John De Camp
Federal Attorney, Nebraska
John De Camp Legal Services
Guerrilla News Network: Hello John.
John De Camp: Hi there.
GNN: Before we begin I just wanted to say that I am familiar with your book and I find it incredibly ironic that I am talking to you about this case instead of the Franklin Cover Up which has always been one of the most intense stories for me. Especially from the last century. So its ironic.
De Camp: No. Thats fine.
GNN: So I guess I want to start I know that when you were first contacted by Bob Kolody, he had been looking for an attorney. But no one would file his lawsuit. So I wanted to ask you two things: a) What did you think when he first contacted you, and b) were you surprised that no one would take the case and file it against Coke?
De Camp: OK. Number one. I, at first, wanted to analyze the case to see if there was any obvious reason that nobody would take it. Such as: it wasnt a case you know what I mean? Such as theres just no substance or the guys off on a tangent. Because and I hate to say this but for every really, serious, legitimate case you get, youll get eight or ten or twelve or fifteen calls of somebody having an absolute, iron-clad, one hundred per cent, multi-million dollar case and that theyre certain theyve been abused and cheated and the bad guy is just so obvious. And then you analyze it and you see that, you know
GNN: Theres no case.
De Camp: Yeah. Anyway so when I started looking into this one, quite frankly, it looked to me as if it was quite legitimate and he wasnt just pie-in-the-sky making spurious claims about his rights or encroachments or whatever. And it was for that reason then I started looking at it from the standpoint of: Alright, so why wouldnt somebody take it then? And the answer is, I think, when you look at the lay of land and the complexities involved that you have to be deaf, dumb and blind not to realize that if he doesnt have the resources, and when I say resources Im talking about big, huge amounts of bucks. You know what Im saying?
De Camp: To take on these people. Then the attorney has to, in essence, take that risk himself. And basically youre floating a loan to somebody with that as security.
De Camp: And so, we decided to go ahead on it because we felt that it was a claim that should be presented and the only way it was going to happen was if somebody stepped forward to the plate, you know, to try to do it. And so that is why we initiated it.
GNN: OK. Now, when you started it, initially, I guess it was a copyright infringement case?
De Camp: Yeah.
GNN: And you filed against Coke and Simon Marketing?
De Camp: OK. Thats correct. But Ill be honest with you. Its been years ago and I had a number of people working on it and I kind of I fronted it and I had a lot of people doing all the grunt work. You know, its kind of like the Colonel or the Captain and they say: Yeah, well we did this and this. But I have to be honest
GNN: No thats cool. We dont need to get into any details. I have most of that. So, after that initial filing, what happened with it? There was a point where you stopped representing, or - I think Bob even said the deal was you would help him by filing and getting it going but that you werent going to be there for the long haul.
De Camp: I told him that I would get him launched and wed see, quite frankly, just how stiff the resistance was and how much his resources were and how much staying power, resource-wise, financially-wise I had. And at that time I was going through some awfully tough problems on some other cases and theres a limit to how many you can carry on your back while youre trying to walk across deep water.
GNN: Yeah, I hear that. Tell me, in your own words how you would describe Coca-Cola. For most people to take on Coca-Cola as a litigant As someone you are attacking on a judicial front, how would you characterize that company?
De Camp: Oh, like trying to cross the ocean in a rowboat. You can wonder what resources theyll pull at it and then you realize that they have a special situation, lets say, that you dont. Lets say, that nobody does. And that is, whether we like to admit it or not whether the judiciary will ever admit it, or not judges know whence ultimate power derives and, I think, are very attentive to the litigants and the lawyers on both sides. And they know, for example if youre living in a town where Coca-Cola is based and its a multi-billion dollar industry. And the lawyer on the other side is a nobody from Podunk, in another state. That maybe they ought to give special attention to the biggest monster on the block.
GNN: Understood. So it isnt crazy to think that the judicial process is influenced by the power that resides outside of it.
De Camp: I think youd have to be, like I say, deaf, dumb and blind not to face up to that reality.
De Camp: That you have to go four steps for every half-step that other side has to.
GNN: Right. Although I have had some attorneys, in recent interviews, say that there are some judges who will bend over backwards to help the little guy. So does it balance out in some circumstances? From your experience
De Camp: I think youre living in a fools paradise if you believe that.
GNN: OK. Cool. Let me also ask you about this. It may be sensitive for you so if you dont want to comment thats fine. But there has been a lot of writing attributed to the notion that Coca-Cola was also involved in U.S. Intelligence. I wondered if you know any of that history and do you think its important in this case?
De Camp: I dont know. I guess Ill just relate a story that my former best friend, and colleague on occasion, told me. A guy by the name of Bill Colby. I dont know if you know of him.
GNN: I certainly have heard of him.
De Camp: Anyway. Bill was the head of the CIA and I think, maybe in his later life, he had some misgivings about how far they had gone in almost creating a separate secret government. You know, the very thing that we all fear. And that he had been a major part of such a creation. Anyway, one of the discussions that we had, I remember, he was describing the great, incredible difficulty the Company, the CIA, had in establishing operatives overseas. Or outside the borders of this country. Who could be relied on to provide effective intelligence. And he said that one of their great difficulties, of course, was that the Congress kept banning who they could have contracts with or relationships with to provide information. And he mentioned that the most effective were some of the ones that were denied and, specifically, the most successful ones are the international companies and the key operatives of those companies. And, of course, the single most worldwide company of them all is Coca-Cola.
GNN: Right. It would make sense that the intelligence communities would filter and embed themselves in corporate culture because it would allow them this free access and -
De Camp: Not only make sense but, I think, two or three stages above that it was inevitable and absolutely necessary.
GNN: Right. Let me ask you this: One thing thats interesting for me is that, with your generation and generation preceding my own, it became quite well known that the intelligence communities had infiltrated the media
De Camp: Well, and that was the rest of the conversation. Bill pointed out he said: You know, they outlawed us from everybody. Even students. He said, the only ones left were the media. He once made the statement to me that: There wasnt any foreign correspondent worth his salt that didnt have a contract with us one way or the other.
GNN: Wow. And then, if you look at it now when I look at my friends or my peers, I know that some of them must also have those contracts. Because theres no way that they could have I mean because in our culture, we think that the idea of someone who is twenty-five or thirty having a contract with the CIA is ludicrous. Theres no way. But they couldnt have relaxed their desire to maintain some measure of control to that extent. Do you think they have? Or do you think were living in a fools paradise to imagine that theres no infiltration of our generation by the intelligence communities?
De Camp: Oh you know there is.
GNN: Its just so hard to detect. I guess thats the point. One last thing - a technical question that may fall outside your domain but, one of the aspects of this case that has been discussed is the fact that Coke and, more specifically Simon Marketing because they merged with Cyrq, that they never declared or filed these court proceedings
De Camp: Right.
GNN: Especially in their SEC reports. Is that a legal issue? Do you understand that law and what it that means?
De Camp: I think its a critical issue. I am waiting to see whether they deal with it straight up or, once again, that thing that began this conversation here tonight, whether the judiciary realizes that: we have to solve this problem because these are the ones we cater to.
GNN: Right. So is it a fraud or is it fraudulent for Coke to not disclose this case to the SEC, or for their shareholders or can they say its not big enough to affect anything and just ignore it. Whats the line with that?
De Camp: Dont know. I have thoughts and opinions but without being directly involved in the case right now and on the spot, I think it would be inappropriate for me to comment.
De Camp: But that sure is one hell of a legitimate question.
GNN: OK. I think thats it. Thank you so much for your time, John. I know youre busy.
De Camp: Good night.
Source: GuerrillaNews.com - Coca-Karma Case
Notice: TGS HiddenMysteries and/or the donor of this material may or may not agree with all the data or conclusions of this data. It is presented here 'as is' for your benefit and research. Material for these pages are sent from around the world. If by chance there is a copyrighted article posted which the author does not want read, email the webmaster and it will be removed. If proper credit for authorship is not noted please email the webmaster for corrections to be posted.