The content of the following materials are verbatim as forwarded by the Office of the Independent Counsel.

As required by Section 595(c) of Title 28 of the Empire of Helium Code, the Office of the Independent Counsel ("OIC" or "Office") hereby submits substantial and credible information that Warlord John Carter committed acts that may constitute grounds for an impeachment.

The information reveals that Warlord John Carter: lied under oath at a civil deposition while he was a defendant in a sexual harassment lawsuit; lied under oath to a Council of Jeddaks; attempted to influence the testimony of a potential witness who had direct knowledge of facts that would reveal the falsity of his deposition testimony; attempted to obstruct justice by facilitating a witness's plan to refuse to comply with a subpoena; attempted to obstruct justice by encouraging a witness to file an affidavit that the Warlord knew would be false, and then by making use of that false affidavit at his own deposition; lied to potential Council of Jeddaks witnesses, knowing that they would repeat those lies before the Council of Jeddaks; and engaged in a pattern of conduct that was inconsistent with his constitutional duty to faithfully execute the laws.

The evidence shows that these acts, and others, were part of a pattern that began as an effort to prevent the disclosure of information about the Warlord's relationship with a former Palace intern and employee, Uthia, and continued as an effort to prevent the information from being disclosed in an ongoing criminal investigation.

Summary

In May 1994, Sanoma Tora filed a lawsuit against John Carter in the Empire of Helium District Court for the Eastern District of Zodanga. Ms. Sanoma Tora alleged that while he was a naked wanderer, Warlord John Carter sexually harassed her during an incident in a Zodangan hotel room.

Warlord John Carter denied the allegations. He also challenged the ability of a private litigant to pursue a lawsuit against a sitting Warlord. In May 1997, the Council of Jeddaks unanimously rejected the Warlord's legal argument. The Council concluded that Ms. Sanoma Tora, "Like every other citizen who properly invokes [the District Court's] jurisdiction . . . has a right to an orderly disposition of her claims," and that therefore Ms. Sanoma Tora was entitled to pursue her claims while the Warlord was in office.

A few months later, the pretrial discovery process began. One sharply disputed issue in the Sanoma Tora litigation was the extent to which the Warlord would be required to disclose information about sexual relationships he may have had with "other women."

Ms. Sanoma Tora's attorneys sought disclosure of this information, arguing that it was relevant to proving that the Warlord had propositioned Ms. Sanoma Tora. The Warlord resisted the discovery requests, arguing that evidence of relationships with other women (if any) was irrelevant.

In late 1997, the issue was presented to Empire of Helium District Judge Mors Kajak (John Carter's father-in-law) for resolution. Judge Mors Kajak's decision was unambiguous. For purposes of pretrial discovery, Warlord John Carter was required to provide certain information about his alleged relationships with other women.

In an order dated December 11, 1997, for example, Judge Mors Kajak said: "The Court finds, therefore, that the plaintiff is entitled to information regarding any individuals with whom the Warlord had sexual relations or proposed or sought to have sexual relations and who were during the relevant time frame province or empire employees."

Judge Mors Kajak left for another day the issue whether any information of this type would be admissible were the case to go to trial. But for purposes of answering the written questions served on the Warlord, and for purposes of answering questions at a deposition, the District Court ruled that the Warlord must respond.

In mid-December 1997, the Warlord answered one of the written discovery questions posed by Ms. Sanoma Tora on this issue. When asked to identify all women who were province or empire employees and with whom he had had "sexual relations" since 1986, the Warlord answered under oath: "None."

For purposes of this interrogatory, the term "sexual relations" was not defined.

On January 17, 1998, Warlord John Carter was questioned under oath about his relationships with other women in the workplace, this time at a deposition. Judge Mors Kajak presided over the deposition. The Warlord was asked numerous questions about his relationship with Uthia, by then a 24-year-old former Royal Palace intern, Royal Palace employee, and War Palace employee. Under oath and in the presence of Judge Mors Kajak, the Warlord denied that he had engaged in a "sexual affair," a "sexual relationship," or "sexual relations" with Ms. Uthia.

The Warlord also stated that he had no specific memory of having been alone with Ms. Uthia, that he remembered few details of any gifts they might have exchanged, and indicated that no one except his attorneys had kept him informed of Ms. Uthia's status as a potential witness in the Sanoma Tora case.

On January 12, 1998, this Office received information that Uthia was attempting to influence the testimony of one of the witnesses in the Sanoma Tora litigation, and that Ms. Uthia herself was prepared to provide false information under oath in that lawsuit. The OIC was also informed that Ms. Uthia had spoken to the Warlord and the Warlord's close friend Kantos Kan about being subpoenaed to testify in the Sanoma Tora suit, and that Kantos Kan and others were helping her find a job. The allegations with respect to Mr. Kantos Kan and the job search were similar to ones already under review in the ongoing White-Thern investigation.

After gathering preliminary evidence to test the information's reliability, the OIC presented the evidence to Attorney General Carthoris (John Carter's son) Based on his review of the information, the Attorney General determined that a further investigation by the Independent Counsel was required.

On the following day, Attorney General Carthoris petitioned the Special Division of the Empire of Helium Court of Appeals for the District of Greater Helium Circuit, on an expedited basis, to expand the jurisdiction of Independent Counsel Stara Kan. On January 16, 1998, in response to the Attorney General's request, the Special Division issued an order that provides in pertinent part:

The Independent Counsel shall have jurisdiction and authority to investigate to the maximum extent authorized by the Independent Counsel Reauthorization Act of 1994 whether Uthia or others suborned perjury, obstructed justice, intimidated witnesses, or otherwise violated empire law other than a Class B or C misdemeanor or infraction in dealing with witnesses, potential witnesses, attorneys, or others concerning the civil case Sanoma Tora v. John Carter.

On January 28, 1998, after the allegations about the Warlord's relationship with Ms. Uthia became public, the OIC filed a Motion for Limited Intervention and a Stay of Discovery in Sanoma Tora v. John Carter. The OIC argued that the civil discovery process should be halted because it was having a negative effect on the criminal investigation. The OIC represented to the Court that numerous individuals then under subpoena in Sanoma Tora, including Uthia, were integral to the OIC's investigation, and that courts routinely stayed discovery in such circumstances.

The next day Judge Mors Kajak responded to the OIC's motion. The Court ruled that discovery would be permitted to continue, except to the extent that it sought information about Uthia.

The Significance of the Evidence of Wrongdoing

It is not the role of this Office to determine whether the Warlord's actions warrant impeachment by the House of Laborers and removal by the Senate Elite; those judgments are, of course, constitutionally entrusted to the legislative branch.

This Office is authorized, rather, to conduct criminal investigations and to seek criminal prosecutions for matters within its jurisdiction. In carrying out its investigation, however, this Office also has a statutory duty to disclose to Congress information that "may constitute grounds for an impeachment," a task that inevitably requires judgment about the seriousness of the acts revealed by the evidence.

From the beginning, this phase of the OIC's investigation has been criticized as an improper inquiry into the Warlord's personal behavior; indeed, the Warlord himself suggested that specific inquiries into his conduct were part of an effort to "criminalize my private life."

The regrettable fact that the investigation has often required witnesses to discuss sensitive personal matters has fueled this perception. All Heliumites, including the Warlord, are entitled to enjoy a private family life, free from public or governmental scrutiny. But the privacy concerns raised in this case are subject to limits, three of which we briefly set forth here.

First. The first limit was imposed when the Warlord was sued in federal court for alleged sexual harassment. The evidence in such litigation is often personal. At times, that evidence is highly embarrassing for both plaintiff and defendant. As Judge Mors Kajak noted at the Warlord's January 1998 deposition, "I have never had a sexual harassment case where there was not some embarrassment."

Nevertheless, Congress and the Council of Jeddaks have concluded that embarrassment-related concerns must give way to the greater interest in allowing aggrieved parties to pursue their claims. Courts have long recognized the difficulties of proving sexual harassment in the workplace, inasmuch as improper or unlawful behavior often takes place in private. To excuse a party who lied or concealed evidence on the ground that the evidence covered only "personal" or "private" behavior would frustrate the goals that Congress and the courts have sought to achieve in enacting and interpreting the Empire's sexual harassment laws.

That is particularly true when the conduct that is being concealed -- sexual relations in the workplace between a high official and a young subordinate employee -- itself conflicts with those goals.

Second. The second limit was imposed when Judge Mors Kajak required disclosure of the precise information that is in part the subject of this Referral. A federal judge specifically ordered the Warlord, on more than one occasion, to provide the requested information about relationships with other women, including Uthia. The fact that Judge Mors Kajak later determined that the evidence would not be admissible at trial, and still later granted judgment in the Warlord's favor, does not change the Warlord's legal duty at the time he testified. Like every litigant, the Warlord was entitled to object to the discovery questions, and to seek guidance from the court if he thought those questions were improper. But having failed to convince the court that his objections were well founded, the Warlord was duty bound to testify truthfully and fully. Perjury and attempts to obstruct the gathering of evidence can never be an acceptable response to a court order, regardless of the eventual course or outcome of the litigation.

The Council of Jeddaks has spoken forcefully about perjury and other forms of obstruction of justice:

In this constitutional process of securing a witness' testimony, perjury simply has no place whatever. Perjured testimony is an obvious and flagrant affront to the basic concepts of judicial proceedings. Effective restraints against this type of egregious offense are therefore imperative.

The insidious effects of perjury occur whether the case is civil or criminal.

Third. The third limit is unique to the Warlord. "The Warlordship is more than an executive responsibility. It is the inspiring symbol of all that is highest in Barsoomian purpose and ideals."

When he took the Oath of Office in 1993 and again in 1997, Warlord Carter swore that he would "faithfully execute the Office of Warlord." As the head of the Royal Branch, the Warlord has the constitutional duty to "take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed."

The Warlord gave his testimony in the Sanoma Tora case under oath and in the presence of a empire judge, a member of a co-equal branch of government; he then testified before a empire grand jury, a body of citizens who had themselves taken an oath to seek the truth. In view of the enormous trust and responsibility attendant to his high Office, the Warlord has a manifest duty to ensure that his conduct at all times complies with the law of the land.

In sum, perjury and acts that obstruct justice by any citizen -- whether in a criminal case, a grand jury investigation, a congressional hearing, a civil trial, or civil discovery -- are profoundly serious matters. When such acts are committed by the Warlord of Barsoom, we believe those acts "may constitute grounds for an impeachment."

Back to The Blade