Posted on 01/11/2002 2:08:31 PM PST by expose
Loral fined $14m over China missiles claim
By Edward Alden and Peter Spiegel in Washington
Loral, the US satellite company, said it would pay $14m to the US State Department to settle a claim that it improperly gave technical information to China that may have aided that country's nuclear missile programme.
Loral also said the Justice Department had ended its investigation of the company and would not pursue any criminal charges.
The fine marks the last chapter in a bitter political battle in Washington in which Republicans alleged that during the Clinton administration the US had turned a blind eye to actions by Loral and other satellite makers that may have threatened national security.
Loral agreed to the fine, which will be spread out over seven years, without admitting or denying the government's charges.
The investigation arose out of the 1996 explosion of a Chinese rocket carrying one of Loral's Intelsat satellites. Loral subsequently took part in a technical investigation of the launch failure, which it inadvertently shared with the Chinese. The US Defence Department found that the technical data given to China may have helped the Chinese improve the accuracy of their military rockets and missiles, which use similar technology. Experts have since questioned whether anything of military value was given to China.
Bernard Schwartz, Loral chief executive, said on Wednesday the data were mistakenly sent to China by a Loral employee without approval by the US government, and expressed regret. He said the company had since greatly improved its oversight.
The Loral incident led to a detailed congressional investigation, which concluded China had been stealing an array of US military secrets. It resulted in severe restrictions on US satellite exports imposed in 1999.
The Justice Department had also been investigating a separate incident involving Hughes Electronics, another US satellite maker. Richard Dore, a Hughes spokesman, said on Wednesday the company had also been informed by Justice that no criminal charges would be filed.
But Hughes lawyers will meet State Department officials this month to discuss their own settlement of the matter and whether a fine will be necessary. "We've contended all along that we followed the government guidelines," said Mr Dore.
Hughes was accused of helping improve Chinese rocket and missile technology while investigating launch failures. The satellite-building unit of Hughes, Hughes Space and Communications, was sold to Boeing in 2000, but Hughes retained liability for the technology transfer investigation.
Lockheed Martin also agreed to pay $13m in 2000 after a company it acquired was accused of helping a Hong Kong company with ties to Beijing. <P.
Why should I?
Here's a hint, you have asked me several questions, in a reasonable way, openly and honestly.
Have I answered them equally as reasonably, openly and honestly?
ChaseR and that other person think they can bully me into answering them.
How do you react to bullies?
What do you call it then? Have you read the thread again yet?
"ChaseR *pinged* me at least four times to this thread, trying to needle me into a discussion on JUDICIAL WATCH, that's his/her true goal here. He's simply using this case as a vehicle to create a confrontation wherein he envisions himself to be some sort of "crusader for truth"."
Now who is being Jeanne Dixon? Looks to me like he thought you two would be in complete agreement when he first pinged you.
"Go back and read this thread once again, keep in mind that I have NEVER commented on the Loral case in FR;"
You are the one that needs to go back and read it if anyone does. I know you have not made any comments on Loral on this thread. That is what everyone is asking for. Why not? Would you please tell us why you have made no commet in FR on the Loral case?
" "I have been VERY critical of Larry Klayman, which gets a lot of people pissed off. Coincidentally, the people getting pissed off at my criticism of Larry and JW, are the same people who harass those who get offended when President Bush is criticized, and attack them for getting pissed about people who criticize the President."
What ever harassing goes on it works both ways. I see many of the harassers that get offended when Bush is criticized are usually the first ones to use personal attacks in lieu of opinion or facts and are the most rude and ill mannered .
"We ALL have our sacred cows I guess."LOL yes that is true.
"But anyway, in another one of those traits of really bad lawyers that ChaseR seems to be infested with, now he's backing out because he claims that have some sort of trap thing set for him, and that I will pull the plug on him. Kind of doing that whole Jeanne Dixon thing again, isn't he?"
No Chase said no from the start and for other reasons. You do need to reread the thread. After thinking on it, and your continued 'no comment' on the topic your, insistence that the only discussion can be on the radio, he again decided to not to do it and I do not blame him. Since you know what you think and what Chase thinks, that gives you a great advantage over him while in a discussion or debating the subject with him on of all places live radio where you will be at ease and he will not.
"Reminds of of a lawyer who would file a worthless case, knowing full well that it will get thrown out of Court, but prepares his clients by telling them that the Judge is crooked, that way when the case fails, he just says "See! I told you that the Judge was crooked!""
Oh please...Do you remember the Clinton years and what all his judges did?
"Sound familiar?"
Yes it does....It sounds just like the lawyers that had to go up against the likes of judges like Judge Norma Holloway Johnson.
Seriously, I find it mindboggling that any FReeper would claim that another has an obligation to discuss any topic whatsoever. That's why, when you click "Latest Posts," it gives you a whole long list of threads, so that you can pick which one you want to express an opinion on.
Next thing someone will be telling me I have an obligation to get into debates about libertarianism, or tell my views on predestination, or read articles from Lew Rockwell. Sheesh.
Well for one thing this is a place for discussion. Also people have asked you nicely.
"Here's a hint, you have asked me several questions, in a reasonable way, openly and honestly. Have I answered them equally as reasonably, openly and honestly?
Yes you have. We have discussed everything but the topic and you have not answered any questions I posed to you about Loral. Why?
"ChaseR and that other person think they can bully me into answering them."
First of all, you have been asked nicely by more than 2 people, to answer specific questions on this topic and you have not answered any in this Forum.
"How do you react to bullies?"
I walk away or kick his ass. There have been times I got my ass kicked but learned from it.
By not walking away and ignoring what you consider a 'bully' and instead inflaming the situation with smart remarks, makes one just as guilty and no better than the other.
"Go bother somebody else, will you?
Chooser, as posted above, wrinkled pulled this same stunt on me. When conniving wrinkles feels that she is losing a debate she quickly retreats to
her dark, dang hideous closet - and cries out that she should not be bothered by certain posters who disagree with her points of view.
Amazing how this type scheme never works and actually - in retrospect, wrinkled is now finding out - that by pursuing this unfair scheme - it has and will continue to accelerate the wrinkling/aging process. Poor conniving thang...
Now Now good man, you've already forgotten my good instructions to you - - you, as a bright representative of FR ....must remain calm.
(Also, before we start going through this Loral case - I don't want to hear any garbage about how you're from Cuba. What does that have to do with anything? I'm supposedly a minority too. My elders came from Europe. Who gives cr*p. - We all came from somewhere, so Luis, don't resort to reiterating that you're from Cuba - I could care less where you dropped in from, rofl. You and I, will be discussing a federal civil court case - so stay on topic. (also, do not say that you'll discuss this case only on the 24th of the month...how ridiculous)
No funny man, lol, we will all indeed find your funny face back here - probably this evening. So be prepared to reply to all readers about the opening allegations of the Amended Loral Shareholders case. (since the past hour has gone by and you're not in sight), I'll allow you more time to gather yourself together - and get back here. I too, will take a longer iced tea break then planned and begin reviewing this Amended Loral case. (Luis, the Amended Loral case was just now posted this week at JW.org. I advise you to start reviewing it when you find these posts. I'll be back this evening/ be on time.) Thank you.
If this isn't satisfactory to you, get your own show, and I will call YOU!
For the record, are you Larry Klayman? If you are not, do you work for Larry Klayman and/or Judicial Watch?
280 posted on 1/19/02 10:01 AM Pacific by Luis Gonzalez
1. Do you Luis Gonzalez, confirm or deny, that the following list of co-defendents (businesses and/or organizations) - are indeed all defendents in the Loral Shareholders case, Amended Complaint?:
BERNARD L. SCHWARTZ
WILLIAM JEFFERSON CLINTON
HILLARY CLINTON
LORAL SPACE AND COMMUNICATIONS, LTD.
DNC SERVICES CORPORATION, d/b/a/ THE DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL COMMITTEE
THE DEMOCRATIC SENATORIAL CAMPAIGN COMMITTEE
THE DEMOCRATIC CONGRESSIONAL CAMPAIGN COMMITTEE
ALBERT GORE, JR
HAROLD ICKES
MELISSA MOSS
ALEXIS HERMAN
MARVIN ROSEN
SAMUEL BERGER
JOHN HUANG
Now Mr Gonzalez, this first question should be easy for you...do you confirm or deny that the above are the named defendents?
Luis, do you agree that the following is indeed pursuant to Rule 23.1? Yes or No Luis, Confirm or Deny:
*******
"This is a shareholder derivative action brought pursuant to Rule 23.1 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for recovery by and on behalf of Loral Space and Communications, Ltd. Loral Space and Communications, Ltd. is named as a defendant because it is an indispensable party for procedural reasons, the recovery sought in this action being for the benefit of Loral Space and Communications, Ltd."
********
Yes or No Luis, Confirm or Deny that this case is pursuant to Rule 23.1.
Luis, do have any problem with the following to be correct and true. Yes or No?
********
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
19. Jurisdiction over this matter is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1332, as the parties are of diverse citizenship and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.00, exclusive of interest and costs.
20. Venue is proper in this district pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1391(a)(2) because a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to Plaintiffs’ claims occurred in the District of Columbia.
21. Venue is also proper in this district under 28 U.S.C. § 1401 because Defendant Loral could have brought suit against Defendant Schwartz in the District of Columbia
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.