Jump to content
The Education Forum

Robet Morrow on LBJ and his lawyers


Recommended Posts

Ed Clark, who was Lyndon Johnson's inner circle blood brother and lawyer for decades, represented Jack Ruby's lawyer Joe Tonahill in the years just before the JFK assassiation.

 
Joe Tonahill was put in to control Ruby so no one would know who sent him to kill Oswald.
 
LBJ pal Abe Fortas represented Bobby Baker in the fall of 1963.
 
LBJ lawyer John Cofer represented Mac Wallace in 1952.
 
LBJ lawyer John Cofer represented Billie Sol Estes who was Lyndon Johnson's #1 cash cow for illegal money.
 
In all cases those lawyers were protecting LYNDON JOHNSON and not the interests of their criminal clients.
 
Robert Morrow   Austin, TX
 
 

In 1970 LBJ’s law firm of Clark, Thomas & Winters defended  Jack Ruby’s lawyer Joe H. Tonahill in an income tax evasion case! The investigation of Tonahill began in October of 1962!

 

https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/291738/united-states-v-joe-h-tonahill/

 

 

United States v. Joe H. Tonahill, 430 F.2d 1042 (5th Cir. 1970)

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

Filed: August 13th, 1970

Precedential Status: Precedential

Citations: 430 F.2d 1042

Docket Number: 29426

 

430 F.2d 1042

70-2 USTC P 9511

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
Joe H. TONAHILL, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 29426 Summary Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

July 13, 1970, Rehearing Denied and Rehearing En Banc Denied
Aug. 13, 1970.

Richard B. Hardee, U.S. Atty., Beaumont, Tex., Johnnie M. Walters, Asst. Atty. Gen., Joseph Howard, Lee A. Jackson, Robert H. Purl, Attys., Dept. of Justice, Washington, D.C., for plaintiff-appellant.

Sander Shapiro, Donald S. Thomas, Clark, Thomas, Harris, Denius & Winters, Austin, Tex., Gilbert T. Adams, John G. Tucker, Beaumont, Tex., for defendant-appellee.

Before GOLDBERG, DYER and SIMPSON, Circuit Judges.

DYER, Circuit Judge:

1

The defendant was charged with three counts of willfully attempting to evade and defeat his individual income tax for the year 1960 through 1962 in violation of Section 7201 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954. He moved to suppress from evidence oral statements he had made to treasury agents and documentary evidence seized by them, claiming that the evidence was illegally obtaining because Miranda warnings were never given to him and because the agents induced him to furnish the evidence by fraud and deceit by misleading him into thinking that there would be no criminal charges against him. The District Court granted this motion and the Government has appealed. Finding this case controlled by our recent decision in United States v. Prudden, 5 Cir. 1970, 424 F.2d 1021, we reverse and remand.1

2

The defendant is a criminal attorney in Texas of wide experience and reputation. The investigation began as a civil audit of defendant's business in October, 1962. The Revenue Agent lingered on the case for over a year and during that period formed a suspicion that defendant had violated Section 7201. In March, 1964, he referred the case to the Intelligence Division of Internal Revenue, and the case was assigned to a Special Agent. There was no contact between the Revenue Service and defendant from January, 1964, until September, 1964, when the original investigating Revenue Agent and the Special Agent met with the defendant and his accountant.

3

The District Judge found that neither defendant nor his accountant knew the significance of the term 'Special Agent.' However, defendant and his accountant were apprehensive enough (because of the length of time involved in the investigation) to ask the agents on the several occasions when they met, what they were doing, why the audit was taking so long, and whether fraud was involved. The District Judge found that the Agents must have known that the defendant and his accountant did not understand that the audit or investigation was criminal and that, 'Not once did the Agents reply in the affirmative (to the questions of defendant and his accountant) that 'fraud' or a 'crime' was involved. Instead, they stated their function was to reconcile the large discrepancies   
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...