ustxtxb_obs_2002_03_01_50_00019-00000_000.pdf

DPS vs. UUs, continued from page 7 spoke to the City Council. . .Yes. And lie said that he had seen Mr. Brannin and Mr. Pomeroy talking at the meeting discussing something. Q: Did he tell you about Mr. Brannin? A: He told me that he had known of Mr. Brannin through, I guess, work that he had done in the past. Q: What information did he give you on Brannin specifically, information that’s in the report there? A: Yes. He said that he had been a member of the Socialist Party for a number of years. On our motion, udge Roberts directed Dimick not only to disclose the names of his informants but also to attempt to locate them for depositions: Q: . . . Can you tell me first what age is R. C.? A: Probably twenty-five, twenty-eight, in that area. Q: Did somebody else tell you that he would be an informant? A: No. I developed him solely myself. Q: How did he become involved in the Pomeroy case? A: He gave the information about the debate that Bob and Bill Aston had at the Unitarian Church. Q: He approached you? A: He said, “Did you know this went on?” I said, “No, but I do now” Q: How come that two of your informants decided to give you information on this subject matter independently of each other? A: Well, it was really independent. One of them was looking at it from one aspectmore of Anti-Nuclear Energyand the other one was involved with criminal activity that had ramifications with some people that were involved in the Unitarian Church or that had meetings in the Unitar-ian Church. And this is how he brought this name up. . . . Q: In that particular paragraph you have referred to, it says that “the Unitarian Church has in the past been the sponsor of such radical left groups as the Dallas Peace Committee, the United Farm Workers, Gay Liberation, and was the host of a ‘Social’ workshop in January, 1974, where all major subversive groups in the North Texas area set up information booths.” Now is that information from him? A: Yes. Q: Are these all groups that he had information on? A: He would from time to time provide information on individuals that were connected with these groups. Q: Were you investigating any of these groups? A: No. I was investigating some individuals that were in the groups, though. Q: In the Dallas Peace Committee, United Farm Workers, Gay Liberation? A: Yes, sir . . . Q: Do you know what he did for a living during the time he was your informant? A: Yes, I believe he sold cars or traded cars. Q: Do you know what his motivation for being an informant was? A: I think he liked to be around policemen. He liked to see people that did destructive things brought to justice. He thought he could be of a help and service. Q: When is the last time that you had any contact with Mr. C.? A: It was shortly after a news article came out that … Judge Roberts had ordered me to reveal my informants. A: He said, “I’m gone. Don’t ever try to contact me again.” Q: That’s all he said was: I’m not informing anymore; I’m leaving. . . . A: I’d say this: I think I know where he is on this. I think he’s in Mexico. He called me one time from a pay phone and I heard Mexican language on it. I heard him speaking Mexican, what I thought was Mexican. It could have been Spanish. The Pomeroy affair spawned a number of positive developments. First, a couple of obviously sleazy undercover informants were at least temporarily decommissioned. Second, Oscar Mauzy was by this time a fairly influential state senator, and he dragged DPS officials before his senate committee to explain their snooping. Between the lawsuit, the senate hearing, and all the attendant publicity, the DPS became publicly remorseful. The Dallas Times Herald reported in the fall of 1974 that the director of the DPS,Wilson Speir, had ordered destruction of all files on subversives kept in the agency. Apologies were issued to Pomeroy and Brannin, and the press reported that a “lengthy and detailed apology to the members of the First Unitarian Church” was made by Director Speir. Most important, albeit impossible to verify, the head of DPS intelligence testified that as a direct result of the Pomeroy matter, the agency had changed its policy. The change, according to his testimony, was “with regard to protest-oriented activities … our personnel will not monitor this type of activity . . . unless it has been approved by a Sergeant or a Captain and … there exists the possibility of … some type of crime or criminal activities …”Although much could be shoved into this characterization, it seems clear that the Pomeroy incident did force a sea change on the DPS. The lawsuit dwindled away, having accomplished its purposes.The reality was, then and now, that there is no constitutional basis on which to sue government agencies for spying on citizens and maintaining records of their activities. The obvious hero in this matter was Bob Pomeroy, but none of this could have happened if his boss had not given him a copy of the Dimick report.Without the report, we could never have proven the existence of the surveillance. Of course, Judge Roberts stepped up to the plate once again and ordered disclosure of the informantsthe kind of gutsy action that we had all come to expect from him. All in all, a fine time was had by the good guys, and all of us paranoids on the left felt vindicated. David Richards lives in Mill Valley, California. This article is an excerpt from Once Upon a Time in Texas: A Liberal in the Lone Star 3/1/02 THE TEXAS OBSERVER 19