U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

74–635PDF 2012

THE U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT’S INADEQUATE

RESPONSE TO HUMAN RIGHTS CONCERNS IN

BOLIVIA: THE CASE OF AMERICAN JACOB

OSREICHER

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON AFRICA, GLOBAL HEALTH, 

AND HUMAN RIGHTS

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

JUNE 6, 2012

Serial No. 112–153

Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Affairs

(

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.foreignaffairs.house.gov/ or

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/

(II)

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS 

ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida, Chairman 

CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey 

DAN BURTON, Indiana 

ELTON GALLEGLY, California 

DANA ROHRABACHER, California 

DONALD A. MANZULLO, Illinois 

EDWARD R. ROYCE, California 

STEVE CHABOT, Ohio 

RON PAUL, Texas 

MIKE PENCE, Indiana 

JOE WILSON, South Carolina 

CONNIE MACK, Florida 

JEFF FORTENBERRY, Nebraska 

MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas 

TED POE, Texas 

GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida 

JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio 

BILL JOHNSON, Ohio 

DAVID RIVERA, Florida 

MIKE KELLY, Pennsylvania 

TIM GRIFFIN, Arkansas 

TOM MARINO, Pennsylvania 

JEFF DUNCAN, South Carolina 

ANN MARIE BUERKLE, New York 

RENEE ELLMERS, North Carolina 

ROBERT TURNER, New York 

HOWARD L. BERMAN, California 

GARY L. ACKERMAN, New York 

ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American 

Samoa 

BRAD SHERMAN, California 

ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York 

GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York 

RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri 

ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey 

GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia 

THEODORE E. DEUTCH, Florida 

DENNIS CARDOZA, California 

BEN CHANDLER, Kentucky 

BRIAN HIGGINS, New York 

ALLYSON SCHWARTZ, Pennsylvania 

CHRISTOPHER S. MURPHY, Connecticut 

FREDERICA WILSON, Florida 

KAREN BASS, California 

WILLIAM KEATING, Massachusetts 

DAVID CICILLINE, Rhode Island 

YLEEM D.S. POBLETE, Staff Director 

RICHARD J. KESSLER, Democratic Staff Director 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON AFRICA, GLOBAL HEALTH, AND HUMAN RIGHTS

CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey, Chairman 

JEFF FORTENBERRY, Nebraska 

TOM MARINO, Pennsylvania 

ANN MARIE BUERKLE, New York 

ROBERT TURNER, New York 

KAREN BASS, California 

RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri 

(III)

C O N T E N T S 

Page

WITNESSES 

Ms. Miriam Ungar, wife of Jacob Ostreicher ........................................................ 13

Ms. Chaya Gitty Weinberger, daughter of Jacob Ostreicher ............................... 25

Mr. Steve Moore, Special Agent, Federal Bureau of Investigations (retired) ..... 35

LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING 

The Honorable Karen Bass, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of California: 

Letter from Members of Congress to General Freddy Barsatti Tudela dated 

May 29, 2012 ..................................................................................................... 5

Prepared statement .............................................................................................. 7

Ms. Miriam Ungar: Prepared statement ............................................................... 17

Ms. Chaya Gitty Weinberger: Prepared statement ............................................... 28

Mr. Steve Moore: Prepared statement ................................................................... 40

APPENDIX 

Hearing notice .......................................................................................................... 60

Hearing minutes ...................................................................................................... 61

The Honorable Karen Bass: Material submitted for the record .......................... 62

(1)

THE U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT’S INADEQUATE 

RESPONSE TO HUMAN RIGHTS CONCERNS 

IN BOLIVIA: THE CASE OF AMERICAN 

JACOB OSREICHER 

WEDNESDAY, JUNE 6, 2012

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON AFRICA, GLOBAL HEALTH,

AND HUMAN RIGHTS, 

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS, 

Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 o’clock a.m., in 

room 2172 Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Christopher H. 

Smith (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. 

Mr. SMITH. The subcommittee will come to order, and I want to 

wish everybody a good morning. Thank you for joining us for this 

extremely important and timely hearing to examine the situation 

of Mr. Jacob Ostreicher, who has been imprisoned for over 1 year 

in Bolivia, and the involvement of the State Department in this 

case. 

Normally this subcommittee focuses on human rights issues in 

the context of whether foreign governments are respecting the 

rights of their own people. But today we are undertaking the sobering task of defending the human rights of one of our own fellow 

citizens. Mr. Ostreicher and his wife, Miriam Ungar, who is here 

with us today to testify on behalf of him, are from New York. His 

daughter, Chaya Weinberger, will also be testifying, and she is 

from New Jersey and a resident of my congressional district. She 

lives in Lakewood. 

They are part of a large family and a close-knit Orthodox Jewish 

community. It was actually Rabbi Aaron Kotler, the chief executive 

officer of Beth Medrash Govoha, the yeshiva, who first brought Mr. 

Ostreicher’s plight to my attention about 3 weeks ago. Human 

rights abuses that are happening to Mr. Ostreicher in Bolivia are 

being felt deeply and personally here in our own country. 

Our distinguished witnesses will provide compelling testimony on 

the facts of Mr. Ostreicher’s case and the abuses that he has suffered and continues to suffer. And we will also examine whether 

Mr. Ostreicher has been receiving the assistance that he should receive as a United States citizen abroad, with the purpose of 

ascertaining what should be done going forward. We will also do 

everything we can to correct the ongoing extreme injustice being 

perpetrated against Mr. Ostreicher and secure his freedom as 

quickly as possible. 

2

But this responsibility rests primarily with the U.S. Department 

of State. Our Embassy and consular affairs personnel are in-country, have direct and regular contact with host government officials, 

and have access to local information that is of critical importance 

to the safety and security of our citizens. 

For this reason, after having studied the information provided by 

Mr. Ostreicher’s family and Bolivian attorney as well as the various media reports, and knowing of his extremely precarious physical and mental health, I was deeply disturbed by our State Department’s report to this subcommittee on May 22nd that, ‘‘Embassy La Paz will continue to remain in close contact with Mr. 

Ostreicher and his family and will carefully monitor the progress 

of his case.’’

According to the State Department’s Country Reports on Human 

Rights Practices for 2011, ‘‘principal human rights problems’’ reported for Bolivia were ‘‘arbitrary or unlawful deprivation of life, 

arbitrary arrest or detention, and denial of a public, fair trial.’’ The 

executive summary goes on to list other human rights problems including harsh prison sentences and conditions, official corruption, 

and a lack of government transparency. The report further specifically references political and judicial corruption, a problem with violence among prisoners, pretrial detainees being held with convicted prisoners, and inadequate medical care in the prisons. 

When one has heard the testimony that will be presented at this 

hearing, which shows that all of these human rights abuses and 

more are implicated in this case, an overriding question is, ‘‘Where 

is the State Department?’’ When we are dealing with a country 

that has such serious human rights abuses, how can the State Department perceive its role as one of merely monitoring the case instead of advocating? 

Unfortunately, I am finding this baffling lack of responsiveness, 

one might even call it indifference, on the part of Embassy and consular personnel to be a disturbing pattern. It is certainly true that 

the State Department and our Foreign Service has many dedicated, 

talented and experienced personnel who are deeply committed to 

the service of our country, and who even risk their lives in the performance of that service. I have and will continue to highly commend them and give them my unqualified support. 

But within the past few years I have assisted constituents and 

residents of New Jersey facing grave crises with family members 

in Georgia, Brazil and now in Bolivia, who have turned to me when 

they were unable to obtain help from the State Department or local 

Embassy and Consular Affairs officials. In a world of increasing 

travel and international commerce, American citizens expect, and 

have a right to expect, American officials who represent them in 

any country to respond to their needs, most particularly in situations that threaten their safety, their security, and their lives. 

Being in close contact and ‘‘monitoring’’ does not begin to fulfill this 

expectation in a case that involves grave human rights abuses in 

a country such as Bolivia. 

These past 3 days, the Organization of American States held its 

42nd General Assembly in Cochabamba, Bolivia, with a focus on 

food security. I sent a letter to the Assistant Secretary for Western 

Hemisphere Affairs, Roberta Jacobson, who headed the U.S. deleVerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:38 Jul 24, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\AGH\060612\74635 HFA PsN: SHIRL
3

gation, asking her to publicly and assertively raise Mr. Ostreicher’s 

case at this event. Not only was it held in the country where a U.S. 

citizen is being denied his fundamental rights, but a topic of that 

event goes to the heart of the beneficial enterprise that Mr. 

Ostreicher was undertaking at the time of his arrest, substantially 

increasing rice production to the country and providing hundreds 

of new, well-paying jobs for its people. 

Unfortunately, Ms. Jacobson did not publicly mention Mr. 

Ostreicher during her time in Bolivia. The State Department informed congressional offices that she raised his case privately with 

the Foreign Minister who was present at the General Assembly. 

When he responded that it is not in his area of competence, she 

simply followed up with the request that he reach out to the Justice Minister about the case. Does anyone really think that this exchange will have any meaningful results? 

The OAS General Assembly afforded an ideal opportunity for Ms. 

Jacobson to laud Mr. Ostreicher’s successful efforts to increase rice 

production and provide local employment opportunities as a prime 

example of why governments need to address internal corruption 

and promote private, foreign enterprise. Bolivian President Evo 

Morales was asked during the media interview on May 31 about 

the extent to which he could guarantee the safety of foreign investments in Bolivia. He responded, ‘‘all of the firms that invest in Bolivia and comply with agreed conditions will be respected.’’ Are you 

kidding? 

Ms. Jacobson should have emphasized that unless and until socalled agreed conditions do not include submission to corrupt practices, and successful businessmen like Mr. Ostreicher are no longer 

victimized by the Bolivian Government and judicial processes, foreign investors will not direct their resources to Bolivia, and the 

country will not solve its food security and other governance issues. 

But even more importantly, Ms. Jacobson had the responsibility to 

advocate for Mr. Ostreicher’s freedom, simply because there is no 

evidence that has been submitted that any crime has been committed and his continued imprisonment is a human rights violation. 

I would have welcomed, as would other members of this panel, 

the opportunity to hear from Ms. Jacobson, or another knowledgeable State Department official, at this hearing as to their efforts on 

Mr. Ostreicher’s behalf. They declined. The U.S. State Department 

declined to come here today. But we are privileged to have the distinguished witnesses who did agree to join us today to examine this 

important case. 

Before we hear from them, I would like to give my colleagues on 

this subcommittee and some invited guests who are here today an 

opportunity to make opening comments, and without objection, 

after all of our subcommittee have been recognized, again I will 

recognize some of my distinguished colleagues from New York who 

have joined us today. 

I would like to now yield to our ranking member, Ms. Bass, for 

opening comments you might have. 

Ms. BASS. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, let me begin again by 

thanking you for holding this important hearing regarding Mr. 

Ostreicher. Allow me to express my deepest concern for Mr. 

4

Ostreicher and his family, who have endured a great deal since his 

June 2011 detention. 

As we are all aware, as of this Monday, Mr. Ostreicher has been 

held in detention for more than a year. And while he has only been 

preliminarily charged, what is clear is that his case continues to 

languish. There is also great concern over his physical and mental 

health which has become increasingly dire over the last several 

weeks. 

It is reported that three different judges have been assigned to 

Mr. Ostreicher’s case over the past year, and that there has been 

little, if any, meaningful progress toward opportunities to clear his 

name. The Congressional Research Service reports that nongovernmental groups suggest that more than 80 percent of prisoners in 

Bolivian prisons are awaiting sentencing. While the Bolivian justice system allows for up to 18 months before an individual is 

charged, it is my understanding that this is far from the norm and 

many cases far exceed this time frame. I hope the Bolivian justice 

system will move toward a fair, transparent and speedy trial. 

Mrs. Ungar, I understand that your husband has grown increasingly frustrated with this process and at present has cut off ties 

with our people on the ground. I encourage you and your husband 

to keep channels of communication open so that our diplomatic efforts lead to a speedy and fair end to this very serious situation. 

Let me be clear. We have not forgotten your husband. 

Mr. Chairman, with your permission I would like to submit for 

the record, a joint House-Senate letter by our fellow colleagues. 

Mr. SMITH. Without objection, so ordered. 

[The information referred to follows:]

5


74635d.eps
6

Ms. BASS. This letter calls upon the Bolivian Government to provide the opportunity for Mr. Ostreicher to post bail and to afford 

him due process under Bolivian international law standards. I 

quote from the letter, signed by my colleagues from New York, 

Representatives Nadler and Vela ́zquez and Senators Schumer and 

Gillebrand:

‘‘As you may be aware, Mr. Ostreicher’s detention is related to 

accusations of illegal profiting and association with criminal 

organizations. We understand that Mr. Ostreicher was preliminarily charged on June 4, 2011, and initially detained in a 

temporary holding facility at the Santa Cruz offices of the Federal counternarcotics police. In accordance with the June 4 judicial decision, Mr. Ostreicher was transferred to the 

Palmasola prison in Santa Cruz. It is our understanding that 

the United States Department of State has been in direct communication with the Bolivian Government regarding Mr. 

Ostreicher’s case, and we are appreciative of this continued 

dialogue. While we remain appreciative of the access the Government of Bolivia has provided American State Department 

officials, it is evident Mr. Ostreicher’s health has deteriorated 

over time and that bail in anticipation of a speedy trial is warranted in this case.’’

Mr. Ostreicher’s case appears fraught with inconsistencies, lack 

of transparency and other very concerning twists that have not permitted defense against various allegations. As my colleagues in the 

House and Senate have clearly called for, it is my sincere hope that 

the Bolivian Government moves expeditiously to set bail for Mr. 

Ostreicher, permits additional visits by private medical officials, 

and that a fair and speedy trial is initiated. 

Due process is enshrined in several human rights treaties and 

covenants. In one such instrument, the International Covenant on 

Civil and Political Rights, which came into force in 1976, and for 

which Bolivia is a party, reads as follows:

‘‘Anyone arrested or detained on a criminal charge shall be 

brought promptly before a judge or other officer authorized by 

law to exercise judicial power and shall be entitled to trial 

within a reasonable time or to release. It shall not be the general rule that persons awaiting trial shall be detained in custody, but release may be subject to guarantees to appear for 

trial at any other stage of the judicial proceedings and should 

occasion arise for execution of the judgment.’’

Under this specific circumstance and context, Bolivia should live 

up to its obligation under international law. It is my hope that as 

Mr. Ostreicher prepares for what I understand is a hearing on 

June 11, that these matters will be fully addressed and he will be 

set free to rejoin his family and put this ordeal behind him. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I look forward to hearing from 

today’s witnesses. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Bass follows:]

7


74635e-1.eps
8


74635e-2.eps
9

Mr. SMITH. Thank you very much, Ms. Bass. And now we will 

turn to Mr. Turner, gentleman from New York. 

Mr. TURNER. Chairman Smith, Ranking Member Bass, thank you 

for calling this hearing today. In my short time serving in the 

House, Chairman Smith, I have seen you as a model for advocacy 

on behalf of political justice around the world, and today is another 

good example. I would also like to thank Jacob’s wife and daughter 

for testifying today. I can’t imagine your anguish, and I applaud 

your courage. I also want to thank former FBI agent, Stephen 

Moore, who has had a distinguished career with the FBI both domestically and in some of the world’s most dangerous places. 

Here is what we know. Jacob Ostreicher, husband, father and 

grandfather, has been unlawfully imprisoned in Bolivia for nearly 

a year without being charged. He lives in a prison town where the 

guards monitor the exterior but internally there is no supervision, 

a condition which puts Jacob in fear for his life daily. He needs 

medical attention and has been repeatedly denied it. What we don’t 

know is why he was denied his freedom by the same judge who had 

previously cleared him of any wrongdoing. What we don’t know is 

what is being done by the State Department to resolve the issue 

and ensure Jacob’s safe return to the United States and his family. 

What we don’t know is what is meant by private discussions by the 

State Department. While these private discussions take place, Mr. 

Ostreicher remains in prison in subhuman conditions and without 

just cause. 

According to the State Department’s 2010 human rights report 

on Bolivia, I quote, ‘‘The principle human rights violations reported 

were killings and torture by security forces, harsh prison conditions, allegations of arbitrary arrests and detention, and ineffective, 

overburdened and corrupt judiciary.’’ Does the State Department 

not believe its own report? Does it not think it is real? One would 

think that this quoted sentence, which appears at the very beginning of the report, this would be cause for alarm when an American is in prison for 1 day, let alone 1 year. 

So I ask, when will the State Department reunite Jacob with his 

wife, his five children, his 11 grandchildren? This is not rhetorical. 

His family deserves a response, and I will work with the chairman 

and my colleagues together to get the answers they deserve. 

Thank you. I yield back. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you very much, Mr. Turner. I would like to 

now yield, and thank him for joining us on the panel, Mr. Nadler. 

Mr. NADLER. Thank you, Chairman Smith and Ranking Member 

Bass. I appreciate your holding this hearing today and allowing me 

to participate, though I am not a member of this committee. 

I am here today out of great concern for my constituent, Jacob 

Ostreicher. Like me, Mr. Ostreicher’s family, friends and his community in Brooklyn are very concerned about his situation. As you 

know, in June of last year, Mr. Ostreicher was arrested in Bolivia 

on allegations of money laundering and associating with criminal 

organizations. More than a year later, he is still being held in a Bolivian jail with no formal charges having been filed against him despite his insistence that he is innocent. Mr. Ostreicher is being 

held in a private cell in the Palmasola prison, a facility that is notoriously violent, according to reports. He has been active in advoVerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:38 Jul 24, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\AGH\060612\74635 HFA PsN: SHIRL
10

cating for his cause through the news media, and several media reports regarding his situation have been released this year. 

On May 25, Mr. Ostreicher was given the threat of a disciplinary 

penalty by prison authorities for reports that were released about 

the condition of the prison and media stories about his case that 

fostered ‘‘discontent among the prison population,’’ as the penalty 

document puts it. The penalty could result in his movement to a 

more dangerous part of the prison for 15 days, and it potentially 

could be used against him in an upcoming hearing. This penalty 

has not yet been carried out and Mr. Ostreicher’s lawyer is appealing it. The Bolivian authorities must know that the carrying out of 

this penalty would not be acceptable. 

Since he was first imprisoned I have been in frequent contact 

with the State Department about the status of Mr. Ostreicher’s 

case and his condition. The State Department has communicated 

with the Bolivian Government regarding his situation and to express the frustration of Mr. Ostreicher and our Government regarding his treatment. That work must continue until we see positive 

results. Last month, after meeting Mr. Ostreicher’s wife, Miriam, 

I wrote a letter to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton asking for 

help communicating to the Bolivian Government the necessity of 

giving Mr. Ostreicher a reasonable opportunity to post bail and access to a swift trial. I have also written a letter with my colleagues 

in the House and Senate to the Bolivian Government asking for the 

same. 

Bolivian law has its own standards that allow a prisoner to be 

held for 18 months on preliminary charges in a pretrial phase, if 

they think there is reasonable basis to believe that a crime was 

committed. However, holding someone for this long without a fair 

trial, or at the very least the opportunity for bail, violates basic 

standards of fairness and human rights. Mr. Ostreicher is entitled 

to a fair trial. He is entitled to see the evidence against him, to 

have the opportunity to present evidence in his own behalf and to 

have that case heard promptly and impartially. Our job will not be 

done until he has been accorded the full measure of the simple justice to which he and we are all entitled. 

I especially am concerned about the frequent postponement of 

hearings in this case. Out of 15 judicial hearings scheduled for Mr. 

Ostreicher, only three have actually taken place. In addition, after 

a judge ordered Mr. Ostreicher freed on bail in September, the 

judge later reversed his position just before being promoted to another judicial position. Mr. Ostreicher has not been given another 

opportunity to post bail. A hearing regarding Mr. Ostreicher’s eligibility for bail is currently scheduled for next week, June 11th. 

I am here today in part to make sure the Bolivian Government 

is aware that our Government at a high level is calling for due 

process of law and a swift and fair trial for Mr. Ostreicher, and is 

keeping a very close watch on what is happening. Right now Mr. 

Ostreicher is on a hunger strike to protest his imprisonment. As a 

result, he is physically weak and his family is concerned about his 

health. His health and safety must continue to be monitored. We 

need everyone, Members of Congress, officials in the executive 

branch in the State Department and other interested parties to 

11

keep their eyes on that prize and keep up the pressure on the Bolivian Government. 

It is important for everyone to remember our goal, making sure 

Mr. Ostreicher is provided fair treatment and basic due process. 

They must be made to understand that we will not stand by and 

simply accept the treatment that he has received to date. Pressure 

must be applied to the Bolivian Government and its justice system 

to get this man and his family out of the terrible limbo they are 

in by ordering a speedy trial and a fair opportunity to be free on 

bail during this process. I hope this hearing will serve to do just 

that, to keep the pressure on the Bolivian Government and demonstrate how important Mr. Ostreicher and his situation are to important U.S. Government officials. 

Chairman Smith and Ranking Member Bass, again I want to 

thank you both for holding this hearing and allowing me to take 

part. I yield back the balance of my time. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Nadler. I would like to now yield, 

with such time as you may consume, to Ms. Vela ́zquez. 

Ms. VELA ́ ZQUEZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member, for 

holding this important hearing and for allowing me to participate. 

Mr. Chairman, Jacob Ostreicher’s case is a stark reminder of the 

importance of due process in our legal system. The right to a fair 

and speedy trial is a fundamental principle in American society. 

Our founders recognized that without this cornerstone of American 

law, the government could arrest and hold citizens indefinitely. It 

has now been 370 days since Jacob was originally arrested. Yet, he 

has not been charged. The prosecution has not even presented any 

evidence of his guilt. While, initially, Jacob was to be released on 

bail, that decision was revoked. The judges in the case have been 

removed and currently no judge is presiding. 

Meanwhile, Jacob remains locked up at Palmasola prison in 

Santa Cruz, Bolivia. That notorious facility was designed to hold 

1,000 prisoners, but is currently home to 3,500 people. Unlike U.S. 

facilities, this prison is essentially run by the prisoners. Guards 

provide food and make sure prisoners do not escape, but do nothing 

to maintain order within the prison’s walls. Reports suggest that 

gangs control life inside the prison. At least once a month there is 

a suicide reported, and critics suggest many of these deaths may 

actually be murders. Jacob has undertaken a hunger strike to protest his unjust treatment, and there are now very real health concerns about his continued detention. 

While Jacob’s case presents important issues about how the 

United States protects its citizens abroad, we sometimes forget the 

human dimension to these cases. We should keep in mind Jacob is 

not only a businessman. He is also a Brooklyn native and a pillar 

in our local community. He is a devoted husband and the father 

of five children. He and his wife are blessed with 11 grandchildren. 

Today, I suspect we will hear testimony from his family, not only 

about the legal status of Jacob’s case, but also about the type of 

man he is and what his family has endured throughout this ordeal. 

Equally important, it is critical that we understand what the 

State Department is doing on behalf of the Ostreichers. Today, it 

is my hope that Jacob’s family can share with us their experience 

of working with the State Department. I want to know what steps 

12

the State Department has taken that have already been effective 

and, more importantly, what more can be done to ensure Jacob 

sees justice. 

How the United States protects the rights of its citizens who are 

unjustly detained abroad goes to the core of our values as a nation. 

The way we respond to nations that ignore fundamental legal and 

human rights reflects on all of us. It is my hope that this hearing 

will bring additional attention to Jacob’s case and illuminate what 

additional steps our Government can take in pursuing justice on 

his behalf. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I yield back. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Ms. Vela ́zquez, for your statement and 

for being here. 

I would like to now invite to the witness table our three distinguished witnesses for this afternoon. And again I would note, the 

U.S. Department of State was invited. We will invite them again 

at any time they would like to come and give a presentation and 

accounting as to their advocacy or the lack thereof, but they have 

been invited and they failed to show. 

Beginning first with Ms. Miriam Ungar who is the wife of Mr. 

Jacob Ostreicher, as we will learn from her testimony she has visited Mr. Ostreicher in Bolivia numerous times both prior to and 

after his arrest. She has gone from having a normal, happy life as 

a resident of Brooklyn, New York, to being a lead advocate for her 

husband in prison almost 4,000 miles away in a country with a different language, culture, and an incomprehensible disregard for 

fundamental human rights and legal due process. She is serving to 

help her husband maintain his physical well being and mental sanity in horrendous prison conditions, including assisting him to follow his observances as an Orthodox Jew. Ms. Ungar, your courage 

and your fidelity to your husband during this extraordinarily difficult ordeal are to be highly commended and we absolutely praise 

you for that, and it is truly a privilege to have you testify before 

the subcommittee today. 

We will then hear from Chaya Weinberger, another courageous 

family member who is joining us this morning. Chaya Weinberger 

is the daughter of Mr. Ostreicher, of course, and that is why she 

is here. Ms. Weinberger is married and the mother of five small, 

beautiful children whose picture we will see during the course of 

her testimony. She is a resident of Lakewood, New Jersey, and I 

have had the honor of representing her. 

Ms. Weinberger has also visited her father in the notorious 

Palmasola prison in Bolivia, and has attended several of his hearings. In addition to the pain of her father’s unjust incarceration 

and the frustration with repeatedly postponed court hearings, Ms. 

Weinberger has the additional burden of trying to hide from her 

children the reason for their grandfather’s extended absence. It was 

not easy for Ms. Weinberger to agree to testify at this hearing, but 

we are deeply appreciative for her willingness to do so on her father’s behalf. 

We will then hear from Mr. Steve Moore, who served as a special 

FBI agent and supervisory special agent for 25 years, retiring in 

2008. Mr. Moore led the investigations of many high-profile crimes 

in Los Angeles including the first ever conviction for an anthrax 

13

threat, and the Buford Furrow shooting murder spree at a Jewish 

community center. He spent several years on SWAT, was trained 

as a sniper and served as the undercover agent on a critical espionage investigation. 

Mr. Moore was the case agent for the Los Angeles 9/11 investigation, and later chosen to supervise all al-Qaeda investigations for 

Los Angeles FBI. In 2003, Mr. Moore stood up the FBI squad in 

charge of responding to acts of terrorism against the U.S. in Asia 

and Pakistan including the bombings of the U.S. Consulate in Karachi and the JW Marriott Hotel in Jakarta. He established a liaison and worked closely with the CIA and U.S. State Department 

in several countries, conducting investigations out of at least six 

U.S. Embassies. Mr. Moore also served as a term assistant legal attache at the U.S. Embassy in Nassau, Bahamas, during the summer of 2004. 

In his retirement, Mr. Moore has voluntarily undertaken to use 

the skills and considerable extensive experience he has acquired as 

an FBI special agent to help exonerate Americans wrongly incarcerated abroad including Amanda Knox, who was convicted in 

2009, in Italy, of murdering her roommate. In this capacity he went 

to Bolivia in early April 2012, to visit Mr. Ostreicher and to investigate his case. 

So again, thank you, all three, and thank you, Mr. Moore, for 

your service to our country, which has been extraordinary. 

Ms. Miriam Ungar, if you could begin. 

STATEMENT OF MS. MIRIAM UNGAR, WIFE OF JACOB 

OSTREICHER 

Ms. UNGAR. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, members of the committee. My name is Miriam Ungar and I am the wife of Jacob 

Ostreicher. Some members may think as a wife I may not be objective in the case of my husband. Although I live in agony every day 

wondering if Jacob will live to the next, I will not share my opinion 

on any issues that I present to you today, rather, I will just state 

the facts. 

I have witnessed these facts myself. I was in Bolivia from June 

12, 2011 until October 23. I was in Bolivia several times prior to 

Jacob’s arrest and have been back several times since. I am here 

to tell you that my husband has been incarcerated on unsubstantiated accusations for more than 12 months. He has yet to be formally charged and has proven his innocence in a court of law. 

Every day that he remains in prison his human rights are being 

violated. 

Jacob went to Bolivia in December 2010 to take over management of a rice company. The first harvest under Jacob’s management produced 50 million pounds of rice. This high volume was 

never previously produced in Bolivia by one company, and it was 

only 10 percent of the projected amount the company would 

produce in the next 3 years. 

The Government proceeded to investigate the properties of the 

company and realized that one of the properties was previously 

owned by a man who lived in Bolivia for the past 15 years. This 

man was wanted in Brazil in the 1990s, but did not have a criminal record in Bolivia. Jacob had nothing to do with this man and 

14

was not aware of his prior history. This was the excuse the prosecutors used to gain access to all the assets of the company and to 

then arrest Jacob on June 3, 2011. 

At Jacob’s arraignment, prosecutors alleged that Jacob was part 

of a criminal organization based on claims that the company’s main 

investor, Andre Zolty, was wanted in Switzerland. Since Jacob had 

power of attorney from Andre Zolty for purposes of making decisions on behalf of the business, the prosecutor claimed this was 

proof of criminal organization. The prosecutor also alleged that the 

money invested was illegally obtained and resulted in illicit gains. 

The prosecutors knew this was not true. They had seen documentation previously proving that all the money invested in the business 

was cleared through the Central Bank of Bolivia. 

The judge did not request proof of any of these allegations and 

ordered Jacob to be sent to Palmasola prison, one of Bolivia’s most 

notorious prisons. The judge’s order constituted an illegal act because according to Bolivian law sufficient evidence must be submitted to a judge at the arraignment before an arrest can be made. 

Before being sent to Palmasola, Jacob was thrown into a holding 

cell and was kept there for 5 days. 

After getting all the documents necessary to prove Jacob’s innocence, I traveled to Bolivia to present the documents to the attorney we hired to defend Jacob. At first we were unable to get a 

hearing scheduled because the judges were all going on vacation for 

the month of July. In August, we were told we couldn’t get a hearing scheduled because the transcript of the June 4 arraignment 

was not completed. Finally, a hearing was scheduled, not one but 

many. I will list them for you. September 9, September 14, September 23. This one actually commenced. 

At this hearing, our lawyer presented documentation to prove 

that Jacob was not a flight risk. Bolivian law states that in order 

to be released on bail prior to trial, a prisoner should present proof 

of a family, a business and a domicile. In addition, the attorney 

presented documentation proving that the money invested in Bolivia was legally obtained. The money was sent from bank to bank, 

no cash. The lawyer also presented the origin of the money that 

was sent to Bolivia. Certified copies of all transfers were submitted 

to the court. The attorney also presented a letter from the Swiss 

Federal police that stated Andre Zolty was not under investigation 

in Switzerland. The attorney claimed that by submitting these documents and proving Jacob’s innocence, the case would be dismissed. 

Based on all the evidence submitted, the judge ordered Jacob’s 

release on bail, and due to paperwork and procedural reasons 

Jacob had to stay in prison until they were completed. Six days 

later the judge revoked his decision, an unprecedented move in Bolivia. We appealed the judge’s annulment. The appeal was finally 

heard on December 9, after a couple of more postponements. The 

appellate court ordered the judge to explain within 48 hours why 

he revoked his decision of release. 

The scheduled hearings for this explanation were December 14, 

it was postponed, December 22, it was postponed. Finally, on January 4, 2012, 4 weeks after the appellate court ordered a hearing, 

the judge gave a reason for the revocation of his decision, and I 

15

quote him, ‘‘I overstepped my boundaries by commenting on the 

evidence submitted.’’ A few weeks later this judge was promoted to 

the appellate court. This meant we had to start over, file for a 

hearing again and submit the same documents all over again. More 

hearings were scheduled and postponed. January 16, suspended. 

January 25, suspended. February 24, suspended. March 12, hearing proceeds but is recessed for 1 week. March 21, suspended. 

March 29, suspended. April 2, the judge recuses himself from the 

case. May 15, hearing is suspended again. Our next hearing is now 

scheduled for June 11. 

All of the excuses for the postponements were illegal. At every 

scheduled hearing we were required to notify the Minister of Government. At first, the Minister of Government didn’t want to accept 

the notifications. This was the excuse they used to postpone some 

of the hearings. After we forcefully notified the Minister of Government of the scheduled hearings, they would postpone them with 

the excuse that they wanted to attend but were unable to. This is 

illegal under Bolivian law. A lift of detention hearing must proceed 

even if the notified parties are not present. 

While all of these hearings were being postponed, on December 

21, 2011, all 50 million pounds of rice in the facilities disappeared. 

It took several hundreds of trailer loads close to 3 weeks to remove 

this amount of rice from the storage facilities. Amazingly, no one 

in Bolivia knows where the rice is. Our lawyer requested an investigation. Arrest warrants were issued on January 9, 2012, for three 

people involved in this heist, one of whom was a government employee. To date, these people have not been found. No one in Bolivia is talking about the disappearance of 50 million pounds of rice 

worth more than $18 million. Three people guilty of theft, known 

by the government, cannot be found, yet Jacob, an innocent man, 

languishes in prison. Coincidentally, the 3-year ban on rice exports 

was lifted in March. 

The ride to the courtroom by bus is 1 hour, and the bus is packed 

full and extremely hot. Once the inmates arrive in the courtroom 

they are stuffed into a holding cell in the subbasement of a courthouse and kept waiting for hours in extreme heat and without 

fresh air. The prisoners are kept in a cell until they are called to 

the courtroom. Jacob would always come into the courtroom 

drenched in sweat, his lips would be caked and dry. There were 

times when Jacob begged the lawyer to make arrangements so he 

wouldn’t have to attend his own hearings. But this was not possible, as a prisoner must always be present. We were never told in 

advance that the hearing would be suspended. He went through 

this distress every single time. 

It is horrific that Jacob has been in a prison for more than a year 

despite the fact that he has proven and a judge has recognized his 

innocence in a court of law. Worse yet, flying in the face of presumption of innocence, the prosecution has not proven their allegations at any of these hearings. Moreover, just last week Jacob received a notification. A penalty was imposed on Jacob because he 

spoke to local media in Bolivia and the United States. He received 

a 15-day penalty. Penalties usually means the prisoners are moved 

to Chonchocorito, a prison where the worst criminals are sent, 

where death is a regular occurrence. 

16

The devastation this has wrought on our parents, our children 

and our grandchildren is indescribable. How do you explain to children that their grandfather is in a prison but he didn’t do anything 

wrong? How is Jacob supposed to go on living knowing he has done 

nothing wrong and his freedom has been stolen from him? Jacob 

has been on a hunger strike since April 15. He has lost 60 pounds. 

He is frail and weak, emaciated and dejected. Our attorney filed a 

request to the judge to transfer him to a hospital, but the judge is 

refusing to sign this request. Does our Government want to walk 

an innocent American citizen out of this prison or do they prefer 

to carry them out? 

In summary, Mr. Chairman, Jacob’s human rights have been violated with every postponement, every denial and every minute he 

remains in that prison. Our Government has failed to protect its 

citizen. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to appear before 

you today. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Ungar follows:]

17


74635a-1.eps
18


74635a-2.eps
19


74635a-3.eps
20


74635a-4.eps
21


74635a-5.eps
22


74635a-6.eps
23


74635a-7.eps
24


74635a-8.eps
25

Mr. SMITH. Ms. Ungar, thank you so very much for your testimony and for the fervor and the passion that you bring as well as 

the very, very carefully articulated information. I think that is very 

helpful, and hopefully both the State Department and the officials 

in Bolivia are listening because this is the beginning not the end 

of this committee, this subcommittee’s intervention. Had I, and I 

am sure others, known about this earlier we would have been on 

top of this. So thank you so much. Jacob would be very proud of 

the testimony you have provided. 

Ms. UNGAR. Thank you. 

Mr. SMITH. I would like to now ask Ms. Weinberger if she would 

proceed. 

STATEMENT OF MS. CHAYA GITTY WEINBERGER, DAUGHTER 

OF JACOB OSTREICHER 

Ms. WEINBERGER. Good morning. Thank you, Chairman Smith, 

and the other members of the subcommittee for scheduling this 

hearing. A hearing like this has been long overdue, and I am very 

thankful that my father’s case is finally getting the attention it deserves. 

My name is Chaya Weinberger, and although I find it very difficult to speak about such a personal matter, I do so for my father, 

Jacob Ostreicher, who is an upstanding American citizen begging 

his country to intervene on his behalf. He, together with all those 

who love him and want him home are waiting. We are waiting to 

see the demonstration of liberty on which our country is based 

upon. We are anticipating seeing justice emerge. We are hoping 

that our country won’t let us down. That the U.S. Government will 

do more than monitor the case, as the American Embassy in La 

Paz, Bolivia, has been telling us for the past 12 months. Monitoring 

is not enough. The situation has gone from bad to worse and we 

have not seen the State Department respond effectively. 

My father is an innocent man. He has over 1,000 documents attesting to that. The Bolivians have not charged him with any 

crime, for there is no crime to charge him with. When his first 

hearing was scheduled many family members traveled to Bolivia to 

attend the hearing. They came from England, Canada, and the 

United States. The courtroom was filled to capacity with loved 

ones. The shock and devastation when the judge decided to postpone the hearing was evident on our faces. We were outraged that 

we would have to return home without actually attending the hearing. Several other family members traveled to Bolivia for the next 

scheduled hearing. That hearing was postponed as well. I had a 

hard time controlling my emotions and burst into uncontrollable 

tears. My father tried to console me but wasn’t successful. I would 

have to travel back home because I left five little children, and I 

was distraught that I had to leave my father behind. This scenario 

repeated itself when I returned for a third time in March to attend 

yet another scheduled hearing. 

In the meantime, my father is still sitting in the Palmasola prison, where he is clinging onto his sanity. He is on the verge of collapse both mentally and physically. On my third visit to the prison, 

he had changed so drastically that I could hardly recognize the 

gaunt skeleton of a man that faintly resembled my father, who had 

26

always been so strong. During the span of 5 weeks, between my 

second and third visit, he had weakened so drastically and was so 

agitated that he could not longer focus on reading more than one 

paragraph at a time. He stared uncomprehending when I asked 

him a question, and appeared totally confused. I was very alarmed 

when I saw him shaking with his head and his eyes taking on a 

hazy, vacant look. I have not seen him since his hunger strike, 

which he began on April 15, and I cannot bear to imagine his 

present condition. 

My father’s lawyers have been urging the judge to sign an order 

that would grant him permission to be admitted into a hospital. 

The judge refuses to sign the order. The U.S. State Department 

and the U.S. Embassy tell us that my father first needs to be seen 

by the prison doctor. But there is no licensed doctor in prison. The 

doctor is a prisoner as the other prisoners are the guards and 

cooks. I am extremely anxious that my father’s medical needs be 

taken care of; his situation is life threatening. 

My father’s lawyers tell us that they do not understand why no 

one in the U.S. Government is taking any drastic steps to secure 

his release. We do not understand it either. How can my father be 

allowed to suffer one more day in that misery? The American people are watching you now. They want to see how safe they really 

are. When innocent Americans are jailed abroad, will their country 

fight for her citizens, or will she abandon them in their time of 

need? 

Chairman Smith and members of the subcommittee, we are 

tired. We are exhausted from months of appealing to various Members of Congress and other U.S. Government officials with no response. It has been a frustrating, painful year and we are at the 

end of our strength. We beg of you, Congress, and the U.S. State 

Department, to act now. Soon it may be too late. The only one who 

can get my father out of this nightmare is the U.S. Government, 

with the help of the Almighty. 

There are many people heartbroken about my father’s condition. 

He is not just my father. He is also a beloved husband, grandfather, uncle, brother and very devoted son and grandson. His 

many friends whom he has always helped are deeply concerned 

about his welfare and have him at the forefront of their hearts and 

minds. His entire extended family, who have missed him terribly 

throughout the year and especially during the recent holidays, ask 

about him constantly. 

When will he be coming home? That is the question that my father’s 97-year-old grandmother, who has unfortunately found out 

about his terrible situation, asks every day amid tears. His predicament weighs heavily on her heart, affecting her health. At this late 

stage in her life when she should be experiencing the joy of family 

and children, she is instead spending her days weeping for her imprisoned grandson. 

My dear grandmother who is with us today, is a Holocaust survivor, and is completely devastated about her son’s dire situation. 

She suffers in silence every day, for she cannot share her heartache 

with her elderly husband since he has a heart condition, and hearing that his son is in jail in faraway Bolivia for a crime he did not 

commit would destroy him. When he constantly asks about my faVerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:38 Jul 24, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\AGH\060612\74635 HFA PsN: SHIRL
27

ther, we are compelled to lie, telling him that only passport difficulties are preventing him from coming home. My grandmother prays 

every day that her son come home before he finds out. 

My children are hurt. They assume that their grandfather is 

away on an extended business trip and believe that they are not 

as important to him as his business. They cannot be more wrong, 

but I cannot assuage their feelings by telling them the real reason 

their grandfather is away. They are traumatized enough. My 7-

year-old niece told her mother that she already forgot what her 

grandfather looks like. Not only can we not tell the children about 

their grandfather’s situation, but I cannot tell my father what the 

children are thinking. It would be so painful for him to hear that 

they are hurt and he could do nothing to help them. 

We need him home. Every day that he is gone brings a new 

agony, a new question from our children as to his whereabouts. 

The grandchildren hear their parents conversing in hushed, scared 

voices, and they are confused. They are confused and hurting. Kids 

in school ask them many questions about their grandfather and 

they remain silent. They don’t know what to say and neither do we. 

Who can find words to explain this madness? Who can tell little 

children that their grandfather is being held hostage in a third 

world country for no reason at all? I cannot. And so I appeal to you, 

the Government of the country I have always loved, Let me tell my 

children and the world a different story, one that will show them 

the greatness of their homeland, an advocator of liberty. Let me 

tell them a story that has a happy ending. Let me tell them that 

their grandfather is finally coming home. 

I would again like to thank the subcommittee for arranging this 

hearing especially Chairman Chris Smith, for being the first elected official to have his office meet with me as soon as he found out 

about this travesty of justice. Our community, family and friends 

will never forget that he brought my father’s case to the forefront, 

and we will be forever grateful. Thank you for giving us hope. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Weinberger follows:]

28


74635b-1.eps
29


74635b-2.eps
30


74635b-3.eps
31


74635b-4.eps
32


74635b-5.eps
33


74635b-6.eps
34


74635b-7.eps
35

Mr. SMITH. Ms. Weinberger, thank you very much for your very 

eloquent and passionate testimony as well. Thank you so much. 

Mr. Moore? 

STATEMENT OF MR. STEVE MOORE, SPECIAL AGENT, 

FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATIONS (RETIRED) 

Mr. MOORE. Chairman Smith, Ranking Member Bass, I sincerely 

appreciate your efforts on this matter and for your interest in my 

observations on this. I am not being paid to be here today. I am 

not in any way, shape or form, an employee of the Ostreicher family. I don’t do this for a living. I believe that accepting money for 

what I am doing would very likely devalue my opinion in some peoples’ eyes. I have no motive here except that I seem to have found 

myself in retirement with a skill set and experiences which can 

help people, and I would like to do that. 

I would like to take a few moments and peel off the polite diplomatic veneer of what is going on in Bolivia right now. It is so easy 

to say, well, this is a country going through their own judicial procedure, and therefore we have to allow this to go through. But in 

reality, there is no judicial procedure going on here. This is a statesponsored kidnaping. In my position, the only stock I have in trade 

is my credibility. I was involved in the Amanda Knox case, and 

after her exoneration I got a lot of requests to become involved in 

cases. The first time I am wrong about a case is the last time I am 

of any value to anybody who is in Jacob’s situation. It is crucial to 

me that I don’t make a mistake. 

I asked the family to give me all the documentation they had, all 

the court documents. I went to Bolivia. I spent 3 days with Jacob. 

I talked to members of the former Government of Bolivia, who were 

conveniently in prison. I talked to attorneys who represented the 

prisoners. I talked to prisoners, one of which asked me to smuggle 

out a video of him making a payment to a judge, and I tried. It 

was the unanimous, the unanimous point of every single person 

that there is no judicial procedure to occur. 

These hearings that they talk about are happening for one reason and one reason only, there is no evidence. So if you have a 

hearing you are going to be exposed for having no evidence. I have 

looked at this case from every possible direction, every angle, and 

I admit to you that because it is such a complicated case, an initial 

look at it, a quick brief on a one-pager can make it look like, well, 

there could be smoke. There could be fire. I did 25 years in the 

FBI. I never lost a conviction when we brought somebody into 

court. There is no evidence that a crime occurred. First they are 

going to have to prove that a crime occurred, and then they are 

going to have to prove that this innocent man from New York had 

something to do with it. 

This is as I say, simply a state-sponsored kidnaping. They are 

playing six degrees of separation with Jacob. I am sure you are familiar with how that works. If you took all the people I was acquainted with and everyone they were acquainted with, you could 

quickly get me to the President. With Jacob, they found that he 

had hired somebody who happened to know somebody who the Bolivians are saying was a drug dealer. Imagine that, somebody in 

Bolivia being a drug dealer. 

36

One thing you should know about this prison is that there are 

no big-time drug dealers in it. You know why? Because they can 

afford to buy their way out. One prisoner I was talking to said it 

is a very democratic system because if you don’t have money they 

don’t charge you as much to get out. Jacob has a lot of money in 

their eyes. I interviewed an attorney, who was there to represent 

one of his clients, while I was at Palmasola. He told me that Jacob 

has four things going against him. Number one, he is an American. 

Number two, he is White. Number three, he is a Jew. And number 

four, he has money. This is an attorney. I asked him what Jacob 

should do and he said, pay as quickly as possible. 

The State Department has heroically raised the issue over and 

over with the Government. Had I, when I was working kidnaping, 

raised the issue with the kidnappers, the family would not have 

been satisfied. The State Department has not held a single meeting 

for the purpose of discussing Jacob. Whenever they have discussed 

Jacob with the Bolivian Government it has been at a regularly 

scheduled meeting. They have never mentioned his name in public, 

not once. 

I need to tell you that I worked at an Embassy for a short time. 

I worked out of Embassies on at least six different bombing cases, 

Jakarta, Karachi, Islamabad. The people of the State Department 

are by and large good people, many of them are brave. I can remember after the car bombing at the Embassy at Karachi, I 

worked with a regional security officer in Karachi and I couldn’t 

help but notice that he still had scars and stitches in his face from 

the glass, and he was at the Embassy helping people get out of the 

country. They are good, good people, but they have a problem with 

their system. 

The system is such that there is a disincentive for anybody in 

State to help an American. It works like this. Your annual performance appraisals and your general career track are determined by 

how cordial your relationship is with the host government. There 

is no box to check saying, have you gotten any Americans out of 

jail? All the boxes are about what you have done to get along with 

that country. They actually go and interview the people that you 

interact with in the host country. What do you think your performance appraisal is going to go if you anger that government, if you 

accuse them of things that they are doing? Your performance appraisal is going to tank and your next assignment is not going to 

be in Italy, which you had hoped, it is going to be in Sierra Leone. 

There is no incentive to help an American. There is a strong disincentive. 

I speak to you as somebody who spent 20 years in the Federal 

Government doing what I thought were important things. Doesn’t 

matter how important the thing is. There was a saying in the Bureau that some people used, I am not proud of it, but ‘‘big cases, 

big problems; small cases, small problems; no cases, no problems.’’ 

In the Federal system, at least in the bureaucratic part of the Federal system, you are not rewarded for great deeds as much as you 

are penalized for mistakes and problems. The only sane career 

strategy is to avoid problems. The more great things you try to 

achieve, the more risk you have of stubbing your toe and ending 

up in Dakar and not Rome. 

37

In a written statement to Congress last year, Secretary of State 

Hillary Clinton declared, ‘‘The State Department has no greater responsibility than the protection of U.S. citizens overseas, particularly when Americans find themselves in the custody of a foreign 

government facing an unfamiliar and at times unfair legal system.’’ 

The State Department has no greater responsibility than protecting 

U.S. citizens overseas when they find themselves in a foreign government facing unfamiliar and at times unfair legal system. 

If you were to ask my son today what his number one priority 

in life is he would say, I need to get classes set up for next semester. I need to get my car fixed. If I were to tell you by what I observe what his big priorities are, it would be working on that car 

and fixing his computer. Classes might not have much to do with 

it. 

If you were to look at the State Department today, I would hazard to guess that protecting Americans in the custody of foreign 

governments from an unfamiliar and at times unfair legal system 

is not in their top 100. There is a reason for that. Protecting Americans who are unfairly charged contradicts and complicates and 

makes more difficult their actual, their de facto number one, two 

and every number through 100 priorities. I find no joy in saying 

these things. I admire the people in the State Department. I do not 

think they are evil people or uncaring people. But the fact is clear 

that the bureaucracy that they have established is not designed to 

help Americans and provides a disincentive. 

When I was in the Bahamas as a legal attache, one of the first 

things that I was told was that my responsibility as the law enforcement representative of that Embassy was to maintain cordial 

relationships with the Bahamian police, with the Bermudan police. 

I covered from Bermuda to Grenada. My job was to stay friendly 

with these people. Fortunately, I never had to deal with an American unjustly incarcerated; usually they were nice enough to earn 

their way into jail. Usually it was people who had missed their 

boat and woke up after a bender in a Bahamian jail, or people who 

had gone too far away from the beach in search of prostitution or 

drugs, only to be set upon by gangs who were looking for Americans who are looking for prostitution or drugs. But it was clear 

that there was not an incentive for me to go to bat for Americans. 

I think that it is crucial that we examine what is behind State 

Department actions. I was in Palmasola prison with Jacob for 3 

days. I wanted to be there longer, but on the third day I was 

threatened and shaken down for money from the people that I was 

having to pay to protect me. As you have heard, Palmasola prison 

is basically a—here is Palmasola right now. That is the main drag 

in Palmasola. That is about the nicest section of town right there. 

[Photograph.] 

Mr. MOORE. The prisoners run the asylum. The guards do not 

come in except to conduct rollcalls, but if you pay you don’t have 

to go to rollcall so it is a pointless exercise. Raw sewage runs 

through the street. There are stores throughout the place where 

you can buy meat, food, hardware, paint. This is all brought in by 

the guards because they take bribes. 

That by the way is the cocaine area. It looks a lot like the garbage dump because they are colocated. 

38

[Photograph.] 

Mr. MOORE. There is a storefront there where you can buy cocaine. A dose of cocaine costs roughly half of what a Coca-Cola 

costs in the prison. Water costs a little bit less than cocaine. The 

food you eat is a daily bucket of gruel that is brought in, cooked 

by the prisoners at the kitchen area which is conveniently located 

with another dump so they don’t have to throw the waste far away. 

But most people don’t eat that because they can pay to have food 

brought in. 

The prison is run not so much by an elected group as it is a cartel who has won power through killing other prisoners. There are 

roughly 20 suicides every year, and people have become very creative with their suicides, stabbing themselves in the back repeatedly at times. Internal discipline is handled by a group of people 

known as the Disciplina Interna. These are a group of thugs that 

are hired by the main group of leadership in the prison. They wear 

special shirts, and for convenience they are all lifers so that they 

have no outside motivation for betraying the people that they work 

for which guarantees that they are almost all murderers, serial 

murderers or serial rapists. I have the photographs that I have because I paid a serial rapist to take because he had paid a guard 

to get a camera into the prison. I was paying a gentleman, who had 

only murdered one person, to be my security, and he saw me interviewing members of the previous government and other members 

who he believed were innocent prisoners, and realized that I was 

not there as I had said, as Jacob’s brother-in-law, and so he started 

demanding more money for my safety, and I was unable to return 

to the prison. 

There is prostitution openly in the prison because they have a women’s prison there, and for $1 American money the women are 

allowed to come into the prison at night, or I am sorry, all during 

the day. 

The State Department’s lack of assistance for Americans overseas is not simply the case with Jacob. It has been the case of 

every situation I work for. While I do not speak and do not purport 

to speak for the Knox family, I watched for 4 years as the Ambassador and the United States Embassy in Italy watched essentially 

a kangaroo trial, and watched as a 20-year-old American woman 

was sentenced essentially to life in prison, and did nothing. 

The State Department has claimed, or has hidden, really, behind 

the fact that they need to allow the host government’s judicial system to take its course. I agree with that. The vast majority of 

Americans who are in prison overseas have earned their way there. 

I am not advocating for them. I don’t think it is wrong that Americans are in prison overseas. I arrested almost all Americans. I have 

no bias in that direction. However, the innocent ones have to be 

looked after. And if you tell me that you have to wait for the judicial system to go through the motions, I get it, if you are in England, if you are in Germany, if you are in Japan. But if you are 

in Bolivia where the State Department has already put in writing 

that there is hardly a judicial system, I mean the closest thing it 

looks like is Al Capone’s judicial system. Money has to go up for 

things to happen and money buys positions for people. That the 

United States Government would hide behind the fact that this is 

39

a legitimate, judicial process is almost offensive. They are on one 

hand saying that this is corrupt and horrible, and on the other 

hand they are saying, but it is good enough for us. This encourages 

the Bolivian Government, because what you accept you encourage. 

There is a law I am sure you are aware of, Title 22 Section 1732 

of the United States Code. Whenever it is made known to the 

President that any citizen of the United States has been unjustly 

deprived of his liberty by or under the authority of any foreign government, it shall be the duty of the President forthwith to demand 

of that government the reason for such imprisonment, and if it appears to be wrongful and in violation of the rights of American citizenship, the President shall forthwith demand the release of such 

citizen, and if the release so demanded is unreasonably delayed or 

refused, the President shall use such means, not amounting to acts 

of war nor otherwise prohibited by law, as he may think necessary 

or proper to obtain or effectuate the release, and all of the facts 

and proceedings relative thereto as soon as practical, and that shall 

be communicated to Congress. 

I hereby provide notification to this committee that I am aware 

of an American in a prison, in my professional opinion, who is unjustly deprived of his liberty under the authority of a foreign government. As a 25-year veteran of the FBI familiar with the judicial 

processes overseas and in the United States, I testify here under 

oath that the imprisonment of Jacob Ostreicher appears by any 

reasonable standard to be wrongful, and every bit of evidence that 

I have obtained and reviewed supports this conclusion. I call upon 

the President and the State Department to act responsibly according to Title 22 of the United States Code. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Moore follows:]

40


74635c-1.eps
41


74635c-2.eps
42


74635c-3.eps
43


74635c-4.eps
44


74635c-5.eps
45


74635c-6.eps
46


74635c-7.eps
47


74635c-8.eps 74635c-9.eps
48

Mr. SMITH. Mr. Moore, thank you so very much, especially, I 

think, your point in citing Title 22. We will convey that to the 

President and to the Secretary of State in hopes that they will act. 

And let me just ask a few opening questions if I could, and again 

thank you for underscoring, and I hope the press takes note of this 

as well, that you are doing this pro bono. This is something that 

you are absolutely convinced is a gross miscarriage of justice. That 

an innocent man is being not only incarcerated but his very life is 

in danger, and we need to be proactive and advocate rather than 

merely monitor the situation, again whatever that means. 

Mr. MOORE. Mr. Smith, I just wanted to add one thing——

Mr. SMITH. Yes, please. 

Mr. MOORE [continuing]. To add to your statement there. The 

biggest threat to Mr. Ostreicher right now is not a lingering, slow 

death from starvation. It is a quick, unexpected death at the hands 

of prisoners. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you so much for that sense of extreme urgency 

that we need to all be aware of both this side of Washington, that 

is to say the Congress, as well as the executive branch. 

Let me ask a few questions if I could, beginning first with Ms. 

Ungar. If you could just tell us when the last time you spoke with 

your husband, and again just a quick update on his current state 

of health. If you could also tell us, with regards to the Embassy, 

in your view, you did speak to this in your testimony, but just to 

make it very clear, what role that the Embassy has taken. Has it 

been an advocacy? A moment ago we heard from Mr. Moore that 

not a single meeting has been undertaken for Jacob. It may have 

come up in larger venues, but not a single public word. And I want 

to know if that is in country, in Bolivia, as well as in the United 

States. Has the State Department uttered a single word? 

I think your point, Mr. Moore, about the no greater responsibility, that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton stated, and very eloquently stated, those words become meaningless if they are not applied in a real-world setting of Jacob Ostreicher. 

So if you could, what has been said, and again, where has the 

Embassy been? 

Ms. UNGAR. First, I spoke to Jacob yesterday. He was unable to 

carry on a long conversation. He did not have the energy for that. 

He is starting to become forgetful. He doesn’t remember the things 

he has told me. He doesn’t remember anything from the day before. 

I am very concerned about his health, and it is deteriorating at a 

much more rapid rate since he has been on this hunger strike for 

almost 7 weeks. 

As far as the Embassy is concerned, I don’t believe that they 

have done anything for Jacob specifically. They have raised the 

case and they have said they monitor the case. Raising the case 

means if they happen to have a meeting with the Foreign Minister 

on another issue, they will happen to mention Jacob’s name. I 

think that is insufficient and ineffective and very disappointing and 

very frustrating. And I am sure that the State Department does 

not need me to tell them what it is that they can do. I am sure 

that they know what they can do, and that there are things that 

our Government can do to help Jacob, and our goal is to bring him 

home. 

49

Our goal is not to get him out on bail where he cannot come 

home, because the fact remains that he was imprisoned illegally. 

Stating that a country has a right to keep him for 18 months is 

if they have proven with sufficient evidence that he has done something wrong, and that has not happened. What they should do is 

release him and let him come home, and that is what we want the 

State Department to do. Thank you. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you. I think, Mr. Moore, you made a very interesting point when you said there is no evidence that even a 

crime has occurred, never mind whether or not Jacob Ostreicher 

was in any way complicit in a crime, but where is the crime? 

Mr. MOORE. They haven’t charged a crime. That is incredible. 

Mr. SMITH. Let me just ask you with regards to, again Ms. 

Ungar, I understand that you, yourself, were threatened with 

criminal charges in Bolivia. Could you describe what happened? 

Ms. UNGAR. Yes, of course. I was notified by a lawyer in September 2011 that there were charges brought against me, charges 

of obstruction of justice, and the reason was that I had given an 

interview to CNN via telephone. At the time I fled the country and 

I was afraid to go back there. I believe——

Mr. SMITH. Wait. For an interview with CNN you were threatened? 

Ms. UNGAR. Yes. I was threatened. 

Mr. SMITH. With prosecution? 

Ms. UNGAR. Charges were actually started against me for obstruction of justice, but I left the country before I was able to be 

served. Thank you. 

Mr. SMITH. Could you tell us what action the U.S. consular affairs representative took when your husband’s hearing was postponed? Did they object? Did they advocate for an immediate resumption of that hearing or what? 

Ms. UNGAR. No, they have not. They did attend every single 

hearing, quietly. They never objected to anything, and they don’t 

give us any advice and they don’t say anything. They are just monitoring. That is basically all they are doing. 

Mr. SMITH. Charge d’Affaires John Creamer is in a photo that I 

saw and watched on a YouTube on June 3, 2012, and a Bolivian 

news article also carried it, and it referenced in his official capacity 

dancing in elaborate costume in a parade for a large street party. 

I find it extremely offensive that the head American representative 

in the country apparently did not consider it inappropriate to publicly celebrate when an innocent U.S. citizen is being held in a notorious prison in the same country. And anyone who has seen the 

picture, I think you will find it equally appalling. 

Are you aware of the photo, I would say to anybody on the panel, 

have you seen it, and what does that say to you? 

Ms. UNGAR. I am aware of the photo, and I was absolutely horrified by the message that this conveys to the Bolivian Government. 

It is okay to have an American citizen in a prison even though he 

is not guilty, and I will even dance with you on the street in your 

costume. I was slapped in the face when I saw that. Thank you. 

Mr. SMITH. Let me ask if I could, Mr. Moore, perhaps, or any of you, where did the $18 million go? 

Mr. MOORE. Are you talking about the rice? 

50

Mr. SMITH. Yes. 

Mr. MOORE. That really goes to the crux of the case. Evo Morales 

is very interested in proving that socialism is far superior to capitalism. To that end he has driven the capitalist airline in the country, AeroSur, out of business by charging it exorbitant fees for fuel 

while the company that he started is flourishing. The president of 

AeroSur by the way is now being charged with illicit enrichment, 

which by the way is the exact thing that they arrested Jacob for, 

and he is in hiding in Spain. 

Jacob was going to create more rice in 3 years’ time than the rest 

of the socialist government could produce in the rest of the country. 

Morales was controlling the price of rice this way, because if Bolivian rice ever got on the foreign market the price would change 

drastically and the Bolivians would have a problem. Jacob was 

going to destroy that scheme, and so they had to stop his rice production and that is what they did. It was just very convenient for 

them that it could also be a source of cash. They expected no one 

to say a word. 

Mr. SMITH. I see. I think you, Mr. Moore, made a very, very important point, one that you have never lost a conviction. That you 

have throughout your entire career put the bad guys behind bars, 

never losing a conviction is, I think, an extraordinary record, and 

that includes Americans. You very carefully vetted this case before 

you took it and took this upon yourself, and again you are doing 

it pro bono. 

How would you advise the State Department to separate cases 

where there is a truly, a crime has been committed? Do they do 

any kind of vetting of the substance of the issue so that an innocent man does not languish in a prison, now facing possible death 

because of their lack of advocacy? Is there any due diligence being 

done by U.S. State Department? 

Mr. MOORE. Well, I do believe somewhere in the State Department, deep in the hallway, they do probably discuss whether the 

person is guilty or innocent. But if they just simply demanded rigorous compliance with a country’s own judicial system, then they 

wouldn’t have 90 percent of these problems. For instance, in the 

Knox case 90 percent of the evidence was simply falsified. Its admission was against European law, Italian law. If they had just 

held their feet to the fire on that she never would have been convicted in the first place. 

I am not saying that governments can’t arrest Americans on suspicion even if they are wrong. I get that. That is a fundamental 

right. But they are wrong in Jacob’s case. And if we held their feet 

to the fire and said, you must charge this man, you must give him 

the right to answer the charges, and if we held them to reasonable 

behavior it doesn’t matter to us as much if the person is guilty or 

innocent because we will force them to act lawfully. And in those 

cases where they say they have acted lawfully and they have essentially done a Stalin and created their own verdict, then we can intervene. Right now, Jacob should never have been arrested, but 

now that he has he should be immediately released on bail at least. 

It is offensive to me to say that because I know he is not guilty. 

But if we are not going to demand his release for any, unconditionally, then at least bail and let him come back here. 

51

Mr. SMITH. Has Secretary Clinton called you, Ms. Ungar? 

Ms. UNGAR. No, she has not. 

Mr. SMITH. Or anybody from her office? 

Ms. UNGAR. No. No, they have not. 

Mr. SMITH. Let me ask you one final question, and I have others 

but would a trip, a congressional trip, to visit him be of help and 

assistance, if I were to put together such a trip? 

Mr. MOORE. I think it would be extremely helpful for Jacob’s 

safety. If the Bolivian Government believes that they could get 

away with harming him to quiet him, and that if by harming him 

this would all stop, they would. If they believe that the Government and the press are watching closely and if Jacob stubs his toe 

we are going to march into Morales’ office, then his safety at least 

could be enhanced. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you. I again want to just observe that your 

comments, Mr. Moore, about the lack of advocacy and the fact that 

that is antithetical in the State Department upward mobility, if 

you will, comports absolutely with instances that I have faced over 

and over again. I have been in Congress 32 years, and while I always hope for the best, and as you pointed out so well, they are 

very bright people, very good people, but it is not the way to advancement if you ruffle the feathers of people of the host country. 

Nowhere have I seen this more apparent than in the area of international child abduction. 

I got involved with the David Goldman case and spent the better 

part of a year working on his case. And while the welfare and 

whereabouts, and the consular people in Brazil were extraordinary, 

empathetic, when it came to the higher levels, Assistant Secretary, 

Secretary of State, and even the President, they were AWOL, for 

want of a better word. Yes, there was a concern, maybe an empathy, but there was no real advocacy whatsoever with Lula, who was 

then the President of that country, to get David Goldman, his son, 

Sean, back to the United States and, frankly, back to New Jersey. 

There are in excess of 2,500 other American children who have 

been abducted, and we have done so little at the Department of 

State. I have a bill pending called the Sean and David Goldman 

International Child Abduction Prevention and Return Act that we 

are trying to bring forward to the House to give the President some 

real tools, and the Secretary of State, to combat this violation of 

Americans’ human rights, and frankly, they could be doing so much 

of it already, administratively, they don’t even need the bill. But 

we are trying to give them direction as well as a prescribed course 

of action. But this is shocking, but it is also par for the course. But 

that has to change and I do think your testimonies today have been 

game changers; extraordinary testimony if ever I have heard it. 

I would like to now yield to Ms. Bass for any such time as she 

may consume. 

Ms. BASS. Sure. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And I actually want to 

follow up on what you just said, in terms of the structural problems 

within the State Department, in your testimony. And I just wanted 

to ask this question on my behalf but also on my colleague, Congressman Nadler, who had to leave, is what do you think can be 

done? And again, I am specifically talking about this case, of 

course, but also you are raising the structural issue and you have 

52

seen this many different times, so do you have any thoughts on 

that? 

Mr. MOORE. I do have some thoughts on that. They are obviously 

not vague, or they are obviously not completely fleshed out. But to 

give you an analogy, in the FBI we had a problem at Waco when 

our tactical teams and our hostage negotiation teams were acting 

at loggerheads. They were opposed to each other essentially. And 

that seemed to work out well. And so what we had to do at that 

point was create a combined group whose number one goal was resolution of an issue, not resolution of an issue by a specific means. 

Now SWAT teams and hostage negotiators are on the same organization. I believe that there needs to be, because it is becoming such 

a big problem as the Congressman has pointed out, an organization 

within State that specifically advocates for Americans in those situations. Because there is nobody, and it is not in anybody’s interest 

to do it. If there was a specific organization—it is kind of like putting internal affairs in the police. Somebody has to do it. They are 

not going to be liked, but somebody has to do that important role. 

Ms. BASS. So in this specific case what do you think that the 

State Department should do? I mean I know that it is in the area 

of advocacy, obviously they should advocate, but specifically what 

would you suggest that we recommend them to do? There is a hearing coming up on June 11, so in the best of all worlds what would 

the State Department’s intervention be? 

Mr. MOORE. I am not going to give them specific instructions because they certainly know what is in their tool kit. They haven’t 

opened the tool kit yet. I would say the number one thing they 

haven’t done is put the lightest—what they have done so far is almost winking at the Bolivian Government and saying, we are going 

to make a show of appearing to object, but really we are friends 

and we are going to go out and dance at your festivals. If you look 

at their Web site all you see is literally dozens of photographs of 

Embassy personnel at functions, at concerts, at community areas, 

giving books to libraries. Nowhere is Jacob mentioned in the entire 

Web site. 

Ms. BASS. It is appropriate for the State Department officials to 

attend the June 11 hearing? And I would imagine that they have 

not attended the previous hearings. 

Ms. UNGAR. They have attended every hearing. 

Ms. BASS. Oh, they have. But they have what? 

Ms. UNGAR. Nothing. 

Ms. BASS. They are monitoring it as you said. 

Mr. SMITH. Would the gentlelady yield briefly? 

Ms. BASS. Yes, sure. 

Mr. SMITH. Would it be appropriate for us to be at the June 11 

hearing? 

Mr. MOORE. I think it would send a message. I think they would 

cancel the hearing. 

Ms. UNGAR. They may do that anyway. 

Mr. MOORE. Really it is kind of like asking somebody to come in 

and explain where the money is that is missing. They don’t want 

to come to that meeting. They don’t have evidence to present, so 

every single hearing is a delaying tactic. 

53

Ms. BASS. So I wanted to also ask you some questions about the 

case. And you were making references to the Bolivian Government 

and trying to understand why this happened to begin with, and the 

missing rice and the missing money, and is the business continuing 

to function on its own? Why did his business partner have nothing, 

I mean there were no charges. He wasn’t arrested. So in terms of—

what was the motive? 

Mr. MOORE. The business partner didn’t go to Bolivia. That is 

why he wasn’t arrested. 

Ms. BASS. I see. Do you believe if he had gone to Bolivia he 

would have suffered the same fate? 

Mr. MOORE. I do. 

Ms. BASS. I see. And so what was the government’s, what is behind it? I mean you mentioned the socialist Government of Bolivia. 

What do you think, they were trying to nationalize the farm? I 

mean what——

Mr. MOORE. I am trying to take a complicated subject and put 

it down into about 30 seconds. But Evo Morales’ big issue right 

now is to prove that socialism is far superior to capitalism. 

Ms. BASS. Understand. 

Mr. MOORE. And so part of what he has been doing is trying to 

showcase different things that prove that. The profitability of a private airline was embarrassing to him so he had to eliminate it. 

Ms. BASS. Has there been a lot of publicity about this case? In 

other words, holding him up to the public in Bolivia as this is a 

crime? 

Mr. MOORE. No. 

Ms. BASS. So they have not been covering this. 

Mr. MOORE. It is not in their best interest. 

Ms. BASS. Yes. Well, I mean when you mentioned that they have 

been looking for examples, I was just wondering if he had made 

this an example. 

Mr. MOORE. This was a preemptive act, and frankly, this is how 

it happened. They were fairly unaware and unconcerned at the beginning because of the production levels that the farm was coming 

up with. What they didn’t anticipate was these were just startups 

and they hadn’t completely cultivated all the land. Jacob, at a certain point, went in and asked somebody to print bags for 500 million pounds of rice. That sent a shockwave throughout the agricultural community which got to the government, and they thought 

500 million pounds of rice will rapidly destabilize our control of the 

rice market. 

Ms. BASS. So were there other rice farmers that were, Bolivian 

rice farmers that also objected because they were concerned that 

the yield was so much? You know what I mean, in other words, it 

was competition? 

Mr. MOORE. He was taking all the trucks, all the—he had so 

much rice that he was using almost all the infrastructure to process the rice, yes. 

Ms. BASS. I see. And Ms. Ungar, did you want to say something? 

Ms. UNGAR. I just wanted to clarify that it was 50 million pounds 

of rice, and it was——

Mr. MOORE. Oh, 50 million pounds. I am sorry. 

54

Ms. UNGAR. There isn’t one company in Bolivia that is able to 

produce that amount of rice. 

Ms. BASS. I see. Yes, so the other companies could be coming into 

play in terms of this. 

Ms. UNGAR. I don’t believe that it was the other companies. 

Those are really small-time companies with very, very small volume, too small to feed Bolivia. 

Ms. BASS. I see. And the final question I wanted to ask you is, 

you mentioned that by doing the CNN interview you were, well, 

they attempted to file charges. So you have been unable to go back 

to Bolivia because of this? Are you under threat of being arrested 

if you go back? 

Ms. UNGAR. Yes, I did actually take the risk of going back to Bolivia because I couldn’t stay away and leave him alone for such a 

long period of time. I tried to do it over holidays where there was 

celebrations in Bolivia, so by the time that they realized I was 

there I was already on my way home. But I cannot go back there. 

It is not safe for me to be there. 

Ms. BASS. Okay. 

Ms. UNGAR. And he is there all alone. There is no one there with 

him. 

Ms. BASS. Right. I am very sorry. Thank you very much. I yield 

back. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Ms. Bass. 

Mr. Turner? 

Mr. TURNER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The plant and equipment, there was a $20 million investment of international money 

mostly came in here as well as the initial rice harvest. Bolivia has 

degenerated into some type of kleptocracy. If Jacob were to be 

found innocent, would they be obligated to return the plant, equipment, the rice? Does that now make this even far more complex 

and confound our efforts? 

Ms. UNGAR. Well, the rice is gone so they can’t return it. The 

equipment has been dismantled and the parts have disappeared, so 

there is no equipment. 

Mr. TURNER. Disappeared. 

Ms. UNGAR. And the land was confiscated, so there is nothing 

left. 

Mr. TURNER. All right. 

Mr. MOORE. And they are growing something else on the land. 

Mr. TURNER. Coca? 

Mr. MOORE. Probably. 

Mr. TURNER. So would you say there is a major disincentive for 

everyone involved in this to adjudicate this properly and say he is 

innocent? 

Ms. UNGAR. Yes. 

Mr. TURNER. So if there is any light at the end of this tunnel it 

will be a diplomatic hardball and our State and executive branch 

are going to have to make uncompromising demands. So far we 

haven’t seen any willingness to do that, is that fair? 

Mr. MOORE. Yes. 

Ms. UNGAR. Yes, it is. 

Mr. TURNER. Do you see a path out of this? 

55

Mr. MOORE. I think we might have some traction in this after 

July. I think the Charge ́ and the Consular Section Chief are both 

transferring out, and I am sure they both were trying to push this 

away until they went into their next reincarnation. And the new 

people will have to deal with it I would hope. 

Mr. TURNER. Thank you. I yield back. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Turner. Ms. Bass, did you have a 

question? 

Ms. BASS. Yes, just real quickly. You mentioned that they were 

growing something else. What are they growing? 

Mr. MOORE. I talked to Jacob yesterday, and the allegations 

among the prisoners are that the Bolivian Government is rapidly 

seizing privately owned land and converting it to coca use, and he 

believes from what he has heard through the prisoner grapevine 

that his land has been converted to coca growing. It is a better 

product financially. 

Mr. SMITH. Mr. Deutch? 

Mr. DEUTCH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First, Ms. Ungar and 

Ms. Weinberger, your willingness to be here today to testify means 

an enormous amount to us, clearly to Jacob, and this horrific 

human rights abuse that continues is now front and center where 

it should be. Your family members, your community and we as well 

are grateful for your willingness to participate today, so thank you 

very much for being here. 

Ms. UNGAR. Thank you. 

Mr. DEUTCH. I would like to just go back and talk a bit about 

what communication, it is not clear to me what communication has 

taken place between the U.S. officials and the Bolivian Government. Has there been an exchange of correspondence? Have you 

been copied on any correspondence? 

Ms. UNGAR. The Charge ́ has met with the Foreign Minister of 

Bolivia several times for other issues, and did raise Jacob’s case. 

He also met the chief of the Embassy, Kate Flachsbart, also met 

with the Attorney General of Bolivia. At all times the meetings 

were not about Jacob, but they did raise the case, and that is all 

that was done. I don’t get any information from the State Department, and unless I specifically ask, ‘‘Have you done something, 

what happened?’’ If I don’t ask I don’t get any information. 

Mr. DEUTCH. What was the response from the Bolivian officials? 

Ms. UNGAR. Every response is the same, we will look into it. 

Mr. DEUTCH. Let me talk for a moment about the hunger strike. 

It is 7 weeks now that Jacob is on a hunger strike. Is there a response? Has there been a response from the Bolivians to his deteriorating condition? What has been the response to that? 

Ms. UNGAR. No, Bolivians don’t care if someone goes on a hunger 

strike, but the Americans do. 

Mr. DEUTCH. I would like to point out something, and I would 

like to make a request to the chairman. I would like to point out 

it is little surprise that in a country whose leader, Evo Morales, 

has befriended some of the worst human rights abusers in the 

world in the Castros, in Ahmadinejad, that this kind of horrific situation could take place shouldn’t be shocking, yet of course it is 

and certainly the direct impact that it has on you and your family 

makes it so. 

56

I hope that rather than speculating about what is in the toolbox 

of the State Department, I mean I don’t know, Mr. Chairman, 

whether the State Department was invited to participate today——

Mr. SMITH. Yes, they were. We asked repeatedly that they come 

here and testify and they adamantly refused. And they are welcome. They are welcome anytime. 

Mr. DEUTCH. It seems to me that at the same time that we continue to press this issue and that we do everything we can to press 

this issue with the Bolivians, we do provide oversight to the State 

Department. And I would hope that we would have an opportunity 

to pursue in some greater detail whether, if it is appropriate here 

in open session, if there are tools in the toolbox that require classified discussions that we reach out to have those meetings as quickly as possible so that we understand the steps that can be taken 

and can encourage the State Department in the strongest possible 

terms to utilize them. 

And I think the focus as we go forward clearly has to be on Jacob 

in this, again this just horrific situation. There is time for further 

discussions about the State Department and whether or not—Mr. 

Moore, I am not sure that I agree that there is a disincentive for 

professionals at the State Department to look the other way and 

not stand up for Americans. I am sure they would argue. We can 

have those discussions in future oversight hearings. Right now I 

want to do everything we can to schedule those meetings and to 

press, to know that everything that can be done is being done. And 

in the meantime, the fact that it is now 7 weeks into a hunger 

strike, and you described Jacob’s condition, this is an issue that 

goes beyond this subcommittee and beyond the discussions taking 

place on Capitol Hill. There is a very serious abuse of human 

rights here, and the human rights community I hope will engage 

in a very profound and serious way as well even as we continue 

to do our work here. And again, I appreciate so much your willingness to be here and to speak up in this very powerful way. 

Ms. UNGAR. Thank you. 

Mr. DEUTCH. I yield back. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Deutch. Any further questions by the 

panels? Just as a conclude and perhaps, Mr. Moore, you might 

want to speak to this. I think it was you who said this that Jacob 

was seen as being an American, White, Jewish, and perhaps well 

off. I have worked for the last 30 years, more than 30 years, on 

combating anti-Semitism, and very often it is very thinly disguised 

but it is rampant throughout the entire world, including in the 

United States. It is getting worse. Just recently I chaired a hearing 

on the rising tide of anti-Semitic activity globally and it is, some 

pockets of the world obviously it has gotten demonstrably worse, 

but it is in South America without a doubt. And I am wondering 

if you have detected any sense of anti-Semitic behavior as to how 

the Government of Bolivia has mistreated Jacob? 

Mr. MOORE. I think you can’t discount it. Morales is very, very 

desperately trying to improve his relationship with Hugo Chavez 

over in Venezuela, and Venezuela recently invited Ahmadinejad to 

come visit. So anything he can do which would push his country 

toward that direction would help his status with Chavez. 

Mr. SMITH. Appreciate it. Ms. Ungar? 

57

Ms. UNGAR. I would like to make a comment on that too. At the 

arraignment which was on June 4, it was on the Sabbath, it is on 

a Saturday, and they wanted to move Jacob from the holding cell, 

which was in the FELCCN Building, into the courtroom, and they 

had to do that by car, and he begged them, please, please don’t 

make me go by car. I am a religious Jew. I observe the Sabbath. 

And they dragged him and shoved him in the car saying, we don’t 

care about religion. 

Mr. SMITH. I appreciate that very much. Is there anything our 

distinguished panelists would like to say in closing? You certainly 

have covered Jacob’s plight extraordinarily well. 

Ms. UNGAR. I would like to say one more thing. That being that 

the 18 months is a violation of international law and a violation 

of human rights, it is coming up on June 21. But even though we 

get to that point, they will probably find something new to start 

investigating and keep him for an additional 18 months. And the 

reason I am mentioning this, because I have spoken to some members and the response that I received from some of the members 

is, let us wait and see what happens on Monday, on June 11. I 

have heard this for the past 12 months. Every time a hearing was 

scheduled, okay, let us wait for this one. Let us wait for this one. 

I don’t want to hear let us wait for the coming one. We need to do 

action now. Our time is limited. Time is of the essence because we 

may not have who to bring home shortly. Thank you. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you. And that is the last word, eloquently 

stated, thank you. The hearing is adjourned. 

Ms. UNGAR. Thank you. 

[Whereupon, the hearing was adjourned at 11:51 a.m.] 

(59)

A P P E N D I X 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING RECORD

60

f


74635n.eps
61

f


74635m.eps
62

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD BY THE HONORABLE KAREN BASS, A

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

Æ


74635f.eps