Contact: JOHN KLOTZ Return to Klotz Law Homepage

Sentencing Memorandum
People v. Dupont

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK                Indictment No.  4995/80 
               -against-                           DEFENDANT'S PRE-SENTENCE
                                            :      MEMORANDUM


          This memorandum is submitted pursuant to S319.40 of the 
Criminal Procedure Law setting forth information which the 
defendant deems pertinent to the question of sentence.  Annexed 
hereto are certain letters and exhibits which are relevant to the 
points made.  

                                 POINT ONE


          The defendant, contrary to the picture in the 
probationary report, has many friends of substance among whom he 
enjoys a high repute.

          Attached hereto and marked EXHIBITS ONE through FIVE 
are the following letters of reccommodation:

               EXHIBIT ONE: letter from Alfred J. Lippman, 
     Chair man of the Board of the Mexican Chamber of 
     Commerce dated November 11, 1981;

          EXHIBT TWO letter of Raymond Lewis dated November 
     12, 1981.  

          EXHIBT THREE letter dated November 11, 1981 from 
     David M. Strasberg, M.D.  

          EXHIBIT FOUR letter dated November 13, 1981 from 
     Mrs. Joseph Kates.  

          EXHIBIT FIVE a copy of a letter dated November 10, 
     1981 from Frank A. Harris, Municipal Escrow and Title 
     Company Inc., Washington D.C. 

          These letters demonstrate that the defendant is a 
person who is worthwhile and worthy of redemption.  The letter of 
Mr. Lewis explains in some detail how a person friend view the 
effect of the trauma of Big Gym upon him.  Defendant submitts 
these matters should be taken in litigation and they present a 
far different, and more accurate picture of defendant, then the 
recitation of  COHN's story contained in the probation report.

                            POINT TWO



          At the direction of the court a psychiatric examination 
has been peformed on the defendant.  One result of that 
examination is the opinion of the psychiatrist is that there is a 
danger defendant will become suicidal if incarcerated.

          Putting aside for the moment, the fact that the 
principal complaining witness openly boasts of his connections 
with organized crime and his willingness to seek favors from 
organized crime as discussed infra; closing our eyes to the 
statement of Gordan Liddy in his book Will, that in an American 
prision the cost of a man's life is a carton of Kools cigarettes; 
an even averting our gaze from the fact that homosexuals are more 
prone to violence and murder in prisons then the average inmate; 
the report of the courts own psychiatrist is that there is a risk 
of the defendant's self-destruction if he is incarcerated.  

          The defendant is not guilty of any crimes of violence 
nor does his records show that he's violence prone.  Given the 
psychiatric report therefore, and the chance that psychiatric 
care outside of a prision habitat may benefit the defendant, only 
if the court feels this is an extremely aggravated case should 
the defendant be incarcerated.

          In deciding whether or not the defendant should be 
incarcerated or not, the court should, of course, act only upon 
what the defendant has been convicted of and not what the court 
may suspect. Significantly, in acquitting the defendant of the 
NINTH COUNT, the jury rejected attempts to circumstantially tie 
the defendant to items such as the publication of newspaper 
advertisements.  As a matter of fact, for each count the 
defendant was convicted, there was evidence other than the 
testimony of COHN as to some contact by the defendant.  
Therefore, the court in considering an appropriate sentence 
should consider what the defendant has been convicted of and not 
what it might be suppect that he did.

          He has been convicted of no violent crime, he has no 
violence in his background and given the psychiatric report a 
sentence of incarceration may well be a death sentence.

                           POINT THREE


          It is not the purpose of this memorandum to justify the 
total contents of either edition of "Now East".  Putting those 
magazines aside, however, it is amply clear from the evidence 
already before the court that this defendant has played a 
substantial role in bringing into the public arena evidence of 
COHN's misconduct as an attorney and as a citizen.

          Defendant in December 1980 sought to dismiss the 
indictment on the grounds that it was not in the interest of 
justice to proceed because of the actions and habits of COHN and 
his associates who are the principal  complaining witnessess in 
this case.  (That motion, its affirmation, memorandum and 
exhibits will hereinafter be referred to as the "prior motion.")  
The court did not find in these matters sufficient basis do 
dismiss the indictment.  However, the prior motion is hereby 

incorporated by reference.  The appropriate parts of my previous 
affirmation which described the operations of COHN with reference 
to the EXHIBITS as were attached to the prior motion papers are 
as follows:

COHN's Method Of Doing Business

               21. BIG GYM is not the first time that COHN 
     has mixed his legal practice with private investment. 
     It may be one time when he actually used his own money 
     for the investment. Certainly, that COHN should have 
     acquired an interest in a client's business should come 
     has no surprise to this particular District Attorney, 
     ROBERT M. MORGENTHAU. Although there are many publicly 
     reported and litigated examples of this particular 
     technique of COHN, three documented examples interact 
     with personalities involved in this case. The defendant 
     would rspectfully draw the Court's attention to the 
     voyage of the "Defiance", the takeover of Universal 
     Money Order and takeover by "Dolphin Brothers" of por
     nographic theatres in Irvington and Cherry Hill, New 

               22.  The following EXHIBITS illuminate the 
     COHN method of doing business:

     EXHIBIT G: Extract of Testimony, People v. Dupont,            

     EXHIBIT K: Don't Mess with Roy COHN, Esquire Fort-
                nightly, December 5, l978,
                Cover, pages 39 et seq.

     EXHIBIT L: Extract, N. Y. Daily News, December 16, 
                l979, page 5 et seq.

     EXHIBIT M: Extract, N. Y. Daily News, December 17, 
                l979, page 5 et seq.

     EXHIBIT N: Extract, N. Y. Daily News, December 18, 
                l979, page 5 et seq.

     EXHIBIT O: Extract, N. Y. Daily News, December 19, 
                l980, page 5 et seq.

     EXHIBIT P: Extract of Brief of Defendants-Appellants,            
                Bader & Bader et al v. Henry Ford II et al, Appellate            
                Division, First Department, Supreme Court, N. Y. County 
                Index No. 7189/78.

     EXHIBIT Q: Extract, Village Voice, December 10, l980, 
                page 5.

     The Defiance

          23.  A  single  connecting  thread through all  of 
     these incidents is DANO.   On the surface, the Defiance 
     was a yacht owned by an independent corporation  called 
     Pied  Piper  Yacht Charter Corp.("PIED PIPER").   As  a 
     matter  of fact,  as it appears in the decision of  the 
     court  cited in EXHIBIT P,  PIED PIPER was  a  personal 
     business vehicle for SAXE and COHN.  The yacht was sup-
     posedly being held in escrow pursuant to an order in an 
     SEC  injunction proceeding.   The Defiance mysteriously 
     sank. COHN and his cohorts collected insurance proceeds 
     and  pocketed  them.   The officer of  PIED  PIPER  who 

     endorsed the insurance check for deposit was PAUL DANO.  
     The  court's  opinion of about the actions of  COHN  in 
     this matter is cited at length in EXHIBIT P.  

     Universal Money Order

               24.  In the Universal Money Order bankruptcy, 
     DANO,  acting  with money acquired in part with  HOWARD 
     PFEFFER,  purchased the interest of a bankrupt company, 
     the  principal  of which was represented by COHN  in  a 
     related  criminal matter.  In addition,  SAXE was  also 
     representing  a creditor in the bankruptcy  proceeding. 
     This matter is discussed in EXHIBIT L,  and is also the 
     subject  of cross-examination in EXHIBIT  G,  p.  30 et 
     seq.  Not coincidently HOWARD PFEFFER is the grand jury 
     witness that Mr. Dupont is accused of tampering with.

               25.   The relation of COHN'S business activi-
     ties  through DANO and even his political and  judicial 
     activities  is demonstrated by EXHIBIT Q.   It is noted 
     that  it  was DANO'S corporation,  United  States  Bank 
     Note,  that contributed $5,000 to the Manhattan Borough 
     President  the day after a favaorable vote by the  Man-
     hattan  Borough  President for another  COHN  favorite, 

Pornographic Theaters

          26.   In  the case of the New Jersey  pornographic 
     theaters  which is discussed in the Daily News  EXHIBIT 
     N, RUSSELL ELDRIGE makes an appearance.  In addition to 
     his duties with BIG GYM,  ELDRIGE also worked for  DANO 
     at  the  Cherry Hill theater at a time when  DANO   and 
     ELDRIGE  had bedrooms in COHNS' townhouse.  Again,  the 
     close relationship of COHN, SAXE, DANO and the business 
     enterprise  involved in a bankruptcy is clearly  demon-
     strated  by  the publicly known facts.  It  was  DANO's 
     dimness  as to his relationship to ELDRIGE  that  occa-
     sioned  caustic  critism  by the Court in  the  earlier 
     criminal case against DUPONT. EXHIBIT  G, p. 24 et seq.

          27.   The  EXHIBITS  presented are a part  of  the 
     "totality of circumstances" surrounding the  indictment 
     of  the defendant.   This totality of circumstance  not 
     only  supports defendant's contention that COHN was his 
     business  partner and that the FIRST COUNT of  the  in-
     dictment  is indeed a fairy tale but impeach the credi-
     bility of the principal complaining witness COHN.

          28.   Defendant submits that at the very least the 
     Grand  Jury minutes must reflect an honest  attempt  by 
     the  prosecuting attorney to lay before the Grand  Jury 
     the  known facts concerning COHN's lack of veracity and 
     unethical conduct as setforth in the judicial decisions 
     cited in EXHIBIT P.

          Dupont's in role in bringing the Universal Money Order 
to public attention in the Philadelphia bulletin was testified to 
by Howard Pfeffer.  Incredibly in the Bill of Particualars dated 
March 26, 1981 p.3 |7 the District Attorney charged that one of 
Dupont's communications with the Philidelphia Bulletin 
constituted harrassment of COHN.  The District Attorney did not 
attempt to demonstrate this at trial, but clearly if we accord 
Pfeffer's testimony any weight it was Dupont who caused to be 

brought to public attention the fraud and misconduct of COHN in 
the Universal Money Order situtation.  

          That Dupont was responsible for authorities in Chicago 
ridding themselves of a COHN-Dano scam on Chicago parking lots we 
have from the lips of Roy COHN himself.  During cross-examination 
COHN somewhat heatedly claimed that Dupont telephoning the 
railroad in Chicago with his "lies" was the cause of them 
receiving a 48 hours notice to quit.  These "lies" were 
allegations of fraudulent practices by COHN's partners in the 
counting of cars in the lots.  By concealing the true number of 
cars parked they were able to avoid paying lawful rent.  The fact 
of Dupont's telephone calls to the railroad in Chicago is 
demonstrated by the tolls on his telephone which are in evidence.  

          Certainly Dupont is to be credited to be stopping this 
scam.  But COHN and DANO have cheated New York City taxpayers in 
the same manner.  Also attached hereto and marked EXHIBIT SIX is 
an extract from audit of the controller of the City of New York 
of one of Dano's parking operations in the City of New York 
Heliport Interprises Inc.  Dano's acquisition of Heliport is 
discussed in EXHIBIT M of the prior motion.  EXHIBIT SIX 
demonstrates that on April 16, 1980 the controller found Heliport 
was guilty of essentially the same practices that Dano National 
Services was guilty of in Chicago.  As a matter of fact Heliport 
this month been evicted from the Staten Island parking lots.  
Dano's relationship to Heliport was described in the Daily News 
(EXHIBIT M of the prior motion)  as follows:

          BETWEEN  1974 AND 1979,  Dano moved in and out  of 
     other  concessions  in financial transactions that  can 
     best be described as casual.  In 1976 for example, Dano 
     took  over a 760 car parking lot at the ferry  terminal 
     on  Staten Island,  suddenely emerging as president  of 
     Heliport Enterprises,  Inc., the company that owned the 
     lot.   Dano says he can't remember  how he got into the 
     corporation,  why the previous owner,  Edward Jacobson, 
     got out or even whether any money changed hands.

          "I  know the deal wasn't a plum,  but I can't  say 
     right now how all that took place," Dano said.

          This  despite  the  fact that  when  Jacobsen  was 
     president and Dano was vice president,  the company was 
     doing business out of COHN's office.  Dano continues to 
     conduct much of his own affairs there.
          Dano often has memory prolems when it comes to his 
     dealings  with COHN.   When he was asked,  for example, 
     whether he owned a home in Acapulco often used by  COHN 
     and  friends  as a vacation retreat,  he  chuckled  and 
          "The reason I'm laughing is because that deal  was 
     in Spanish. I'll gave to get back to you."

          When he did he said he didn't own the home,  after 

          Dano  doesn't own the Staten Island  lot  anymore.  
     He  sold it,  last July to Richard Cantarella,  a truck 
     driver  and  holder of several  concessions,  and  John 
     Blanco,   a  sales  manager.  The  purchase  price  was 
     $35,000  and Cantarella,  who arranged the  deal,  told 

     the  News that he didn't bother to look at  the   books  
     beforehand.   He  seemed uncertain as to  whether  Dano 
     retained an interest.

          "I'm  taking it for granted that Paul Dano is  out 
     completely.  That's what my lawyer told me."

          Last  week  Canterella  may have had  some  second 
     thoughts  about  not  perusing  the  books.   The  City 
     notified Heliport Enterprises that its lease was  being 
     cancelled,  that  it owed the city at least $119,000 in 
     back  rent,  most  of it run up under  Dano,  officials 
          Attached hereto as EXHIBIT SEVEN is a report from the 
Daily News concerning the attempt of COHN's clients Rubel and 
Shrager to blackmail the government into a lenient sentence by 
attempting to implicate Hamilton Jordan the President's assistant 
in the use of cocaine.  COHN's disingenuous claims of 
non-involvement in the blackmail attempt are hardly worth 
crediting.  If anything, this trial has demonstrated that Roy 
COHN is not one who tells the truth even under oath.  However, 
Dupont testified and it is clear from the record that he was 
called down to the Special Prosecutors office and did cooperate 
in that investigation.

          This memorandum will make no attempt to justify the 
sexual aspects of "Now East".  However there can be no question 
that much of the information contained in "Now East" was true and 
indeed was first revealed in those publications.  For example, 
there is the affair of Buddy Jacobson.  Prior to the appearance 
of "Now East" COHN's interest in Buddy Jacobson was a carefully 
guarded secret.  It was only in "Now East" that it was reported 
that COHN was working with Jacobson and that his payoff would be 
interest in Jacobson's real estate.  The story seems far fetched.  
However, we have attached EXHIBIT EIGHT an article by COHN's 
friend Claudia Cohen which verifys that Dano acquired at a cut 
rate price real property of Jacobson and we know from COHN's 
Grand Jury testimony that his business deals are regulary 
referred to Dano because he conducts no business in his own name.  
(See again EXHIBIT M).

          The purpose of this recitation is to demonstrate that 
Dupont has played a role in bringing to the public view 
heretofore concealed misconduct of Roy COHN.  This is a factor 
that should weigh on his behalf in the sentencing.

                            POINT FOUR


          COHN's notorious flaunting of the cannons of ethics has 
resulted in judicial determinations of misconduct that have been 
ignored by appropriate authorities.  The following recitation is 
drawn from the defendant's memorandum of law submitted in support 
of his prior motion:

     In re Estate of Rosenstiel, No. 76-436(Fla.  Cir. Ct. 

     Dade Co. June 24, 1976) a proceeding was instituted in 
     the Florida courts to revoke probate of a second 
     codicil to the will of Lewis Rosenstiel, a 
     multmillionaire, which would have appointed COHN and 
     others as excutors and trustees of the will. The pro 
     ceeding was initiated when it came to light that Mr. 
     COHN had entered the hospital room of the dying man, 
     and lied to him in order to obtain signature on the 
     codicil.  The court revoked the order admitting the 
     codicil to probate on the basis of its finding that 
     "ROY M. COHN misrepresented to the decedent, LEWIS S. 
     ROSENSTIEL, the nature, content and purpose of the 
     document that he offered to Mr. ROSENSTIEL for 

     According to the opinion of the Honorable Frank B. 
     Dowling, Circuit Judge, COHN had in fact misrepresented 
     to the dying man that the codicil being presented by  
     COHN for Rosenstiel's signature was a document that 
     could save Rosenstiel's exwife from prison.          

     SEC v. Pied Piper Yacht Charters Corp.; No. 71 Civ. 
     5341 (S.D.N.Y. Feb 25, 1976) involved a motion to hold 
     COHN and his law firm (at the time known as Saxe, 
     Bacon, Bolan & Manley) in civil contempt for breaching 
     their fiduciary duties as court-ordered escrow agents 
     by failing to protect, and improperely disbursing, the 
     escrow corpus. In seeking to avoid contempt, COHN de
     nied any knowledge of the terms and requirements of the 
     escrow order, which denial the court viewed "with 
     suprise bordering on stupefaction."  The court stated:  
     "The evidence ... establishes beyond any doubt not only 
     Mr. COHN's awareness of the terms and conditions of the 
     escrow order ... but his responsibility for its re 
     peated violation."          

          Commenting on COHN's veracity, Judge Palmieri 

              "[n]ine  months  after making  his  unfulfilled 
              promise  to supply the SEC with  facts...  COHN 
              continued  his  tactic of obfuscation  by  bold 
              assertions of half-truths and untruths."  

               The court found COHN'S testimony on point 
     after point "not credible", "contrary to the 
     overwhelming weight of the evidence" and "undermined 
     and destroyed."          The COHN firm was ordered to 
     repay all monies taken from the escrow fund ($219,000) 
     within twenty days or be deemed in civil contempt.  

          United States v. Johansson, 477 F.2d 702 (5th Cir 
     1971), involved an action by the Government to collect 
     back taxes owed from the proceeds of the third Floyd 
     Patterson-Ingemar Johansson heavyweight championship 
     fight.  The court held COHN and his law partner Thomas 
     a. Bolan personally liable for the back taxes in the 
     amount of $135,769.94, stating:

                 "[W]e  cannot escape a conclusion that  both 
               Bolan  and COHN were directly  and  personally 
               responsible for causing Feature Sports, Inc.2
               to violate the courts orders..." (id. at 707),

               "[W]e  do not hestitate to affirm the district 
               court's    determination    that    appellants 
               [including  COHN and Bolan] have violated  the 
               court's order's orders." Id. at 706.

          In  EC v.  Fifth Ave Coach Lines,  Inc.,   289  F. 
     Supp.   3 (S.D.N.Y. 1968), aff'd, 435 F.2d 510 (2d Cir. 
     1970),  the  SEC sought to enjoin various illegal prac-
     tices engaged in by,  among others,  Messrs.  Bolan and 
     COHN.   The  court found that Mr.  COHN and others  had 
     participated  in a conspiracy to use Fifth Avenue Coach 
     Lines Inc.   ("Fifth") for their own purposes and  that 
     "COHN  benefited  from the use of Fifth's money to  pay 
     the loans made to him by" other directors.  Id.  at 41.  
     The Court also noted that Mr.  COHN attempted to "cover 
     up" the involvement of two other directors in ratifying 
     questionable corporate transactions.   Id.  at 42 n.24.  
     Believing that there was "a real danger that unless  an 
     injunction is issued, the sort of activities which have 
     taken  place heretofore will be repeated" (id.  at 41), 
     the court enjoined Mr.  COHN and others from  violating 
     the securities laws.   Id.  at 41-42.  As to Mr. Bolan, 
     who  was President of Fifth,  the court found that  the 
     evidence  did  not jusify a finding that he  personally 
     participated and declined to enjoin him.   However, the 
     court appointed a receiver, saying: 
                    "Bolan  is  the senior partner  of  Saxe, 
               Bacon  & Bolan.   He is so closely  associated 
               with  COHN  that he allows COHN  to  sign  his 
               name  to important documents.   Saxe,  Bacon & 
               Bolan  and  COHN  have been  and  are  closely 
               connected  with Fifth,  much  more  intimately 
               than    in    the    normal    attorney-client 

               "The  court feels that in fairness to  Fifth's 
               stockholders,  it simply cannot take a  chance 
               on Bolan...." Id. at 42.

          To that recitation we can now add Universal Money 
Order.  Mr. Pfeffer testified among other things that his 
associate paid COHN large amounts of cash for  Universal Money 
Order fee and that COHN used Pfeffer's money to buy the interest 
on behalf of Paul Dano. COHN told Pfeffer that he could not have 
an interest because he was somehow related to Scarron.  How then 
could Scarron's attorney COHN represent the buyer and be involved 
in the sale in this way?

          As a matter of fact, defendant's attorney can recite 
one explanation of why the Bar Association and the appropriate 
disciplinary authorities have not reacted to COHN.  In 1973, I 
had a chance conversation with a former attorney for the SEC.  
When he learned that I had been previously an associate counsel  
the Committee on Grievances of the Association of the Bar of the 
City of New York he began to chide me for the Committee's 
failures to take action on COHN.  He was knowledgeable with the 
SEC's case against COHN and handled liaison with the Bar 
Association.  He told me that the problem was that the attorney 
from the Bar Association was "one of the dumbest attorneys who I 
ever met".  That particular associate counsel is no longer with 
the Bar Association so his name is irrevelant to this discussion.  
The fact remains that for whatever reason, be it incompetence or 
lack of nerve, despite the findings of Rosenstiel, Fifth Avenue 
Coach, Pied Piper and Johansson, not one disciplinary step has 
been taken against COHN.  

          EXHIBIT K of the prior motion of December 16, was an 
article by Ken Aulletta concerning COHN.  In fact, it was the 
cover story and it was this magazine that was brandished by COHN 
in one of his discussions with Dupont.  COHN boasted of being 
"the legal executioner."  The concluding paragraph of that 
article bears note: "Whatever complaints or judgements are 
registered against COHN, no Bar Association has ever banned him.  
Evil he may be, but as Roy reminds vistors, he is  a member in 
good standing.  Like an outlaw, Roy may have notches in his gun, 
but no one has dared ask him to leave town."

          Had authorities taken appropriate action against COHN a 
decade ago this dispute would never arisen because he could not 
have been defendant's lawyer.  He would have been long disbarred.

          The question was asked of Mr. Dupont why didn't he take 
his complaints about COHN to the Bar Association.  Need there be 
anymore discussion.

          COHN's deliberate attempts to play upon his reputation 
for the sinister is displayed also in July 1981 Penthouse 
Magazine which published the Peter Manso interview of COHN.  A 
copy of the cover of Penthouse is attached hereto and marked 
EXHIBIT NINE.   Attached further and marked EXHIBIT TEN is an 
extract from the article and the court's particular attention is 
drawn to COHN's discussion of representing members of organized 
crime, the fact that he feels Tony Salerno is not as underhanded 
as the Kennedys or Rockerfellers and that as a matter of course 
he refers clients to organized crime members for favors, if "it's 
legal and legitimate."  What legal and and legitimate favors a 
person would expect from organized crime members are not 

          The court's further attention is directed towards an 
article appearing in that same issue entitled the Mud Club by 
Cathy Lowery which appears on page 62 et seq.  The article in 
include pictures of men with genitals exposed, a woman engaged in 
fellatio upon a man and recounts the story of a naked man in the 
men's room covered with cocaine selling the right to lick the 
cocaine off his body.  The pictures appear in full color.  This 
article is in it's contents and depictions more obscene and gross 
and pornographic than anything that appears in "Now East".  
Except for one thing, the picture of Roy COHN and Steve Rubell 
which appeared in "Now East" was cropped from the New York 
Magazine of October 15, 1979 and was taken at the Mud Club.  This 
is COHN's natural milieu.

          The article on the Mud Club is disgusting, COHN's com-
ments in Penthouse are disgusting.  But this is the milieu that 
ROY COHN has chosen for himself.  It is a factor in mitigation of 
the sentence that COHN has chosen to depict himself this way and 
that his milieu is one of drug-soaked culture at its worst.  

                            POINT FIVE 

a.  No public danger

               The first criteria for the imposition of a 
sentence of probation rather than imprisionment is:

     "Intitutional confinement for the term authorized by 
     law of the defendant is or may not be necessary for the 
     protection of the public."  Penal Law S65.00 (1) (a) 

          Of the charges of which the defendant has been 
convicted the protection of the public is not necessary for 

b. The crowded prision conditions make confinement
   against the public interest in this case.

          There's no question that the New York City jail system 
is in a present state of crisis;  highlighted by the recent 
rejection of the bail bond issue.  In announcing the support of 
bail bond issue by the Association of Justices of the Supreme 
Court of the State of New York, the Association noted it's fears 
that violent criminals will be "released precipitiously because 
of the unavailability of prision cells"  (Daily News, page 10, 
October 27, 1981).  The District Attorney of New York County has 
warned that jail overcrowding may result in the release of 
"dangerous criminals" (Daily News March 16, 1981 page 5).  

          In the instant case the court must weigh the impact of 
incarceration of Dupont upon the criminal justice system as a 
whole.  One factor which must be weighed is whether confinement 
in an overcrowded jail of this defendant convicted of non-violent 
crimes will occupy space needed for the incarceration for 
individuals who form a genunine threat to the community.  
          It is clear that the approach needed in this case is 
one centering on Dupont's mental health and not his mere 
temporary segregation from society in an overcrowed jail at the 
potential cost of occupying space needed for other individuals.

          On Sunday November 15, 1981, the relationship of 
violence to the crowded conditions of the prisons were subject to 
yet another editorial comment, Daily News November 15, 1981 page 
51.  See EXHIBIT ELEVEN attached.
          References to the statements of editorials and public 
officials are not given to the court for the purpose of 
suggesting the court should not yield the popular passion.  
However, it is quite clear that the crowded conditions of our 
prisons make it essential that they be reserved for those 
individuals who truly form a threat to the public.  Given the 
lack of violence from defendant's background there is no need for 
the protection of the public by defendant's incarceration and 
given the overcrowding of jails, the spaces that are availabe 
should be reserved for violent criminals.  This in an important 
public interest.

                            POINT SIX 

            PRIOR NAME.

          On page ten of the pre-sentence report from the 
Probation Department a skeptical reference was made to the 
defendant's statement that his name has been legally changed.  In 
fact, the report is entitled Richard Sampson a/k/a Richard 
Dupont.  As a matter of fact in 1972 defendant's name was legally 
changed by order of the court and it is a violation of the 
defendant's civil rights for the Probation Department to refuse 
to address him by that name.  Attached hereto and marked EXHIBIT 
TWELVE is a copy of the order and proof of publication of that 

                           POINT SEVEN


          The pre-sentence report is highly a prejudicial 
document and of little aide to the court in sentencing the 
defendant.  As a matter of fact, it accepts at face value 
statements of COHN which are at variance with his sworn testimony 
in this case, his sworn testimony before the Grand Jury and sworn 
testimony of PAUL DANO in the earlier case against defendant.  On 
page nine of the pre-sentence report COHN is reported as saying:

     "Essentially  COHN  states  that his firm had  made  an 
     advance of $10,000 to protect the interest of the other 
     clients  and  this is why they had the  defendant  sign 
     over  some shares.   COHN points out that these  shares 
     were essentially worthless and that the firm has  never 
     recovered the $10,000."

          As a matter of fact at the trial of this case COHN 
states that the money was advanced for the account of PAUL DANO 
and that he himself did not invest in the enterprise.  He denied 
any knowledge of the purpose of the stock except that it might 
have been for Russel Eldrige.  

          Before the Grand Jury COHN again testified that the 
money was put on PAUL DANO's account.  PAUL DANO, however, 
testified at Dupont's first trial he had no interest in Dupont's 
business and never went into business with him.
          The statements of DANO and COHN indicate that one or 
both of them committed perjury in their testimony in the various 
proceedings concerning Dupont.  Now COHN has changed his story 
for the probation report.  Yet the probation department accepts 
COHN story at face value.  The probation department also 
apparently accepted at face value COHN'S statement that it was 
the threat to children that caused him to file complaint in this 
case.  As a matter of fact, there is no evidence to defendant 
linking distribution of "Now East" to children.  Moreover, the 
District Attorney now concedes political forces of Lindon 
LaRouche were probably behind the publication of "Now East".  
Thus Mr. Dupont is being asked to take criminal responsibility 
for the actions for a political organization containing hundreds 
if not thousands of members who apparently according, to District 
Attorney's new version, were actively involved in the publication 
of "Now East."

          The probation report is extremely superficial, although 
it runs several pages.  It appears the Probation Department 
interviewed COHN, received a letter from COHN's partner Mr. Rosen 
and interviewed the defendant.  It makes caustic reference to his 
physical appearance (pg. 12) and the only other action taken was 
to verify his earnings for the past two years to be between 15 
and $18,000 total.
          Incarceration was recommended under the following 

          1.  Outrageous series of criminal harrassments 
     which created nuisances and embarrassment.

          2.  That Dupont caused Saxe, Bacon & Bolan to 
     suffer financial expenses.  

          3.   Distribution of "Now East" to children.

          Many of the harrassing actions claimed by COHN were not 
found by the jury to be defendant's responsiblity.  There's been 
no evidence of any financial loss to the COHN firm.  No evidence 
that defendant was personally responsible for distributing "Now 
East" to children or did he ever intended children to receive it.

          It should be also noted in this regard that in 
acquitting the defendant of criminal responsiblity for COUNT 
FIVE, the jury found the defendant to have a legitimate purpose 
in his call to Manufacture Hanover.  The contents of the call 
and, the fact that the defendant made the call were not disputed.  
The only thing disputed was the legitimated purpose of the call.  
Obviously, the probation department had ignored the implications 
of the defendant's acquittal to many of the charges in reaching 
its reccomendation.  Moreover, the probation department does not 
report upon the effects of the defendant's actions in Chicago or 
his conduct involving Universal Money Order.  There is no 
specification of what financial damage has caused the complaining 
witness and therefore, there is no way to answer such a charge.

                           POINT EIGHT


          The defendant was charged with two felony counts for 
which he was acquitted. Prior to his indictment, the District 
Attorney, according to Mr. Wilson, had been willing to accept a 
plea to a misdemeanor, but after indictment, because of a prior 
conviction ten years old, such a plea was not possible because of 
the felony charges. The defendant was on trial for six weeks with 
his attendance required in court on a daily basis. Effectively, 
although he slept at his home, he was incarcerated. 

          The length of the trial and the defendant's daily 
attendance thereat, are factors in mitigation of his sentence.


          The defendant has no record of violence, public 
interest demands that the defendant should receive a sentence of 
probation or a conditional discharge conditioned upon his seeking 
psychiatric care.

Dated:  New York, New York
        November 16, 1981

                                            JOHN C. KLOTZ
                                       Attorney for Defendant
                                     1350 Avenue of the Americas
                                         Twenty-fifth Floor
                                           (212)  664-0656

Contact: JOHN KLOTZ Return to Klotz Law Homepage