11-N-224 11/19/52 Melpomens . ‘Observation was discontinued due. to travfic conditions. At. the time subject departed from his home, he was wearing a. dark hat, gray. Sport coat ° glasses with dark right lens, and a dark : _ eolored toupee. At 7:30 P. Me, November 9, 1962, observation was reinstituted | at 3330 Louisiana Avemie Parkway . Nothing pertinent was observed at . this tine. _ At 8:20 ?. Mi, FERRIS arrived in his auto, accompanied by an adult female oad two female children having the appearance of approximately eight years and twelve years of age. They” all entered subject's. home with him. The adult. female was of medium height, uedium butld, brown hair, wearing gtay topcoat. . At. a: 25. Pr. Me, two adult males came from. the residence at. 3332 Louisiana Avenue Parkway and walked to the front of 3330 — Louisiana Avenue 2 Paxieray, and a few minutes later returned to their At 8150 P,. M., “PERRIE and the three female persons and a young | male left subject's hone and entered his car. ‘This white male was approximately. six: feet tall, lender build, spproximately eighteen to tuenty . years of. age, and had dark brown hair. Subject drove te South Claiborne Avenue , tured left, drove to Esplanade Avenue, | turned left. and drove to. the vicinity of Kerlerec HW 54756 and. Bayou Road, turned right and drove to the vicinity of Columbus 25 Docld: 32763970 Page 371
11-N-224 11/19/52 ‘Street, conditions at this time made it necessary to drop the | observation for epproximately five mimtes. Subject and the above persons were next observed proceeding toward Esplanade. They turned left. onto Esplanade, proceeded to ‘North Claiborne, turned left onto North. Claiborne and were proceeding in the direction of the lake at. the time the observation was discontinued due to traffic conditions. On Novesber 10, 1962, the. following observations were made at 3330 Louisiana Avenue Parkway by BDWARD Me DAVIS: This “investigation was. started at. $300: P, M. on November 10, 1962. FERRIE'S. auto, a 1960 Ford sedan, green body with ivory top, bearing 1962. Louisiana license 300-601, was not at the subject's home at this time. At. approximately 8:50 P. M., FERRIE arrived, driving the above auto.. ‘He WAS | accompanied by a young male white man, eighteen to twenty. yearsof age, brown hair, slender build, about six feet in height. . Subject and this person entered the subject's house. Subject came out for a. few minutes and then re-entered the house. | | At 9:15 Pp, Mes. the subject and this young man came from the house followed by the subject's dog. ‘They walked in the direction of Claiborne ‘Aveme for two blocks and - returned, entered the car at 9:20 P. M. and departed. They drove to Prieur, turned leit, drove — to. Toledano, turned left and drove. ‘toward South “proad. observation "was discontinued at this time due to traffic conditions. — HW 54756 DocId: 32263970 Page 322
a 54756 " L1-N-224 11/19/62 At 11:20 P. Mes FERRIE returned in his car Alona. He entered the house and a | few nimtes later he returned with his dog. ‘He took the dog for a ‘shox + walk and returned to his home at 11135 P. M. Observation « was | discontinued at this time. a “en November il, 1962, the following observation was “made at 3330 ‘Louisiana Avenue Partoay, New Orleans, Louisiana, by EDWARD Ne DAVIS: At approximately 7:50 2. Mey FERRIG came fron his hone and entered his. suto, a 1960 Ford sedan, bearing 1962 ‘Louisiana license 300-601. He proceeded to the Broadmoor Drug store, corner of South Broad and Washington. He left the car. and entered the above place of business and made a telephone call at 8105 P. M. After talking on the phone ‘for a few minutes, FERRIC. returned home to 3330 Louisiana Avenue Parlay at e111 P. Me | . At 8: 17 Pe Mey on November nt, 1962, a | teenage boy, driving : a 1954 34 ord ¢ tudor sedan, ivory color, bearing 1962 Louisiana License 1b Sss," arrived in front of. FERRIB's home, left the: cars after - parking, ‘and entered the house at 3330 Louisiana Avenue Parkway. This person ! is white male, approminately eighteen years of age, . five feet tea Anches tall, fadr ‘complexion, has slender budld. | | At 8130 Pr. Mey on November 4u, 1962, a young man, approximately ox feet in height and on. a 1954 Ford tudor eedan, bearing 1962 Louisiana license sce arrived in front of 3330 Louisiana Avenue DoclId:322763970 Page 323
HW 54756 11-N-224 11/19/62 Parkway. After parking, he and a young teenage person left the car and entered FERRIE's ‘home. | At ‘approximately 8135 P. Mey the above individuals, accompanied | by FERRIB,, left in the above two Ford oatomobiles. FERRI, accompanied f Dae foe the young boy. in the Ford bearing Louisiana license 139-355, and the other ‘young man { the teenage ‘person left in the Ford bearing needa | Louisiana license sida. These cars drove to South Broad, turned right on. 1 Brosd, proceeded to Columbus. Street, ‘turned right on Columbus Street and at 8145 P. Mey November Be 1962, the above cars were © pene ar ‘nf observed ‘parked in front of 2439-41 Columbus Street. ‘This is ‘the game “crowded residential area where the surveillances were terminated on Novenber 9 and 10, 1962. _ At 9:35 Pe Mey November is 1962, FERRIE and the driver of the Ai gertel Ford bearing Louisiana license , {S9-355, left the ‘above address and drove to the corner of North ‘Prieur and Esplanade. ‘They ‘parked at 1311 North Prieur ‘and knocked ‘on the door at’ that adress. a = FERRIB and this person conferred fox some tine on the sidewalk at 1311 North Pricur. ‘At 10:40 P. Mey FERRIE, the ‘above young person and an older man were “ebserved walking ‘toward. Esplanade ‘from the direction of Bayou Road. They. ‘stopped at the entrance to Yat ior Prieur where the car. ‘bearing Louisiana License 139-355 was 3 parked. At this. time FERRIS engaged in a heated conversation with this older person, making many gestures with his hands and head. _ This continued . until 11:18 P. HM. 31 DoclId:322763970 Page 324
HW 54756 L1-N-224 11/19/ At 11s Fe ey this older person entered the home at 1311 North Prieur with a key. -FERRIE and he young person left in . the Ford perter bearing 1962 Louisiana License “a0- 355 and proceeded to FERRIE'S home at 3330 Louisiana avenue Parkway. “They parked at ‘approximately 11:25 Pe Me and entexed FERRIE's home. At approximately 11:45 P. M. they lef ct the house with FBRAIE's dog and walked toward South - Claiborne. They’ returned to the home ‘about: ten nimtes ‘Later. At midnight, observation was discontimed and the above person was stn at the hone of FERRIS and his Car was parked in the rear of 1 PERRIE!s car in front of 3230 Loutsiana Avemie Pacicvay. At spproxinately 8:00 A. Mey November 12, 1962, ‘it was observed that FERRIES car and the car ‘bearing Louisiana License 139-355 were gone. . | on November 2, 1962, ‘the 1954 Ford tudor, bearing | Louisiana license’ nad was ‘observed parked in the drive under the | front porch of 2441, Columbus Street. No one was 48 observed | in. or near the car. “1962 Louisiana license as9-355 4 is issued to HUG Ls EROWNLEE , a7ze Jefferson Highway, Jez tferson Parish, for’ a 1956 Ford Sedan. “The current: suburban city directory shows HUGH Le ROUNLSS, JR (Rasa be) at this address: is employed as an engineer for Ue ‘5S. Engineers. “1982. Louisiana License 311-641 is issued to Je vs CROUCHET, 1004 Versailles Street, New Iberia, Louisiana, for a 1954 Ford. . Telephone information service advised that JOE V. CROUCHET Lives at 2441 Columbus 32 Doclda: 322763970 Page 325
nad Apri? 19, 1967 T: °°. JIM GARRISON |< DISTRICT ATTORNEY “PROM: ss ANDREW J. SCLAMBRA ASSISTANT DISTRICT ATTORNEY —_ RBs - SPECIAL INVESTIGATION "AL LANDRY - INTERVIEW WITH ee , I talked to AL LANDRY at the New ‘orleans Athletic Club in the presence of BOB LEMOINE, PERRY RUSSO, Jim Alcock, Charlie Ward, and Lou Ivon (this was during your visit to Las Vegas). _ ; AGL, LANDRY told me that he first met ‘DAVID FERRIE in 1960. . He said that he was in the C.A.P. in 1959 and 1960 and at that time he was around 15 years old. LANDRY said that FERRIE was second in command in the C.A.P. and a man named MORRELL was in command. FERRIE at that time lived at 331 > -Atherton Drive, Metairie, Louisiana. LANDRY stated that his mother also lived in the house. . LANDRYsaid that_LAYTON MARTENS used_to stay there for 2 and 3. “months ata t: time. LANDRY said that some of the people in the Squadron at that time were: “JOE PRATTINI ; JOHNNY, ESPENAN JOE HOWARD ~ . PRICE. CARL COSTA LAYTON MARTENS a SCOTT THANES JIM LANDRY (whose father was DONNIE RICHARDS a mechanic fer Eastern. BUTCH MARSH . - Birlines) AL CHERAMIE = ~—~—«—« JOHNNY JOHNSTON | MIKE. CRUCHET _ RODNEY WILLIAMS “LANDRY said that FERRIE "hypnotized him ‘twice that he can remember. He also said that. FERRIE never did take him. -eut of the country, but he did leave home of his own accord around 1960. LANDRY said he met FERRIE in the Balter Building | when he came back in from out of town. LANDRY said he went. _into the service in 1962 and was in the service ‘until well after the assassination. e says” he knows ARCACHA » but does -not know JULIAN -BUZNEDO. ANDREW J. SCIAMBRA “-AgS/leb | ee ae Docld:.32263970 ‘page 326. 6 ee
ange ag ere ann dG TAA Gy to ef ja fei oe Da fi Ho ge Ie = L/, of © 03,04 13069 661 FC ~152) 92D RACY PNY -SQICS P06 13.9044, Ls SS 98d RH e9g7a00¥. > Oy YBSRty Ate 2006 ye ASG : ve o” Og Bage 327." 32263970 ’ Docla
oo & - eh, be oe, KENNETH ARENT Vacinren 5 ALLEN. ne / Cena Ra Vina BENFATTI - ad, ' Tom” BAKER ae G08 Been - JeARy. Brown a 2 0 Jon Burci “Bosey CaRsAvAL ; EAILHELAE CoLN ~~ 43.0 » CHARLES COULON “Kens CouviLLton 14,0 — “PHILIP. DrocRACTAS | vane Fy CURRAN 20,4 Marvin Ooscanl yes resw rae 415.0. kent Dur our CyreLte Duront oe ee 1.0) _Ricnaro Ouesse oO Jessie ESTAPA a a 2.5. EB WET Po ~ Howarp FILey JOHNNY, FRALECK "43, o BB. 0 “2bew Feri ton NC Ti Geonce oe “102, 0 CHARLES: ‘Gronce ~ ene wie 499,00. trate ear oo Spare res . cid: 32263970 3h. Do “3B = 22,0 - aes ae ee Page “338 “gee-snea S97 634 Poe et gyi ta 2 3/26 qiae peo a “10/9 aes Bad sau- seed oO) hfe, os 3/at YGa- 7605 Wes 2077 8 06 Lyso gi na Poe mee gg 7738 ot gar 6 rds - ie f- bs aud: fae 7 997-84R AT Rt Es i BULE ” . Sa3 tasty ; oo yarn soi a Hass} M4 we dle ae: pee
NANG RoserT HANNI GAN: “Unmwy JouNson ' STEVE Lameert Or. Laso- SUE mon VARY STANLEY MONTZ. LENNARD Lee RONNIE LEHRMANN Pat Lynew SANDY MIESLER- JIMMY MILLER wine Py Xe Joe MaLINnary Byron Myrick i Teo Norris | Bruce NOLAN . - Syanege Orden ==JAMES=PRRKER. Don Peters ‘Eowaro PoLiKk W=BILEe RAEANS J. Revert . “TEE “Rr cHeaux — _uacK SAWYER “ “NteK Stmonerre Vic SeHiLLec! ALAN Snean 7 wicwons, De aod as ere I LT “fe Ne ead . = TOTAL oo LASS. a a. a — o oh oO “ oO | ws - 02/0 an Pp 60, 0 oe - vo ficial ch Rimini Sainte REE econ ae 40/3 D7 G66 ope 3K cess. tho a 42-297) Ge ade: nose anes i r i cemaareh chal eee “ Se ea ai sie ~~ & e NEE ee ere Be DATE 10/3 vv ese ce 6/6 oo ee : 10/9 ae ae a oe oo 10/6 - -. ee Tin sense ky 291 38") fo 9/7 10/5 | eT earn te memes cot fist ons2 $35 3B3g0  gfay - Sdde see Fae eee fet “sv 2/ my 915 esa-ew3s a ge cre oe ~eqey 3 9/24 en pate [134 9/28 aaa - a7 9/22. Be Hee 285 mbar | “HW 54756. ocTd:32263970 Page 329°. |
2. Dave | | Les SEAMAN CHARLES SuitH _ Dennis TIsoALe Rosert TowLes_ . Georce WADE i va | HOWARD WILLIAMS: RONALD WoESENER = BRENNER WATERS Donn WILL PAMS me EM WI GAS WARREN WHITEHORN . Bos BERAN AL ALAE. RONALDO DURHAM Jeli’ Phy ae - Jimmy GELPI LARRY Gisson . DWAYNE HARRIS Don HEUMANN ——~ Joy Houck, ~ . JOHNNY KIRSCH | Or, NicHots. "JOHN PERRIA . _ YouN PORTER a New SIMONETTE — hee “See ae Ghd, F | Nae ae nn a oan wen eee ‘HW 44756 © DocTd:32263970 ALLEN MelecL L. eo . “TOTAL. ee Pre Free Cehereree fod 4) 13.5, 2. 0. os 20 0 8.0 o. 2541 0. wae _ os bee wa. oe) (emnpeeTow a 7 Zale et ee ean eine 9 a 19.0  to0 Fog on Om CLASS. 9 ft9 gasceteq c 10/5 aeeetTes ; S, 9/10 % 3.1 -3181 i 10/5. Fits 5 3 G =] 3 ied 10/2. 395 - 6922 oe “y vet ‘ Ide ie 3/20 asv- cer of “Afe9 36) ~sesy 5/27. 737- -2/69 . ols ves- 187d (aes 9/20, 34> oyst a ~ oe 943. = E567 —9f27 =r 2ST 9/30 Spyqe 3 #09 | a N98 | ners 4 5H | ers | 9/6 | oe ne a be amg fee grad ~F0/6 . Jv Nit 36 895, 6902 raw 7 8e7 on a —- An a, are ti RTE meme OY * 9/20 TW Ie agsi . coe. aa ie a ons Bea 3 bee” “ODP 16 Wey a 2 599 ogee “eh 1360 . “hes s/o
Se anaes eee MANE TOTAL Graoy SMITH. : _ 7 oy 2 eee) oO fe oar 10/9 idv a-Ga28 - $24 - 68 17 ‘Dow Vestey a 10. Oo ss. 10/8 COR PAUL WILLIAMS en oe 42,0 oS - s g/t $3 e130 . SUL: cy a3 po” Be, we os ote ee F gm Bee v IN ce eee re ap - ¥3s- ocee (a: ap MR oe ia
. o . a) i an a 4. a: Oy . Dockd
Eeeinenn Eeceey tye ° % ara Seemed Semana cae enema " “Page 3340-50080 oe 8 ‘Poéid: 32263970 ; HW 54756 -
ha acd fy PL Opg HITE fF, " Oo a fe oP . Coa we , o-R? Loe £59 -£/ "D MOLMON, s0Le 4g ves ea , cinta ene [ ae wo Ye tf Pr pe ett 349 PEL ‘dapper “snr riorans en y “Y feo at ee avery | POR "47 Agee 2 40/ pr te t *19Yey aan oD Lr/ pee 9 ‘s *paamons, oO VP le py @ w 9 “ne r028IAC, j Y to nS 7 2 yn ne, 2 ; vee a oo EP - Docld:32763970 Page 335 HW 54756
Ce nil Ayaeh are . | | | P.O. BOX 26354 es oO Phone 283-1566 _ 7 oy “Aircraft Brokering & Sales | : i Room 103 Administration Bldg. oe , 7 ‘oP: a » Specializing in Exporting & Crating Coe. : mo Lo. NEW ORLEANS 26, LA. an a — — Res. 242-2211 ~S¢ SOLD TO . “Mr. Carlos Merdia. ns Date. May 22, 1964 or “6909 Merle St. Metairie, La oc oe “For s*rvices rendered on 3251Y $150.00. re ‘Also the return of any tools, co a Gg - instruments, brand new nose wheel re ae cold tire, spinner and rain. PAYMENT PAST DUE. 5 MOONEY AIRCRAFT SALES sEXCLUSIVE, SOUTHERN LA. & MISS.
BEFORE THE EASTERN AIR LINES PILOTS SYSTEM BOARD OF ADJUSTYENT BRIEF OF EASTERN AIR LINES, INC., ON GRIEVANCE OF DAVID W, FERRIE EASTERN #15~63 EASTERN #29-63 EASTERN #18-63 CHRONOLOGY OF EVENTS On August 26, 1961, the Company learned through an article in the New Orleans Times-Picayune that Ferrie had been arrested on charges of committing a crime against nature and indecent acts with juvenile boys. (Co, Ex. 55.) On August 29, after unsuccessful attempts to contact Ferrie, the Company suspended him for an “indefinite period and until such time as the charges against (Ferrie) are cleared." (Co. Ex, 56 and 57.) There followed a series of attempts by the Company to obtain some explanation from Ferrie in regard to those charges, (Co. Ex. 57, 58, 59, 60, 61.) Finally, on October 19, 1961, Ferrie sent a Letter to Captain Griener based on "reports of reputable detectives." The letter stated that: ", . « my problem has been traced with certainty to a highly placed local official, We have positive evidence that this official is a Communist and has been in charge of some highly important Communistic activities involving ’ the protection of Communists in the area,"" (Co, Ex, 62.) | HW 54756 Docld:32263970 Page 337
HW 54756 Ferrie's status with Eastern was finalized in Captain Griener's letter of September 6, 1961, to the effect that: ", . . the Company will be willing to continue you on your present status until such time as a final determina= tion of these charges can be made, At that time a final decision as to your future employment at Eastern will be made." (Co. Ex. 59.) Some eleven criminal charges were eventually brought against Ferrie. (Co. Ex. 2.) By letter of January 8, 1963, received by Eastern on January 10, 1963, Mr. Gill informed the Company that the last of the criminal charges against Ferrie had been Nolle Prosequied. (Co. Ex. 64.) Although a Nolle Prosequi does not finally dispose of a charge since it can be refiled without prejudice, and even though the action was not "final" as contemplated in the Griener letter, the Company elected to treat the criminal cases as finalized and to proceed with its investigation, (The effect of a Nolle Prosequi will be discussed further in a later portion of the brief.) Ferrie, by letter of January 10, 1963, was directed to report to the office of Captain Stone on January 17 to "discuss « e » the improprieties which led to your suspension and to determine what future action the Company will take in your case." (Co. Ex. 65.) This meeting was delayed at Ferrie's. request and, instead of attending the meeting on January 17, he filed Grievance 15-63 on that date. This grievance alleged that Eastern violated Ferrie's rights by not restoring him to flight status as of January 9, 1963. It should be noted that the Company's action suspending Ferrie in 1961 was never grieved, Thus, all the pending grievances relate only to the action taken by the Company after January 9, 1963, As requested by the Board, all pending grievances will be covered in this brief, Docld: 3272763970 Page 336
HW 54756 The second date established for the Miami meeting was January 28, 1963. This date was again postponed at the request of Ferrie or his representative and the first step hearing in Grievance 15~63 was also postponed by agreement, (Co. Ex. 66.) On February 18, 1963, Grievance 29-63 was filed by Ferrie, alleging a refusal to "air original Grievance in accordance with Section 30," refusal to provide "pilot with written specifications of reasons why he is being held out of service," an attempt to "compel Grievant to give testimony prior to any scheduled Hearing," and "otherwise preventing him from exercising any of his contractual rights, or complying with a Company request for an linformal hearing," | Finally, on February 18, 1963, the meeting was held in Miami. (Co. Ex, 683 At that meeting Ferrie positively refused to answer any questions concerning the criminal charges which had been brought against him or any other matter that had come to the attention of the Company. Ferrie was specifically directed to answer these questions and was carefully warned that refusal to answer would be considered grounds for disciplinary action. (Co. Ex. 68.) On March 1, 1963, by letter from F, A, Stone, Vice President-Flight Operations, Ferrie was discharged, (Co. Ex. 1.) On that. same date the first step hearing in Grievance 15~63 was rescheduled for March 8, 1963. (Co. Ex. 62.) On March 11, 1963, Ferrie filed Grievance 48-63, which pertained to his discharge. Ferrie was then provided with a more extensive breakdown of the items relied upon in discharging him, (Co. Ex. 2.) Doclda: 322763970 Page 339
HW 54756 REVIEW OF EVIDENCE ON BEHALF OF THE COMPANY The Board in considering this case should keep in mind the fact that the main energies of the grievant were devoted to the suppression of the pertinent facts about his behavior, The hearing was probably the most technical in the long history of arbitrations under the Railway Labor Act insofar as objections and rulings on profferred evidence, Time and time again evidence was excluded which would normally be received as a matter of course, | The grievant's efforts to suppress evidence and keep the Board in the dark as to his activities were so successful that probably the majority of the Company's evidence was excluded, However, in the long run, the efforts of the grievant were unavailing, for even the minor portion of the Company's case which it succeeded in getting before the Board proved conclusively that the charges brought by the Company were true and that the Company's actions were justified. Sergeant Fournier, the New Orleans police officer who conducted a major portion of the investigation that led to the filing of the eleven eriminal charges, testified extensively concerning that investigation. His testimony showed a normal, conscientious police investigation which started with a . routine investigation of the report that juvenile Alexander Landry had run away from home, | The only non-routine aspect of the investigation was the fact that, at every step of the police investigation of the runaway juvenile, evidence of criminal activities on the part of Ferrie were uncovered, Thus, the investigation grew in significance and the criminal charges against Ferrie multiplied, Docld: 322763970 Page 340
A review of Sergeant Fournier's testimony leads one inescapably to the conclusion that the criminal charges against Ferrie were not the result of any Sinister forces at work or the result of the activities of an outraged mother. The criminal charges resulted directly and solely from Ferrie's nefarious activities, There can be no doubt that Ferrie was intimately connected with Alexander Landry's runaway from home, It is even admitted that the first time Landry ran away he went directly to Ferrie. The second time he ran away he did not return until his parents Signed a statement agreeing not to prosecute Ferrie, Again, this is admitted by Ferrie. (T 547 - 548) Nor can there be any doubt that Ferrie was intimately connected with Al Cheramie's runaway from home. Sergeant Fournier testified as to Ferrie visiting Cheramie in the youth detention center under the pretext of being a doctor, The connection is also if3 by the passport obtained for Cheramie by Ferrie at approximately the time of the runaway, The evidence points directly to the fact that Ferrie assisted that child in running away and that his visit to the child was for the purpose of insuring that he would conceal the part played by Ferrie, Sergeant Fournier's testimony supported the charges that Ferrie had purported to be a medical doctor and his connection with the Holy Apostolic Catholic Church of North America. Medical equipment, a priest's robe and a chalice were found when Ferrie's house was searched, Sergeant Fournier's testimony showed that the statements of the juveniles involved as to Ferrie's sexual deviations were obtained freely and voluntarily. While this type of thing is not easy for a boy to admit, it must have been a great relief to them to get these matters off their consciences. Certainly these are not the type of matters one makes up to tell about oneself merely out of sympathy for the mother of a friend, HW 54756 Docld:32263970 Page 341
It should also be pointed out that the relatively brief cross examination of Sergeant Fournier did not reveal any inconsistencies in his testimony. Nor did that cross examination reveal any hints of undue pressure brought to bear on the Sergeant during his investigation. Sergeant Fournier was followed on the stand by James Joseph Landry. James Landry, who is now 18, testified that he met Ferrie in August of 1960. at the New Orleans Airport. (T. 84, 85.) Landry was 16 at the time. The meeting was the result of a discussion between Ferrie and Landry's father, who was an Eastern Ramp Service Man. (T. 86.) Ferrie had inquired as to whether or not James Landry would be interested in joining a Civil Air Patrol Squadron known as the Metairie Falcon Squadron. (T. 85, 86.) On meeting Ferrie, James Landry joined the squadron and was issued a membership card, (Co. Ex. 3.) Iandry's testimony as to his understanding of the status of this squadron as an official part of the Civil Air Patrol was as follows: "Well, for a long time we did not have a charter. Then, I I guess it was over a year, he finally showed up with a charter and said we were officially in the C.A.P." Q. "Who is the!?t A. "David Ferrie." (T. 8&,) Landry went on to describe parties at Ferrie's house during which Ferrie Supplied and served alcohol to the minors who were in the C.A.P. (T. 89.) landry then testified as to having sexual relations with Ferrie on nights that he stayed at Ferrie's home, (T, 93, 102.) The Board's special attention is called to this witness! demeanor on the stand and the fact that vigorous cross examination, in an attempt to show a motive for the testimony, failed to reveal any motive except that the testimony was true. Landry's testimony had the ring of truth, in contrast to the false notes struck by the witnesses for the grievant. HW 54756 DBocld:322763970 Page 342
~ WW 54756 ow landry was followed to the stand by Dr. Yaegar, Dr. Yaegar testified concerning complaints received about Ferrie practicing medicine without a license. (T. 142-143.) Ferrie was called in by Dr. Yaegar and warned against such action. Whereupon, through a forty minute interview, Ferrie spun a fantastic web of lies about his background and activities, (Note particularly the testimony about Ferrie claiming to have several Ph.D's at page 144 and compare with Irion's testimony on the same subject.) Unfortunately for Ferrie, Dr. Yaegar was in a position to check many of these statements and found them to be completely false, (T. 144-145.) Dr. Yaegar's testimony in regard to the complaints received should be considered in connection with Company Exhibit 4 (which shows that Ferrie had himself listed in the telephone directory as Dr.) with Sergeant Fournier's ~ testimony in regard to the medical instruments found in Ferrie's home and with the testimony of Irion, a witness called by Ferrie, who testified that Ferrie often treated him for various sicknesses, The next witness on behalf of the Company was John Roger Espenan. Mr. Espenan's son had been a member of Ferrie's unauthorized C.A.P. Metairie Falcon Squadron. Mr, Espenan testified as to having become suspicious of the | squadron's authenticity, of Ferrie's statements that it was an authorized squadron, and of his obtaining the forged certificate and taking it to the Air Force C.A.P. sergeant who confirmed his suspicion of its being invalid. (T. 285-295.) He, Espenan, also testified that the supposed certificate was on a form used for C.A.P. Certificates. (Tr. 305, 314.) After Mr, Espenan's testimony there could be no doubt that Ferrie organized a bogus C.A.P. squadron and deceived the parents and the members as to its status. To quiet the questions about its status, he forged a C.A.P. Certificate. Mr. Espenan's testimony was, of course, completely Docld: 3272763970 Page 343
HW 54756 confirmed by the records of the C.A.P, and, particularly, the sergeant's Memo to File regarding Espenan's visit to the headquarters with the forged certificate, (Co. Ex. 54.) | The Board should particularly note the representations of Mr, Gill and Ferrie that appear on pages 302-304 of the transcript, Both gentlemen assured. the Board there was a state charter, which was obtained in 1961 and which would be introduced in evidence by them, These representations proved to be completely false, as no such document was ever tendered by them. There was no state charter issued until 1962, long after Ferrie's arrest and the breakup of the squadron. Moreover, they knew that they could not produce any charter issued in 1961. The Company did produce the only state charter issued; it was issued in 1962, and it was signed by Ferrie. (ALPA Ex. 23; T, 516, 517.) | This attempt to mislead the Board was typical of the grievant's case from “beginning ‘to “endj°2 8" 22: 2.8.8. at, paviloulssly, the sargeantts cone The iiéxt ‘withess: £or “the “Company ‘was Ronald Hubner.:Thrée éxhibits*< (Co¢Exs6;-7 afid-8)-were- introduced during his testimony. The first exhibit was a lettér from the American “Vice Corstl<in® Italy and’ it’ exploded’ ¢ompletely Ferrie 'sconténtion that*he’had a Ph.Ds from Pheonix University “in Bari; Italy, (6o."Ex. “6))° The secoridexhibit was “the minutesof the ‘New’ Oplearis Chapter of ‘the MilitaryOrder ‘of World Wars theéting of July: 24;°1961,°at which: Ferrie made“a “speech which ‘inflamed thé membership. This ‘record*of thé meeting shows that Ferrie was “indulging in’these activities ‘as(an Eastern Air “Lines ** Captain, riot a8 a ‘private individuals "(Gos Exe 7gyo% So.) Secy mous not The “third exhibit was a' letter from Colonel. Christiansen of the’ =°°<° U.S. Air“ Force détailing “sone of ‘the difficulties ‘Ferrie got int6 «in the CsA.P, during the ‘period he was a legitimate member. (Co. Ex. 8) Docld: 322763970 Page 344
The remainder of the Company's case consisted of a series of exhibits, | Exhibits 44 through 54 were records of the Civil Air Patrol regarding Ferrie. They showed that from 1955 to 1959 Ferrie was out of the Civil Air Patrol, Apparently he was put out in 1955 against his wishes, and it took him approximately one year, starting in 1958, to obtain permission to return. (Co. Ex. 44 and 47.) He was in the Civil Air Patrol from approximately September 1959 until June of 1960, when he was again forced out because of his misbehavior, | Company Exhibit 48 shows that he used his claim to have a Ph.D. in gaining readmission to the Civil Air Patrol, Company Exhibits 51-54 show that it was generally believed in New Orleans that Ferrie had an authorized squadron in 1961, and these misrepresentations had reached the point that the Civil Air Patrol was considering ootaining newspaper coverage of their denials of any connection with Ferrie, Exhibits 72 and 73 were rebuttal exhibits to Ferrie's testimony regarding Italian universities, They show the actual methods of accredidation, the requirements for attendance of foreign students, the degrees awarded, and that Phoenix University is not a recognized Italian university. These | exhibits should be compared with Ferrie's testimony on this subject. The result is that Ferrie's testimony regarding the Italian system of higher learning (molded by him to fit his claimed alma mater) is completely refuted by the impartial documentary exhibits introduced by the Company. . Other Company exhibits were Ferrie's application for employment (Co. Ex. 9) and the physical récord he filled out when applying for employment (Co. Ex. 10). Most of the Company's testimony (showing that many facts were concealed by Ferrie in making out these forms) was excluded. However, Ferrie testified about these matters, and his testimony alone convicts him of HW 54756 Docld: 32263970 Page 345
omitting many derogatory items, His explanation for not listing his total educational and employment record is certainly amazing, but hardly persuasive. The health records introduced by Ferrie himself show mental and physical problems which should have been revealed to the Company; especially the record of the Cleveland Clinic, which was introduced after a demand for its production by the Company. (ALPA Ex, 14.) Mr. Gill explained this medical report as being due to Ferrie's "tender age" at the time. (T, 487.) At the time, Ferrie's "tender age" was 26! REVIEW OF TESTIMONY ON BEHALF OF GRIEVANT It would be a kindness to Ferrie if the Board simply ignores all the testimony introduced on his’ behalf, Unfortunately for Ferrie, the Board must consider the entire record. It is submitted that the grievant's side of the case, standing alone, is sufficient to justify the Board in upholding the discharge. Ferrie, on the stand, testified that everyone knew his squadron was not part of the Civil Air Patrol, and that early in 1961 he had obtained a state charter for a non-profit corporation. (T. 515-516.) | An unsworn, unsigned "deposition" in absentia of Martens was offered as an exhibit at this time by Ferrie to support his testimony. (ALPA Ex. 24.) According to Mr, Gill, this "deposition" was based on a letter written by Mr. Martens, Mysteriously, Martens had not had an opportunity to sign it. The "deposition" stated that a charter for a non=—profit corporation was obtained in early 1961 and was kept at Ferrie's house. The "deposition" went on to state that this was the document Mr. Espenan and the sergeant of the Civil Air Patrol examined, HW 54756 DBocld:322763970 Page 346
HW 54756 Unfortunately, this explanation was doomed to fall apart practically before it was offered for, to assist the Board, the Company at this point produced a copy of the only state charter for a non-profit corporation obtained by Ferrie. , This charter was applied for in 1962 — not 1961. The date is, of course, long after Ferrie's arrest, and even longer after Mr. Espenan had checked the forged C.A.P. Charter, Moveover, the 1962 decument was signed by Ferrie, which establishes beyond question his knowledge that: no previous charter existed, Of course, this 1962 charter also exploded the unsworn, unsigned "deposition" in absentia of Martens, Indeed, when it vas pointed out that the "deposition" contained parenthetical portions indicating that Martens was being handed various documents for inspection while his "deposition" was in progress, Mr. Gill found it necessary to explain further that the "deposition" was not alone based upon a letter from Martens after all, but was also based upon a personal interview in his office = sort of a mixture of the two, Ferrie's story changed rapidly. He next claimed that, despite being the leader of the squadron, he did not check details such as a charter, That was the responsibility of the young boys in the squadron. He ignored completely the fact that when he signed the 1962 charter he had to know there was no previous charter in that name, and that when he introduced the “Martens "deposition," he knew the facts stated therein were untrue. Ferrie proceeded with testimony to the effect that the Landry accusation originally related to April 26, 1961. He testified about visiting one Prinz, an Eastern crew scheduler, and obtaining absolute proof that he was not in New Orleans on April 26. The information supposedly obtained from Prinz was to the effect that Ferrie was on a flight as shown by flight records. (T.. 596, 597, 601, 602.) Ferrie then implied that the District attorney ‘was tipped off to this proof and the date on the indictment was changed to April 28, 1961. Docld: 322763970 Page 347
HW 54756 On cross-examination he first refused to answer any questions about the proof obtained from Prinz, (T. 618620.) He then became vague and could not remember what the proof was or whether the proof regarding April 26 was even obtained from Prinz. (T. 621, 626, 628, 629.) This initial refusal to testify and the subsequent vagueness is understandable in view of the proof offered by the Company in the form of pay records showing he was on vacation the last half of April, 1961, (Co. Ex, 71.) Ferrie's other testimony was as wild and unconvincing as the first two instances noted. First, he had a good, solid Ph.D. Then, after cross~ examination, on redirect by his attorney, he took the position that, regardless of its validity, he felt he had benefited by obtaining it. (T. 706.) of course, the Board should not forget his testimony that he obtained this Ph.D. to impress Harvard professors with his ability in the area of air safety. Also noteworthy was his testimony that he listed himself in the telephone book as "Dr." for the same purpose. Ferrie left to the Board's imagination how the Harvard professors were going to be impressed by his listing in the New Orleans telephone book. It would serve no useful purpose, and space scarcely permits a discussion of all the inconsistencies and inaccuracies in Ferrie's testimony. One other aspect of his testimony is so important that it must be touched upon. Ferrie had some eleven criminal charges brought against him, On direct examination he did not attempt any detailed explanation of why this should happen to him other than implications that it was done by Mrs. Landry. (He had previously explained in a letter to Captain Griener that it had all happened because he was hot on the trail of Communists, some of whom worked for Eastern. ) On cross~examination he was offered the chance to explain. A long statement was made that, based on investigations by private detectives, it could be shown that his troubles with the law were due to Communists and -~ 12 = Docld:32763970 Page 346 —
HW 54756 Mrs, Landry. (T. 676-684.) However, when details were requested, it became apparent that there was no evidence to support the explanation.. A District Attorney was supposed to be the key figure; however, Ferrie testified this District Attorney refused to have anything to do with the charges and the majority of the charges were actually brought in an entirely different parish. (T. 679, 682, 683.) No connection was shown between this District Attorney and Mrs. Landry and the individuals who signed statements, The net result of Ferrie's testimony on this subject was that he had no explanation at all, Thus, Sergeant Fournier's testimony, such as he was allowed to give, involving his normal, impartial police investigation stands completely unrefuted,. The other witnesses called by Ferrie contributed more to the Company's - case than to Ferrie's case. Irion's testimony on cross~examination was about the most damaging testimony to Ferrie presented during the hearings. He stated that, during 1955 through 1960, Ferrie participated in C.A.P. meetings and wore a Captain's uniform. (T. 765, 766.) Of course, the previously— introduced C.A.P. documents proved conclusively that Ferrie was not an official member of the C.A.P. during most of this period, (Co. Ex. 44 and 47.) Irion also testified that it was unlawful to wear this uniform unless you were an official member of the C.A.P. (T. 766.) His prejudice was shown by his | testimony that his Opinion of Ferrie would not be changed even it it were proven to him that Ferrie was not a member of the C.A.P. and was not authorized to wear a uniform during most of the 1955~1960 period, (T. 768.) Despite approximately a half-hour of leading questions and prompting by grievant's attorney on redirect, Irion stuck to his story about Ferrie's wearing the C.A.P. uniform during periods when he, by his own admission, was not a member of the C.A.P. (Ts 783-789.) -13- Docld:32263970 Page 349
! His other testimony directly supported the position of the Company, and was directly contrary to Ferrie's testimony, He testified that Ferrie had medical instruments in his home prior to his mother's coming to live with him (Ferrie had testified that they were only for his mother); that Ferrie had three college degrees; that Ferrie was supposedly studying to be a medical doctor; that Ferrie hypnotized some of the boys; and that Ferrie had a chalice at his home. (1.775, 778, 779, 780, 781.) Apparently, the main purpose of calling Lewallen was to support Ferrie's account of how he filled out his inaccurate employment application form in Cleveland just before being hired by Eastern. Since Lewallen was in the Air Force at the time (many miles away in the Carolinas), he explained his presence in Cleveland by testimony that his superior had given him three or four days off in the middle of the week.. (T. 816, 817.) According to Lewallen, he was not on leave or on a pass; he just was given some time off, and just happened to be in Cleveland and looking over Ferrie's shoulder at the time the forn was filled in and signed as true, He remembered the exact details vividly, Lewallen also confirmed Irion's testimony about Ferrie's participating in the Civil Air Patrol during 1955~1960, although, under extensive prompting, he later changed his testimony (T. 807-808) and attempted to come in line with the story Ferrie had previously given. | Wher{ Mr. Bannister)took the stand, the Board was treated to the rare experience of having one attorney for the grievant elicit testimony while the other attorney for the grievant objected to the testimony and had it stricken. About the only conclusion that could be drawn from Mr. Bannister's testimony was that he had interviewed Ferrie's friends and his friends had spoken well of him. From all indications, he interviewed only people whose names Ferrie had supplied, (T. 856-857) “1k - HW 54756 Docld:32263970 Page 350
or ane HW 54756 Mr.. Bannister testified about his investigation of Ferrie's speech before the veterans! organization in the role of an Eastern Captain. Ferrie must have spoken before that organization twice and had both speeches stopped, either that or Mr. Pannister's investigation was woefully inadequate, for he testified as to Ferrie's attacking the then-President Eisenhower, President Kennedy, DISCUSSION It would seem obvious that the evidence introduced on behalf of the Company or the evidence introduced on behalf of the grievant, either or both, establishes beyond any doubt that the Company's discharge of Ferrie was justified, The only real defense set forth on behalf of the grievant was that he is smart enough to stay out of jail; so he is certainly good enough to be an Eastern captain, Truly, this is an amazing defense. One might expect to hear it offered in defense of a janitor, but it grates on the sensibilities to hear it offered on behalf of an Eastern captain, An Eastern captain holds a highly-paid, highly-respected, highly- responsible position. He is responsible for the lives of thousands of passengers and millions on millions of dollars of equipment during the course of a year. If Eastern is to secure passenger revenue with which to pay its thousands of employees, its pilot group must retain the respect and trust of the traveling public. The general public is in no position to judge the flying ability of a pilot; it makes its judgments on the appearance and general reputation of an airline's pilot personnel. One does not lightly put one's life in the hands of another, and certainly not in the hands of a man like Ferrie. ~15- Docld:322763970 Page 351
HW 54756 The Air Line Pilots Association has long been in accord with these principles, It has worked for years to create a professional status for the airline pilot. Each base has its Professional Standards Committee, which is interested in far more than just a pilot's flying ability. Neither the Company nor the ALPA would ever be satisfied to have a standard set at the level necessary for the Board to find in favor of Ferrie, Contrary to Ferrie's contention, one has not proven that his behavior meets the standards for an airline captain by merely proving one has not been sentenced to jail, During the course of the hearing, there were many discussions on the effect of a case being Nolle Prosequied. Ferrie would have the Board believe that in some way this completely clears his record; that it is, in effect, a finding of not guilty. Actually, it amounts to nothing more than a decision by the District Attorney not to proceed at that time. This is spelled out in Title 15 of the Louisiana Revised Statutes, Section 15:328, which reads: "A nolle prosequi simply discharges a particular indictment or part thereof, and is no bar to a subsequent prosecution for the offense as to which the nolle prosequi was entered," Thus, if the statute of limitations (a procedural rule having nothing to do with whether or not a person is guilty of a charge) has not run, ten of the original cases could be refiled in Louisiana in the future, Certainly, in such circumstances, the entry of a nolle prosequi is no bar to this Board's looking into the actions of Ferrie, ‘Ferrie blandly took the position that the not guilty verdict in the criminal case relating to James Landry prohibited this Board from considering any of his activities in connection with Landry. This is not even the rule in connection with courts of law — let alone action by an administrative board under the Railway Labor Act. ~16- Docld: 322763970 Page 352
HW 54756 As Professor Prosser in The Law of Torts, 2nd Ed,,1955, p. 7, points outs "The same act may be both a crime against the state and a tort against an individual, In such a case, since the interests invaded are not the same, and the objects to be accomplished by the two suits are different, there may be both a civil tort action and a criminal prosecution for the same offense. The two may be conducted successively, or at the same time, and a decision for or against the defendant in one is not conclusive as to the other," . Perhaps the most common example of this is in automobile accident cases. Individual A may be criminally charged with speeding which caused an accident which injured B. If A is found not guilty of speeding in the criminal case, the jury in a later civil action for damages may still find that A was speeding and award damages to Bs Indeed, it would be reversible error to permit the jury in the civil action to be told that A had been found not guilty of speeding in the criminal case, as they must be left free to decide the issue for themselves. This same theory carries over to the instant case.. In. the criminal case involving Ferrie, the interest of the state was involved, The issue was whether or not Ferrie had violated a state statute on the date set forth in the charges. In this case the interest of Eastern is involved. This Board is concerned with the question of whether or not Ferrie's conduct was such that Eastern had the right to discharge hin. The decision by Judge Jason Berkman, sitting as neutral with the Mechanical System Board of Adjustment in the Clements case, is direct authority for the proposition that Eastern may discharge an employee for the same behavior upon which the employee has successfully defended himself on a criminal charge. (Co, Ex. 70.) There is no distinction between the Clements case and the Ferrie case on this question. -17~ Doclda: 322763970 Page 353
HW 54756 It has been settled law for some thirteen years that only a System Board of Adjustment may decide an issue involving reinstatement and back pay. The leading cases establishing that principle, and holding that only Adjustment Boards under the Railway Labor Act have jurisdiction of such disputes, are Slocum v. Delaware, L. & We RoRe, 339 U. S, 239 (1950) and Railway Conductors Vs Southern Railway, 339 U. S. 255 (1950). ‘Those Supreme Court decisions extended the doctrine announced in Railway Conductors v. Pitney, 326 U. S, 561 (1946) to the effect that the administrative agency created under the Railway Labor Act to decide such matters of contract interpretation and application should be given primary jurisdiction of such matters. In the Slocum case, which involved interpretation of collective agreements with respect to job assignments and back pay, the Court concluded: "We hold that the jurisdiction of the Eoard to adjust zrievances and disputes of this type is exclusive," The doctrine of the Slocum case has been followed in many cases, ineluding cases involving airline adjustment boards. See, for example, Woolley Ve _ Eastern Air Lines, 250 F, 2d 87 (5th Cir. 1957); Hettenbaugh v. Airline Pilots Association, 189 F, 24.319 (5th Cir. 1951); Crusen v, United Air Lines, 239 F. 2d 863 (10th Cir, 1956); Colbert v. Railroad Trainmen,.206 F, 2d 9 (9th Cir, 1953); Railroad Telesraphers v. New Orleans, T. & Ms Rys, 156 Fe 2d 1 (8th Cir. 1946); Spires v. Southern Ry., 204 F. 2d 453 (4th Cir. 1953)s Starke ve New York, C. & St. L, R. Re, 180 F 2d 569 (7th Cir, 1950), Thus, no court, whether state or federal, criminal or civil, has the right to determine the issue presented to this System Board as to whether or not Ferrie is entitled to reinstatement and back pay. This System Board should and must make its own independent decision on the record before it; Docld:322763970 Page 354
¢ Le bey AY Dae eae ce “\ APCACHA, Sergio...former N.C. - representative of “-FRD (Frente Revelucicraric Dereeratico) a CIA founced orgarization. U.S. ston ed payments fcr it c. June 1961, Formerly had cffice in Balter Bldg. Arcacha lived in Lake Vista and later. in Parchester, Last address in Houstcn » Texas. Good business man and divlomat, - DRINGDTER (st namé ?) former Havava atty. Emleyme - educated, ot not smart, dreamer. handling.’ cf reality and treth. OE “in New Orleans unhnowns Younzish ~, practical ard given to poor CROES?ES (Last name 2) ovner” cr onerator of Habana’ cor; Decatur street, . Yeungisk, comoetent. Woculd lite te helnr, Prita‘y concerns: making. money . .. and staying out of trcuble, Probat “ly” weeld not return te Cuba even if Castro left. His ber sort of 2 meebine nlece fer many elements, He wevld give noney, clothirs end food, te new arrivals but not. fer: lens. wanted them on | their own sc on.