsel, and that I
agreed to serve on a citizen's committee which would conduct an
independent inquiry. And, therefore, since it seemed that there was
nothing further I could do on behalf of the original purpose of our
retainer, that we should probably conclude our professional
relationship as of that time had ended. I believe that is the
substance of the letter that I sent to Mrs. Oswald. And that is within
2 weeks of March 4.

<End Quote>

It seems that Lane is claiming attorney confidentiality here. This
issue is picked up again later...

<Quote On>

Mr. LANE. Thank you, sir.
Mr. RANKIN. Now, Mr. Lane, regarding this tape recording of Helen
Markham, and your interview with her, will you tell the Commission
when you made this?
Mr. LANE. I had a conversation with Mrs. Markham on the 2d day of
March of this year.
Mr. RANKIN. Where was that?
Mr. LANE. I have given the Commission the results of that
investigation the best of my ability. I think that, again, Mr. Rankin,
your question delves into the functioning of an attorney on behalf of
a client, and, therefore, is not proper, and, therefore I decline to
answer it.
Mr. RANKIN. Will you tell the Commission when you made the tape
recording that you referred to?
Mr. LANE. I just answered that question, Mr. Rankin.
Mr. RANKIN. And do you refuse to tell, then, anything about that
interview with Helen Markham, how you recorded it?
Mr. LANE. I beg your pardon?
Mr. RANKIN. And how you recorded it?
Mr. LANE. I should think that since this Commission has been appointed
by the President of the United States to secure all of the information
regarding the assassination of President Kennedy and other matters
peripheral to that, the questions asked of me should be related to
information which can be of assistance to the Commission, and should
not be the kind of questions, Mr. Rankin, that you have put to me.
I am happy to tell you every bit of information that I have been able
to secure as a private citizen in trying to discover what took place
on November 22 and the days that followed November 22, but I think
that the very questions that you are putting to me indicates that you
are not interested solely in securing that information, but in placing
me, Mr. Rankin, in a position which is not a good one. And I see this
quite frankly as part of many things that have happened to me since
November 22--not November 22, but since I expressed some interest in
this case.
Mr. RANKIN. Mr. Lane, could you tell us whether there was anyone else
present at this interview with Helen Markham that you recorded?
Mr. LANE. I don't believe that I said I recorded it. I believe I said
it was recorded.
Mr. RANKIN. Was it recorded by someone else?
Mr. LANE. I decline to answer any questions, because the questions you
are asking clearly are not for the purpose for which this Commission
has been established. And I tell you that I am amazed, quite frankly,
Mr. Rankin, that the kind of harassment to which I have been subjected
since I became involved in this case continues here in this room--I am
amazed by that.
As you know, and I don't how if this has been placed on the record by
the Commission--in the letter that I wrote to you on May 18, 1964, I
told you that I had been accosted by two agents of the Federal Bureau
of Investigation in front of my own house, and ordered to give to
them, by them--their names being William E. Folkner, his serial number
being 5954, and John P. Dimarchi, his serial number being 4256---and
ordered to give to those gentlemen documents in my possession,
relating to my testimony before this Commission.
Mr. RANKIN. Did you do that?
Mr. LANE. I did not give them those documents; no.
Mr. RANKIN. Why not?
Mr. LANE. Does your tone and your question indicate you think I should
have given those documents to agents of the FBI?
Mr. RANKIN. I would like to have you answer the question, if you
would.
Mr. LANE. You decline to answer my question?
Mr. RANKIN. Yes; I am examining you.
Mr. LANE. Of course, I did not give them any documents in my
possession. When I deal with any agencies of the Government, I expect
that they will write to me, and if they wish to secure information
from me they will do that in a dignified manner. I am an attorney with
an office in New York. I don't expect to be accosted in front of my
house by agents of the police, Federal, State, or local authorities.
Those are the actions not of a democratic society, but of a police
state, and I decline to believe for one moment that we live in a
society where that behavior is going to be countenanced by any members
of this Commission or by counsel to this Commission.
Mr. RANKIN. Did you offer to furnish them copies if they would write
to you in the manner you suggested?
Mr. LANE. I suggested to those two agents that someone in the office
of the Federal Bureau of Investigation might write to me and that I
would respond courteously, and make available whatever information I
could. I told them, also, as I told you, since I wrote a letter to you
covering this entire matter on May 18th--I told them also that I had
testified fully before this Commission. If they wanted to secure any
information I had, they might contact the Commission. They indicated
they were not interested in the Warren Commission.
Mr. RANKIN. Now, to return to the tape recording----
Mr. LANE. I would like to add one more point, if I may. It is a matter
which I discussed with you on the telephone 2 days ago.
Mr. RANKIN. Is that in regard to the tape recording?
Mr. LANE. No; it is not.
Mr. RANKIN. Can we confine ourselves to that for a bit, until we
complete that. Can you tell us who else was present at the time of
this tape recording of Helen Markham that you describe?
Mr. LANE. I would like to make this quite clear to you, Mr. Rankin.
I am not going to discuss any working papers in my possession. Those
papers came into my possession as a result of an attorney-client
relationship. The Supreme Court has written decisions regarding the
sanctity of those documents. I think it is improper of you to ask
questions which delve into relationship of that nature. And I think
you know that the questions you are asking are improper.
Mr. RANKIN. And if other people were present at the time of any such
matters and disclosures, does that make any difference under the law,
do you think?
Mr. LANE. Present where?
Mr. RANKIN. At the time of the tape recording and the interview. That
is what I am asking you.
Mr. LANE. No one else was present.
Mr. RANKIN. And who did the tape recording?
Mr. LANE. Again you are delving into an area which is an improper one
for you to delve into.
Representative FORD. Did you know about the tape recording being
made?
Mr. LANE. I beg your pardon?
Representative FORD. Did you know about the tape recording being
made?
Mr. LANE. I decline to answer that question.
Am I a defendant before this Commission, or is the Commission trying
to find out who assassinated the President?
Representative FORD. We are trying to find out information about a
witness before this Commission----
Mr. LANE. Well, then, call the witness before the Commission and ask
the witness questions. And if the Commission--if the witness has
testified contrary to what I say the witness has said, then I would
suggest you do what I invited the Commission to do when this matter
arose. Submit my testimony and Mrs. Markham's testimony to the U.S.
attorney's office, and bring an action against both of us for perjury.
And then at that trial I will present documents in possession, and we
will see who is convicted.
Representative FORD. Do you believe Mrs. Markham is an important
witness in this overall matter?
Mr. LANE. I would think so.
Representative FORD. I am sure you know what she has told you.
Mr. LANE. I know what she has told me, that is correct.
Representative FORD. If there is any difference between what she told
you and told this Commission, is that important?
Mr. LANE. Of course, it is important. And if there was someone
representing the interests of Oswald before this Commission there
could be cross-examination, you sitting as judges could then base your
decision upon the cross-examination. But you have decided instead to
sit as judges and jurors and defense attorneys and prosecuting
attorneys, and you are faced with a dilemma. I cannot solve that
dilemma for you.
Representative FORD. In order for us to evaluate the testimony she has
given us and what you allege she has given you, we must see the
information which you have at your disposal.
Mr. LANE. I have told you precisely under oath what Mrs. Markham has
said to me.
Mr. RANKIN. Are you unwilling to verify that with the tape recording
that you claim to have?
Mr. LANE. I am unable to verify that because of an existing attorney-
client relationship, and you know that it would be improper and
unethical for me to give the answers to the questions which you are
asking. And that is why I am amazed that you persist in asking
questions which you know are improper and which would be unethical for
me to answer.
Mr. RANKIN. And where was this tape recording made?
Mr. LANE. You have my answer to questions about that already, Mr.
Rankin.
Mr. RANKIN. Did you, yourself, have any conversation with Helen
Markham at anytime?
Mr. LANE. Yes; I testified to that on March 4, and again today.
Representative FORD. Is this tape recording of that conversation?
Mr. LANE. Precisely.
Mr. RANKIN. Can you tell us where the tape recording was made?
Mr. LANE. I can tell you, but I will not tell you.
Mr. RANKIN. Do you have any other reasons for not disclosing this
information to the Commission except your statement about the attorney
and client relationship that you describe?
Mr. LANE. And the sanctity of working documents of an attorney. I have
no other reason whatsoever.

<Quote off>

Note that Lane says there is no other reason aside from protecting
attorney/client privileges. So lets compare this to the reason Lane gave
for not handing over the material in his book "Rush to Judgment"...

<Quote on>

"The Commission knew that Mrs Markham had not told the truth and was
understandably reluctant to accept my challenge. I, on the other hand, was
confident of proving that the telephone conversation had taken place, for,
as I informed the Commission, I had a tape recording of it. Had the
Commission been motivated by an authentic desire to know the truth, surely
it would have directed me to give the tape recording up. I was eager to
furnish this evidence, but I was reluctant to break the law, for to make
and divulge a recording of a telephone conversation may be a violation of
the Federal Communications Act. I had made the recording; if I divulged it
by presenting it voluntarily to the Commission, I could be tried in a
court of law. It seemed to me that there were two ways the Commission
might secure the tape while guaranteeing me a reasonable chance of not
being prosecuted. One was for the Chief Justice to assure me that he would
oppose prosecution; the other—the more straightforward—was for the
Commission simply to direct me to surrender the tape. I received no such
assurance from the Chief Justice, and the Commission refused to do the
latter. The Commission made it plain that if I did give up the tape, I
should be doing so voluntarily and should therefore be liable to
prosecution. "

<Quote off>

Notice that Lane doesn`t invoke "attorney/client privilege in his book
as the reason, he invokes fear of being prosecuted for FCC violations.This
is apparently what Ben Homes means by "consistent", two completely
different reasons being given. I strongly suspect that he realized the
"attorney/client privilege" he invoked to the WC didn`t hold water since
he wasn`t retained by Mrs Oswald at the time he spoke with Markham (notice
how vague he becomes when he talks about when their relationship lapsed).
Credibility might be in the eye of the beholder, but consistency is not,
which brings us back to Ben`s claim...

" ...Mark Lane gives an entirely consistent and CREDIBLE reason for
not initially handing over the tape."

Are two completely different reasons being given really
"consistent"?

[Walt]

Let me see if I understand you....... You think that Mark Lane should
have told Rankin...." I know what you're up too.....Your trying to get
me to break the law so that you can manipulte me"

Do you really think that he should have taken that tact??

[Anthony Marsh]

> oppose prosecution; the other?the more straightforward?was for the

> Commission simply to direct me to surrender the tape. I received no such
> assurance from the Chief Justice, and the Commission refused to do the
> latter. The Commission made it plain that if I did give up the tape, I
> should be doing so voluntarily and should therefore be liable to
> prosecution. "
>
> <Quote off>
>
> Notice that Lane doesn`t invoke "attorney/client privilege in his book
> as the reason, he invokes fear of being prosecuted for FCC violations.This
> is apparently what Ben Homes means by "consistent", two completely
> different reasons being given. I strongly suspect that he realized the
> "attorney/client privilege" he invoked to the WC didn`t hold water since
> he wasn`t retained by Mrs Oswald at the time he spoke with Markham (notice
> how vague he becomes when he talks about when their relationship lapsed).
> Credibility might be in the eye of the beholder, but consistency is not,
> which brings us back to Ben`s claim...
>
> " ...Mark Lane gives an entirely consistent and CREDIBLE reason for
> not initially handing over the tape."
>
> Are two completely different reasons being given really
> "consistent"?
>

As usual for a WC defender you do not name the book and do not cite the
entire section so that people can see the context. You forgot to quote the
rest of the section, so I will, so that everyone can see your tricks at
work.

Rush to Judgment, page 182:

I did not present the tape at once. Congressman Ford had implied that I
could not verify the testimony I had given, the Chief Justice had said he
thought that I had lied; in effect, I had been warned by the Commission
not to present this evidence. The Bar Association of the City of New York,
having read a newspaper report of the Chief Justice's words and accepted
them, instituted preliminary proceedings to discover why I had lied. Once
I gave the tape up, I should not only be liable to prosecution by the
federal authorities; I should also invite further reproof from the Bar
Association for sending the tape to the Commission in the absence of a
direction. Nevertheless, within a few days I sent the tape recording to
the Commission.
____________________________________________________________________

Being charged with violating a Federal wiretap law is nothing compared
to being disbarred.

[Bud]

<snicker> Those that can read can find where I wrote this above...

  "Note that Lane says there is no other reason aside from
protecting attorney/client privileges. So lets compare this to the
reason Lane gave for not handing over the material in his book "Rush
to Judgment"..."

>and do not cite the
> entire section so that people can see the context.

I posted the part that was relevant to my point.

> You forgot to quote the
> rest of the section, so I will, so that everyone can see your tricks at
> work.

You can post portions that aren`t relevant to my point if you like.

> Rush to Judgment, page 182:
>
>    I did not present the tape at once. Congressman Ford had implied that I
> could not verify the testimony I had given, the Chief Justice had said he
> thought that I had lied; in effect, I had been warned by the Commission
> not to present this evidence. The Bar Association of the City of New York,
> having read a newspaper report of the Chief Justice's words and accepted
> them, instituted preliminary proceedings to discover why I had lied. Once
> I gave the tape up, I should not only be liable to prosecution by the
> federal authorities; I should also invite further reproof from the Bar
> Association for sending the tape to the Commission in the absence of a
> direction. Nevertheless, within a few days I sent the tape recording to
> the Commission.

How is any of this relevant to my point? You did understand what my
point was, didn`t you?

____________________________________________________________________
>
> Being charged with violating a Federal wiretap law is nothing compared
> to being disbarred.

It`s also a strawman to my argument. Let me take you by the hand
once more. Lane expressed the idea to the WC that he was reluctant to
produce the material because it was against attorney/client privilege.
He stated this was his sole reason. He wrote in his book "Rush to
Judgment" (you see that, right?) that the reason was fear of
prosecution over Federal Communication violations. Ben claimed no
conflict. I produced what I did to show the conflict. Are you up to
speed yet?

[Bud]

That doesn`t seem likely.

>You think that Mark Lane should
> have told Rankin...." I know what you're up too.....Your trying to get
> me to break the law so that you can manipulte me"

I`m sure Lane has heard of the fifth amendment.

[Ace Kefford]

Lane is pathetic on this issue. Even before I became a lawyer I could see
he was spouting nonsense.