Rape of Justice - Eustace Mullins

Freedom of Speech, Anyone?

I was uniquely qualified to found the American Council of Freedom of Speech Organizations, because I not only was the only person ever fired from the staff of the Library of Congress for political reasons; I also was the only writer who had had a book burned in Europe since 1945. The announcement that my history of the Federal Reserve was to appear in a German edition was greeted with horror by U.S. High Commissioner James B. Conant. I have repeatedly memorialized James B. Conant as the most notorious war criminal of the Second World War, a title which no one has sought to wrest from him. As a chemist, he developed an anthrax bomb on request from Winston Churchill, which would have killed every human being and every animal in Germany. The war ended before the bomb, (which Conant succeeded in perfecting) could be used. He then returned to Washington, where he advised President Truman to drop the atom bomb upon Japanese women and children. After the war, he became the ruthless Gauleiter of the conquered German people. I made legal objection to his wanton act of book-burning by filing the following complaint:

v. No.

As and for his Petition, the plaintiff, Eustace C. Mullins, seeks redress from the defendant for the following acts committed by defendant:

1. On or about July 10, 1955, defendant, acting through its duly appointed agents and respondent subsidiaries, did cause and order to be confiscated and seized and destroyed the property of defendant, the entire German edition of a book, "DER BANKER VERSCHWORUNG VON JEKYL ISLAND," by Eustace C. Mullins, Plaintiff. The only recorded instance of a book being burned in Europe since 1945, defendant's act has been termed "one of the most barbarous acts of the twentieth century." The said seizure and destruction was duly reported by Reuters News Agency, the Washington Post, and other international news agencies.

2. From July 10, 1955 to the present date, defendant has continuously, consecutively and concurrently acted to cover up said crime of burning or destroying plaintiffs books, and has continuously conspired to obstruct justice by refusing plaintiff any compensation for said act of burning plaintiffs books, and has conspired to deny that said book burning took place, said conspiracy having been in effect from July 10, 1955 to the present date.

3. Said act by defendant of burning plaintiffs books took place as part of defendant's military occupation of a defeated nation, West Germany, and constitutes a WAR CRIME as defined by the Nuremberg Trials of which defendant was a participant and signatory.

4. Said order to bum plaintiffs books issued from the office of James Bryant Conant, in his capacity as United States High Commissioner of West Germany, and said order by defendant's principal agent to officials of a defeated and occupied nation constitutes a WAR CRIME.

5. Defendant, through its duly appointed agents and respondent subsidiaries, did further cause the said book to be continuously banned in West Germany from July 10, 1955 to November 1980, thereby causing the death of the publisher, Guido Roeder, Widar Verlag, in Oberammergau, Germany, from shock, harassment and impoverishment. Plaintiffs book has been published in Oberammergau, the home of the Passion Play of Jesus Christ, as an act of Christian piety.

6. Said agent of defendant, one James Bryant Conant, did act and seize plaintiffs book from hidden motives in his capacity as the second ranking Communist agent in the United States, to forestall any resurgence of anti-Communist feeling in Germany, because plaintiffs book exposed the financial origins of the Communist rise to power.

7. Said agent of defendant acted illegally because plaintiffs book had been widely circulated in the United States for three years, in two editions, with no legal action from any United States official, and had been publicly praised by such great Americans as Congressman Wright Patman of the House Banking and Currency Committee (letter of Nov. 23, 1953).

8. In November, 1980, Roland Bohlinger, WobbenbullHusum, West Germany, did defy the illegal ban instituted by defendant, and did publish and circulate plaintiffs book in West Germany, with the approval of the present government of West Germany, solely because defendant, its agents and respondent subsidiaries, no longer have the power to demand obedience from West German officials or to bum plaintiffs books in West Germany. Said sequence of events proves sole guilt of defendant in the seizing and burning of plaintiffs books in West Germany on or about July 10, 1955, and in the subsequent conspiracy to injure plaintiff by the continued ban to November, 1980, and the conspiracy to obstruct justice in covering up this crime, and defendant is solely liable for all damages resulting from said act.

WHEREFORE, plaintiff seeks damages from defendant for losses from sales of this book in West Germany from 1955 to 1980 of deprived royalties of six million dollars ($6,000,000.00), plus an additional six million dollars ($6,000,000.00) which plaintiff would have earned from the sale of plaintiffs other books and articles in the market in West Germany and Europe which would have been created by the circulation of the destroyed book, plus punitive damages in an amount to be determined by the Court.

In further pleadings, I referred to this action as follows:

Nature of the Case

"Plaintiffs petition is the oldest and most historic civil rights case now in litigation. Plaintiff came to the U.S. Court of Claims because plaintiff has been consistently denied a hearing of this case and legal redress. Plaintiff had not exhausted legal remedies but had been denied legal remedies.

. . . The Dept, of Justice has repeatedly and illegally refused to act on plaintiffs complaints of violations of his civil rights, as evidenced by attached copy of letter from Jerris Leonard, Asst Atty Gen, Civil Rights Division, dated March 5, 1970, which concludes, "If you believe your rights have been violated, you may wish to retain a private attorney to determine what remedies, if any, are available to you.'"

This case was dismissed without a hearing.

I had also sought vainly for reinstatement to the staff of the Library of Congress since I was discharged in 1952. I had been discharged by the pathetic drunkard, Luther Evans, on charges that I had used the letterhead "Aryan League of America," and that I had been the American correspondent for "The Social Creditor," a small English newspaper. The American Library Association had risen in anger at the spectacle of numerous plays, movies, and television productions which showed courageous Bette Davises battling prejudice as leftwing small town librarians. The ALA Council announced that it had formed two new committees to deal with the clear and present danger. "The Office for Intellectual Freedom (OIF) and the Intellectual Freedom Committee (IFC) will announce that they are ready, willing and able to take action on complaints of violations of the Library Bill of Rights whether from ALA members directly through the State Intellectual Freedom Committees, or indeed, from anyone else."

Unfortunately for the ALA, the OIF and the IFC, I was the only person who had been fired from a library for political reasons, and I was a known anti-Communist! They dashed for the exits each time that I contacted them, and have been running ever since. As I wrote to the redoubtable head of the American Library Association, Judith Krug,

Judith F. Krug,
Office for Intellectual Freedom
American Library Association
50 E Huron St Chicago 111

Dear Mrs. Krug;

Thank you for your letter of January 8, 1970, which contains the statement that I did not exhaust the administrative remedies available. After receiving Mr. Mason's letter, I requested the hearing before the Librarian of Congress, Dr. Luther Evans, and was granted this hearing. Dr. Evans stated that he had no choice but to discharge me. This exhausted the administrative remedies available. The following week, Dr. Evans made a speech before the American Library Association defending the principle of freedom of speech, and displaying a remarkable moral agility after his action in my case. I do not know how you obtained information that I did not exhaust the administrative remedies.

As for being a probationary employee, I have heard this for seventeen years, but no one has ever explained to me why a probationary employee can be denied his civil rights, as I know of no other probationary employee who was denied them. A probationary employee means one who is allowed to work a certain length of time while his qualifications are evaluated in order to reach a decision as to his fitness to hold the job. My competence and my moral background, as well as my relationships with customers and fellow employees, was never questioned. The exercise of totalitarian Fascism in this instance by Dr. Evans and Mr. Mason is an outrage that will be remedied, although from your response I am beginning to wonder if the Office for Intellectual Freedom is seriously interested in this case. For the record, I believe your office will stand or fall by its decision in this case, as it is a historic case which will be pressed in every possible manner as an exposure of totalitarian Fascistic activity by Dr. Evans and Mr. Mason, who reached a personal decision to deny me my civil rights and in so doing violated Section 241 Title 18 of the United States Code in a criminal violation.

Eustace Mullins

In my thirty year campaign for reinstatement to the Library of Congress, I wrote to Luther Evans' successor, L. Quincy Mumford,

L. Quincy Mumford,
Librarian of Congress,
Washington, D.C.

Dear Mr. Mumford;

Your letter of July 16, 1969 to Senator William B. Spong Jr. carefully avoids discussing the facts of the case in my discharge from the staff of the Library of Congress. You do not mention that no public expression of prejudice was made to any staff member or customer of the Library of Congress, or that said "prejudice" had not prevented me from carrying out my duties and maintaining satisfactory working relationships in a racially integrated group for six months prior to my discharge.

Nor do you mention that the complaint, coming from outside the Library by persons who had never seen or spoken to me, was drawn up by J. Epstein, an active member of the Communist Party then serving on the staff of Senator Herbert Lehman, D.N.Y., and sent to the Library over Senator Lehman's signature. These persons did not appear in person to make a complaint.

Is it not a fact that no member of the Communist Party has ever been discharged from the staff of the Library of Congress?

Is it not a fact that if I had expressed pro-Communist views, instead of the anti-Communist ones in the article in dispute, I would have received no disciplinary action?

Your letter to Senator Spong shows a total amorality and complete disregard of my rights as an American citizen and as a human being. Although the great majority of Federal employees are loyal, decent, hard-working American citizens, it is regrettable that the department heads are still being drawn from the sinister cabal organized during the 1930s by Harry Dexter White and Lauchlin Currie, and that employees not in sympathy with their amoral, foreign allegiances are discharged, in the same ruthless manner as I was discharged from the Library of Congress.

I have been informed that persons ordering any of my eight titles from the Library stacks invariably have the slips returned marked, "Not on Shelf." Is this not the accepted practice of book-burning? The next step will probably be to deny me access to Library facilities, which I frequently use in research for my books on Christian themes.

I seek justice, not only for myself, but for the vast majority of disenfranchised American citizens.

Eustace Mullins

I then filed suit against Mumford, as follows:

"Defendant has willfully, maliciously and capriciously refused to reinstate plaintiff as a member of the staff of the Library of Congress because of personal pique and prejudice even after being informed of the distorted and false claims advanced in plaintiffs letter of dismissal, and said claims were initiated by agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigation in open and flagrant violations of plaintiffs civil rights."

The following press release, sent to all major news media, was never printed anywhere.


A historic civil rights scandal surfaced here with the filing of a suit asking two and one half million dollars in damages. E. Mullins, 51, has sued L. Quincy Mumford, Librarian of Congress, charging that Mumford, in refusing to reinstate Mullins on the staff of the Library of Congress, has shown, "pique, prejudice and violation of his civil rights."

The only person ever fired from the Library for political reasons, Mullins was given a letter of dismissal stating that he had used a letterhead named The Aryan League of America, and that he had written an article on foreign aid for The Social Creditor of England, a now defunct monetary journal which had a circulation of eight hundred, and which was not circulated in the United States.

Mullins had earlier received two promotions during six months on the Library staff, and had been personally hired by the Librarian, who had heard him give a reading of his poetry.

Since his dismissal, Mullins has repeatedly requested reinstatement, but Mumford has ignored these requests, taking the position that, as a "probationary" employee, Mullins had no civil rights.

"This legal confrontation is of vital importance to every Federal employee," says Mullins. "The courts must decide whether the bureaucrat is answerable to the law."

Judge June L. Green, famous for her capricious decisions, dismissed my suit with prejudice Jan. 14, 1975.