Concord Monitor, NH
Aug. 25, 2006
Our place of peace, their world of war
No summer idylls for Lebanese kids
By KATY BURNS
For the Monitor
August 25. 2006 8:00AM
It was a near-idyllic evening just a month ago in the only Henniker
on Earth.
A local barbershop chorus, the Concord Coachmen, was the
entertainment. Listening were well over 100 people, most of whom had
brought their own folding chairs, gathered on the shaded lawn outside
New England College’s art gallery.
Many were gray-haired and a bit wrinkly, but there were young
families, too. A few toddlers took full advantage of the soft grass
and their indulgent overseers, and they romped, sweetly, in front of
the chorus. One particularly exhilarated young lady ran first one
way, then the other, always followed by one of her adult keepers. She
was having the time of her extremely young life. And she was also
about as safe as a child could be.
As harmonies filled the summer air, a welcome breeze arose, almost
dispelling the heat we had all been enduring.
The singers took a break. Much of the audience retreated to folding
tables laden with punch and cookies that had been provided, we were
told, by “the peace group.” We had no idea what the peace group was,
and it didn’t matter. In this quintessential college town, there had
to be a peace group. Peace groups are as much a part of our New
England heritage as stone walls and steepled meetinghouses.
—ADVERTISEMENT—
Refreshed, the audience and the entertainers enjoyed a few more
songs, including a medley of stirring patriotic tunes. Then all
dispersed into the deepening dusk.
It was wonderful. But it was hard to forget that, half a globe away,
in the perpetually tortured Middle East, society had abruptly,
explosively shattered once again. There were no peace groups there,
not really. Had there been one, it would have been far too busy to
serve punch and cookies.
Children were not cavorting on soft grass. They were huddled in bomb
shelters, at best. They were stranded amid piles of rubble, clutched
tightly in the arms of their shell-shocked and frantic parents. They
were dead, horribly dead, or lost, separated from their mothers and
fathers, accidents of war, collateral damage.
The picture in Henniker that evening was an updated 19th century
Currier and Ives illustration brought to life. In Israel and Lebanon
– and in violence-wracked Iraq and in Gaza, where Israel’s bombing of
a power plant has created a humanitarian nightmare – we had the raw
and vivid footage of the savagery of 21st century warfare.
Now, at least in the case of Israel and Lebanon, there’s a ceasefire.
No one seems to know exactly what that means, and few believe it will
last.
Much of Lebanon is rubble. Its infrastructure – roads, bridges, power
plants, ports – has been laid waste by Israeli bombs and warships. It
is an ecological calamity as well, especially an 87-mile long oil
slick caused by Israeli destruction of an oil storage depot – a
moving catastrophe that threatens not only Lebanon’s fragile
coastline but also that of its neighbors, including Israel.
Lebanon had spent nearly two decades rebuilding after another clash
with Israel and a brutal civil war. It was bright and shiny and open
for business. Now it’s shuttered again. Close to 1,200 people are
dead, the vast majority civilians.
Israel got off a lot better when it came to physical damage. The
rockets that streaked incessantly into the country, terrifying as
they might have been, were far less damaging than Israel’s massive
air strikes. While fires devastated farmlands along the Lebanon
border, Israel’s infrastructure is essentially intact, and fewer than
one-third of its 157 dead were civilians.
Yet the more seriously damaged party in this madness may well be
beleaguered Israel, surrounded by mortal enemies. Its aura of
military invincibility is seriously damaged, and its principal
nemesis in the latest conflict is lionized by Arabs throughout the
Middle East.
No matter what anyone claims, there are no winners here.
Tranquility lost
We can be thankful that at least some guns have gone silent, however
temporarily. But the future of the most recent combatants, and that
of the benighted citizens of Gaza, looks bleak. Nearby Iraq is a
cauldron of violence and sectarian hatred that boils furiously each
day, clearly beyond the control of our military or its nominal Iraqi
“allies.”
It is nearly impossible for most of us, whose forebears probably came
to this country to escape Europe’s incessant and bloody wars, even to
begin to imagine the day-to-day stress and sadness of living in such
places. Despite the efforts of some politicians to scare us half to
death, the truth is we live in security and even tranquility.
Once, Lebanon offered a similar tranquility to those fleeing violence
elsewhere, as our friend Steve reminded us in an e-mail the other
day. His father and several relatives were among the lucky few who
escaped Turkey’s brutal, bloody purge of its ethnic Armenian
minority. For 20 years, the remnants of the shattered family found
welcome refuge in Beirut.
Steve’s father emigrated from Lebanon to the United States in 1939,
but he never lost his love for the nation and the city. Once a
vibrant, tolerant city known as the Paris of the Middle East, Beirut
gave him sanctuary, and he instilled that same affection in his only
son. Today, that son is heartbroken, as are so many other Americans
with ties to that blood-soaked part of the world.
And all of us who live far removed from the conflict find woes half a
world away casting their sad shadow here, even in a place as serene
as the only Henniker on Earth.
(Monitor columnist Katy Burns lives in Bow.)

Syria draws a line at the border
By Sami Moubayed
Asia Times Online, Hong Kong
Aug. 25, 2006
DAMASCUS – When United Nations Resolution 1701 was passed on August
11, it was seen as a diplomatic breakthrough to end 33 days of war
between Israel and Hezbollah in Lebanon.
Many today, however, are having serious doubts whether this ceasefire
will last and whether 1701 is actually a diplomatic victory – or
failure – for the UN. In addition to a ceasefire, the resolution
demands the deployment of the Lebanese army, and eventually
multinational troops, on the border to prevent any future
war between the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) and Hezbollah. It gives
Israel the right to self-defense, however, while denying this right
to Hezbollah, explaining why the party’s secretary general, Hassan
Nasrallah, accepted the resolution “with reservations”.
If implemented to the word, the resolution would deprive Hezbollah of
the territory it has used to wage war against Israel since the 1980s.
A Hezbollah that is deprived of southern Lebanon would be a Hezbollah
that cannot fire rockets against northern Israel. The resolution
also asked for implementation of Resolution 1559, which calls for
the complete disarming of Hezbollah, and strongly says that no arms
should be transferred to the Lebanese military group.
The first loophole in 1701 is that it does not give any mechanism for
the disarming of Hezbollah, something that neither the United Nations
Interim Force In Lebanon (UNIFIL) nor the Lebanese army – nor Israel
– has been able to do. The expanded UN troop presence on the border
will not be able to disarm Hezbollah. If the troops try to do that,
they will certainly be attacked.
This was something made clear by French Major-General Alain Pelligrini,
the UNIFIL commander in Lebanon, who said: “The Israelis cannot ask
UNIFIL to disarm Hezbollah. This is not written in our mandate.” He
added that the ceasefire “is tense, very fragile, very volatile. Any
provocation or misunderstanding could escalate very, very rapidly.”
Speaking to the Financial Times on August 3, Israeli Prime Minister
Ehud Olmert related what he saw as the perfect objective of UNIFIL in
Lebanon. He said it should aim at “stopping violence against innocent
Israelis from Lebanon and disarming this murderous organization,
the Hezbollah, which is the long arm of Iran”.
Olmert’s distorted version of UNIFIL, however, seems to be very
different from the one that is likely to emerge in Lebanon in the
coming weeks. French newspaper Le Monde leaked a 21-page document
distributed at the UN last week showing what the new expanded UNIFIL
troops would look like.
First, very clearly, they would not be authorized to disarm
Hezbollah. They would also lack the authority to search Hezbollah
strongholds or bunkers. Second, they are authorized “to use force,
up to and including deadly force”, to implement peace on the
Lebanese-Israeli border and to defend themselves against attack by
either the IDF or Hezbollah. Third, they have to protect civilians,
and fourth, they will have to provide backup to the Lebanese army.
Actually, bringing 15,000 troops from the Lebanese army to the border
is easy. It has even been accepted by Nasrallah, who previously had
rejected deployment of the Lebanese army to the south. Deploying an
equal number of multinational troops is more difficult – but doable.
The history of multinational troops in Lebanon during the Israeli
invasion of 1982 showed that these troops are vulnerable and could
be driven out of Lebanon with ease. In October 1983, an attack on US
marines in Lebanon led to the killing of 241 US and 58 French troops
and the exodus of about 5,000 multinational troops from Lebanon.
No Arab country today, except Morocco, is willing to take part in such
a force, since it would be viewed by the Arab street as a multinational
force used to protect Israel from Hezbollah. Given Hezbollah’s
popularity in the Arab world, such a step would be political suicide –
even for moderate Arab regimes such as Egypt and Jordan.
Turkey showed willingness to send troops to Lebanon, but this proposal
was vetoed by the Lebanese-Armenians, who cannot forget Turkish
massacres against the Armenians under the Ottoman Empire during World
War I. Germany at first showed similar willingness to comply, but then
backed down and said it would send advisers rather than troops. As
one German journalist told this correspondent, this U-turn was because
German troops on the border with Israel would be entitled to shoot –
and use – “deadly force” to prevent any confrontation between the
IDF and Hezbollah. Because of the historical luggage carried by the
Germans from World War II, a German soldier today simply cannot fire
against an Israeli.
Yet despite these obstacles, Greece, France and Italy, which alone
will contribute 2,000-3,000 troops to UNIFIL, have all agreed to
send troops. On Thursday, French President Jacques Chirac agreed to
increase the number of French troops to 2,000.
Olmert made things more difficult for the UN by saying he would
not accept troops at UNIFIL whose countries didn’t have diplomatic
relations with Israel. He was referring to Indonesia, Malaysia
and Bangladesh. The Israeli premier does not have the luxury of
hand-picking what countries will join the multinational troops in
Lebanon, since not many countries have shown great enthusiasm to get
involved in a new war in the Middle East.
French Foreign Minister Philippe Douste-Blazy said on Wednesday that
UNIFIL forces in Lebanon would have two missions. One would be to
let the Lebanese army deploy in the south. The second would be “to
guarantee the embargo on arms delivery across all borders – I repeat –
across all borders”.
The Syrian factor The minister was referring to the Syria-Lebanon
border, which is considered by many in Lebanon and the international
community to be the only source from which Syria can channel arms
to Hezbollah.
According to Resolution 1701, this supply of arms must end, to bring
Hezbollah to a gradual military end. Syria immediately snapped back
by turning down the request to station troops on Lebanon’s side of
the Syrian-Lebanese border, with authority to administer checkpoints
searching for arms coming in from Syria.
Syrian President Bashar al-Assad said on Dubai TV that UNIFIL troops
on Lebanon’s border with Syria “is an infringement on Lebanese
sovereignty and a hostile position” toward Syria. He added, “First,
this means creating hostile conditions between Syria and Lebanon.
Second, it is a hostile move toward Syria, and naturally it will
create problems.”
Assad’s Foreign Minister Walid al-Moualim threatened from a state
visit to Finland that if multinational troops were stationed on the
Syrian-Lebanese border, Syria would close its border with Lebanon.
The White House immediately responded to Syria’s stance through its
spokeswoman Dana Perino, who said, “If the president of Syria were
not supplying Hezbollah, this wouldn’t have been a problem in the
first place.”
Closing the border with Lebanon is an old trick practiced by the
Syrians ever since prime minister Khalid al-Azm did it in 1950
to prevent the influx of Lebanese goods into Syria. President Adib
al-Shishakli did it again in 1954 when he accused Lebanon of supporting
a Druze uprising against his regime in Damascus. President Shukri
al-Quwatli did it in 1957 when Lebanon retaliated to a series of overt
Syrian intelligence operations on its territory by funding anti-regime
activities in Damascus to obstruct Syria’s honeymoon with Egypt.
It was semi-repeated by Assad last summer when Lebanese cargo trucks
were held up for weeks at the Syrian border, causing some goods to
rot, and forcing Prime Minister Fouad al-Siniora to go to Syria to
solve the crisis.
This was at the apex of strained Syrian-Lebanese relations over
the murder of Lebanon’s former prime minister Rafiq al-Hariri. If
Syria does carry out its threats and shut the border with Lebanon,
it would cause a severe economic crisis in its neighbor, since Syria
is the only land route for Lebanon.
The other country bordering Lebanon is Israel, with which diplomatic
relations and passage routes are impossible at this stage. Currently,
all sea routes to Lebanon are sealed by the Israelis, and so is
landing at Lebanese airports.
With Israel controlling the skies and waters, and Syria controlling the
ground routes, Lebanon would be stranded, with no connection to the
outside world. Syria believes that only through such a harsh measure
can it force the Lebanese government to say no to international troops
on the Syrian border.
After all, it cannot say no to the troops itself, since they would
not be stationed on its territory, but Damascus can use its leverage
in Lebanon to force Siniora to say no. It does not mind UN troops
on the Lebanese-Israeli border, nor does it mind the deployment of
the Lebanese army, but it is categorically opposed to troops on the
border with Syria.
Olmert has that he had no immediate plans of ending the air and sea
blockade on Lebanon until an international peacekeeping force was
deployed on Lebanon’s borders, to prevent the arming of Hezbollah
and their attacks on north Israel.
As things stand, multinational troops will be placed on the
Syrian-Lebanese border in addition to the Lebanese-Israeli border.
Otherwise, they would be useless. But if that happens, Syria could
strangle Lebanon by closing down the border. Yet Olmert’s rules say
that only when Syria’s border is monitored – meaning when Syria’s
ground route is closed – will Lebanon regain its air and sea routes.
To understand Syria’s position one must understand how the Syrian
regime is thinking in relation to the Israeli war in Lebanon. Assad
claimed victory in this war, for his unconditional backing of
Hezbollah, just as Syria claimed co-victory with Hezbollah when it
liberated south Lebanon from the Israelis in May 2000.
The Syrians will not let Resolution 1701 destroy these victories by
ruining or disarming Hezbollah. Not only is patrolling the Syrian
border offensive to the Syrians, but if this is done, it would
actually mean that no arms would in fact arrive in Lebanon to be used
by Hezbollah. It would mean the military end to the Lebanese group –
something Syria will not permit.
Hezbollah is the last-standing Syrian card in Lebanon. It is the card
that will launch a political coup in Lebanon against the coalition
government of Saad al-Hariri – the group that launched its own putsch
against Syria in 2005 and drove the Syrian army out of Lebanon.
Syria will do all that is in its power to preserve Hezbollah. The
Syrians believe that if this means obstructing UNIFIL on Lebanon’s
border with Syria, ruining Resolution 1701 or shutting Syria’s border
with Lebanon – then so be it. All is fair in love and war for Damascus,
especially when it comes to Lebanon.
Sami Moubayed is a Syrian political analyst.
(Copyright 2006 Asia Times Online Ltd. All rights reserved. Please
contact us about sales, syndication and republishing .)

“Russia remains Armenia’s best friend”: leader of Armenian Communists
Regnum, Russia
Aug. 25, 2006
“The ethnic crimes in Russia cannot be regarded as an attitude of the
whole Russian people towards Armenians,” the First Secretary of the
Central Committee of the Communist Party of Armenia Ruben Tovmassyan
said during a news conference on August 24. He said that “Russia has
been and is Armenia’s best friend.”
“I condemn ethnic crimes, but in the case of Vigen Abramyants we
don’t know the motives but just the fact of murder,” Tovmassyan said
and noted that “in Yerevan too they sometimes kill passers-by.”
Tovmassyan said that it is a shame to raise a hand and shout “Heil
Hitler” in a country who has defeated the Fascism. As regards political
parties, they should not very much rely on the US or the EU. “Only
Russia is our closest partner,” Tovmassyan said.
Almost 10 crimes have been committed against ethnic Armenians in Russia
since the beginning of 2006. One of them, the murder of student Vigen
Abramyants at the Pushkinskaya subway station, was stopped a few days
ago “because the Moscow Subway Prosecutor’s Office is unable to detect
the people who have committed the crime.”

Time is serving Azerbaijan: interview with Mubariz Ahmedoglu
Regnum, Russia
Aug. 25, 2006
A REGNUM correspondent in Baku has had an interview with the head
of the Center for Political Innovations and Technologies Mubariz
Ahmedoglu.
REGNUM: The Azeri and Armenian FMs have said they will meet shortly
in the framework of the Karabakh peace process. Will they discuss
new or old proposals?
They will hardly discuss new ideas. Let’s not forget that this is
their first meeting after the well-known statement by the OSCE MG
co-chairs. And, as you may know, ideas are, first, suggested by the
co-chairs and, only then, discussed by the Azeri and Armenian FMs and
presidents. On the other hand, the meeting of Elmar Mammadyarov and
Vardan Oskanyan may give a new impulse to the negotiating process,
and the co-chairs may turn this impulse into new proposals.
REGNUM: Mass media report people in Azerbaijan and Armenia to be
sure that the negotiating process has made no headway for many years
already. Who is the time serving: Azerbaijan or Armenia.
I think it is serving Azerbaijan. We have fewer problems. Azerbaijan
is getting stronger and is developing at record speed. The successful
implementation of the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan oil pipeline, the late
2006 launch of the Baku-Tbilisi-Eruzrum gas pipeline, the planned
construction of Kars-Akhlkalaki-Tbilisi-Baku railroad – all these
projects leave Armenia outside energy and transport routes.
Besides, in 2007 Armenia will elect parliament, a few months later
the self-proclaimed Nagorno Karabakh Republic and in February-March
2008 Armenia will elect presidents. So, Armenia is entering a phase
that will hardly be good for it. As you know, during elections a state
gets weaker. This is especially true for small countries like Armenia.
In one word, both conceptually and tactically, the time is serving
Azerbaijan. You may say that our country, too, will have a presidential
election in 2008, but internal stability, competent foreign policy,
growing popular incomes and weakening opposition exclude any rebellious
factors.
REGNUM: Is everything that simple? Let’s remember that we have a whole
grown up generation who has never seen Shusha, Lachin, Kalbajar,
other occupied Azeri towns or who have seen them only in early
childhood… Will those young people – most of them have already
been resettled from camps to comfortable townships – want to return
to destroyed houses, to their old homes?
We can also say that there is a whole generation of young people in
Nagorno-Karabakh and Armenia who know nothing about Azerbaijan.
Everything depends not so much on these factors as they are as on
who and how will use them. For the beginning, I would like to note
that the Azeri Government will create all conditions for the return
of all refugees and displaced persons to Nagorno-Karabakh and other
occupied territories. Let’s not forget that old people have told
children and youths about their homelands: you can’t remove this
from their memory. And, finally, when the time of return comes, we
will need a month, at longest, to carry out propaganda. This will
be quite a large-scale propaganda as most of mass media are in the
hands of the state. Besides, you will hardly find any non-patriot
among the private TV or radio channels or newspapers.

Armenians Fire On Azerbaijani Positions Again
TREND Information, Azerbaijan
Aug. 25, 2006
Source: Trend
Author: À.Ìammadova
25.08.2006
Armenian forces one more time broke the ceasefire on the frontline.
Officials of press service of the Ministry of Defense told Trend on
August 24 Armenian troops fired on Azerbaijani military positions
near Mount Gamish of Khanlar area. They were firing from Tommy and
machine guns between 750 and 815PM. The response fire was opened. No
casualties are reported.
–Boundary_(ID_bXrary2GlmCqU0gsAgySag)- –

The ‘Buzz’ on screenwriter is good
By Bob Strauss, Film Critic
Los Angeles Daily News, CA
Aug. 25, 2006
Albert “Buzz” Bezzerides wrote some of the more flavorful films of
the 1940s and ’50s, Nicholas Ray’s primal “On Dangerous Ground” and
the noir apocalypse adaptation of Mickey Spillane’s “Kiss Me Deadly”
among them.
The subject of the documentary “Buzz” was also Humphrey Bogart and
Robert Mitchum’s favorite dialogue doctor. And he was pals with
much-better-known authors William Faulkner and William Saroyan,
among others.
Additionally, at age 98, the Turkey-born, Fresno-raised son of a Greek
father and Armenian mother is still kicking around his ramshackle
Woodland Hills home, shouting like any screenwriter worth his salt
about how Hollywood screwed him. With missing teeth and sheepdog
eyebrows, Buzz still nurtures the sharp, critical view of the world
that informed his best books and scripts – and even at his most
nostalgic moments disdains sentimentality like a cancer. It’s a ball
listening to him gripe.
Two hours of it, though, is a bit much. And Greek director Spiro N.
Taraviras doesn’t present his material in anything like a scintillating
manner. He makes the crucial mistake of going in straight chronological
order, and there really isn’t very much interesting about Bezzerides’
immigrant background or college days at the University of California
at Berkeley. He would’ve been better, perhaps, to revisit that stuff
after focusing on some of Buzz’s movieland adventures, which cover
the gamut from run-ins with moguls to fighting for story integrity
(and usually losing) to the fear and loathing of the anti-communist
witch hunts.
Apparently unable to access (or afford) actual footage from films such
as “They Drive by Night” and “Track of the Cat,” Taraviras treats us to
their vintage theatrical trailers instead. This doesn’t give us much
sense of Bezzerides’ fine writing, but boy, were those things sexy
as all get-out. Ever wanted to know why they call them teasers? This
movie shows you.
Beside the always-entertaining Buzz, Taraviras interviews some actors
he wrote for (Cloris Leachman, Terry Moore, Gloria Stuart) and director
Jules Dassin, himself 95 and an Athens-based expatriate since the
blacklist days. Friends, relatives and, of course, enthusiastic
European critics contribute their views. The talking heads are
broken up by unimaginative establishing shots of both San Francisco
(Golden Gate Bridge, cable cars) and SoCal (palm-lined boulevards,
Griffith Observatory).
But we sure get what makes Buzz distinctive: an unshakable belief
that the rich and powerful will always cheat the average guy, and
he crankily considers himself one of the latter to this day. Along
with being a respectful portrait of an amusing, singular talent,
the film also, by extension, fights the good fight for all of the
overlooked creative types whose work make movies great while a few
big names grab all the credit.
BUZZ
Our rating:
(Not rated: language)
Director: Spiro N. Taraviras.
Running time: 1 hr. 58 min.
Playing: Laemmle Fairfax, Los Angeles.
In a nutshell: Biography of 98-year-old screenwriter Albert “Buzz”
Bezzerides is often fascinating.

102 ARTISTS FROM 19 COUNTRIES PARTICIPATE IN 5TH GYUMRI BIENNIAL OF MODERN ART
YEREVAN, AUGUST 25, NOYAN TAPAN. The 5th Gyumri Biennial of Modern
Art taken place on August 2-16, according to the organizers, is first
of all important for the fact that the cultural life centrilized in
Yerevan moved to Gyumri for some time. The biennial organizers made
such a statement at the August 24 press conference. “Gyumri, having
great cultural traditions, seems to remain out of the cultural life,
to be out of the margin. In this sense, the biennial is an important
and great cultural event in the city life,” Arpine Tokmajian,
the organizer of the biennial mentioned. The Gyumri biennial has
been held since 1998. Its co-founders are Arpine Tokmajian and Azat
Sargsian. The biennial was financed by different sponsors, including
by the state, in different years. The Open Society Institute, the
British Council, “Zigzag,” “Counsul” and “Ararat” (brandy factory)
companies were among sponsors of this year. 102 artists from 19
countries participated in the biennial this year. 51 of them were
Armenians. The 5th biennial entitled “Sea, Dreams and Illusions”
started on the Sevan lakeside where participants had possibility to
create in a corresponding environment. As a result of contact of
Armenian and foreign artists, a series of joint works was created
which were then exhibited in 6 exhibition halls of Gyumri, with works
brought to Armenia beforehand. Mkrtich Tonoyan, for the “From Sea
to Sea Armenian Theory” performance, got during the press conference
the monitary prize fixed for Armenian artists by the Swiss “Gonche”
organizatiion. “The performance is about discrepancy of Armenia,
from sea to sea, of which I have dreamed, and our life,” the author
of the work consisting of two parts (a video and installation) says.

“KAJATUN” NEWSPAPER RE-PUBLISHED IN AKHALKALAK
AKHALKALAK, AUGUST 25, NOYAN TAPAN – ARMENIANS TODAY. The “Kajatun”
newspaper started to be re-published in Akhalkalak from August,
2006. The periodical was published in 2002-2004 once a month. According
to the “A-Info” agency, the last, 21st edition of the newspaper was in
December, 2004. “Kajatun” will be published with weekly periodicity
starting from the 22nd issue. The newspaper, the editor-in-chief of
which is Hamlet Anatolian, has journalists in Akhalkalak, Akhaltskha
and Ninotsminda.

Ex-lawyer testifies in own defense
By Rebecca Boyle, (Bio) [email protected]
August 24, 2006
Greeley Tribune, CO
Aug. 25, 2006
A former Greeley attorney who was disbarred twice for mishandling
client funds is on trial this week for theft from a former client
who alleges he bilked her out of $68,000.
Michael A. Varallo, 58, is representing himself in the felony case,
in which prosecutors allege he misused the client’s money and didn’t
repay her as promised.
Varallo testified on his own behalf for much of Wednesday afternoon,
saying he has made mistakes in the past, but he is innocent in this
case. He said the $68,000 was a loan.
Prosecutors say Varallo took money from Lenora ‘Jane’ Pulos and used
it to pay personal expenses and debts to other clients.
He was supposed to keep $3,000 for a retainer, use other funds to pay
Pulos’ fines stemming from her handful of criminal cases, and return
the rest to her after her release from jail.
Varallo disputed that on the witness stand, where he talked directly
to the jury and told his version of events.
He said he accepted $68,000 from Pulos just before his second
disbarment in 2002, which he’d planned to appeal at the time. It
could take up to a year if he was granted a stay, and he thought he
could work for Pulos during that year.
But then he changed his mind about the appeal because he was upset
about failing to adequately represent a family in immigration court,
which prompted his disbarment.
“I was crushed,” Varallo said. “I had made a mistake and it had
hurt people.”
So he told Pulos he was quitting law for good. She wanted him to
continue helping her anyway, Varallo said. She told him to use her
$68,000 to help close his practice, pay off other loans and help
represent her, refunding the loan later.
“To this day, I wish to God I had said, ‘No, I don’t want to touch
your money,’ ” Varallo said. “I wish I hadn’t been tempted, but I was.”
Varallo said he and Pulos agreed in late 2002 that he would pay her
back overtime. By summer 2004, Pulos intimated that Varallo owed her
about $25,000, after working off some of the loan and making payments.
In fall 2004, Varallo heard a rumor through Pulos’ ex-husband that
Pulos planned to go to the police, so he confronted her.
“I said, ‘Are you playing games here? Are you gonna try to screw me
around?’ ” Varallo recalled, adding that Pulos said, “No.”
He said he didn’t expect her to renege on her loan.
After two years of Varallo sending occasional checks or wire transfers
through Western Union, Pulos went to the Greeley Police Department
to report the theft.
“I helped keep her out of prison, and what’s that worth?” he said,
recalling work he had done for other attorneys on her behalf after
his disbarment.
In April 2005, after Varallo sent Pulos three letters trying to work
things out, he visited her. She told him he owed her $68,000 plus
$5,000 interest.
“She said, ‘You know, I’m going to make your life (expletive)
miserable,’ ” Varallo told the jury. “And she’s right; she has made
my life (expletive) miserable.”
He said if Pulos had only agreed on a number, he would have been able
to pay her back by summer 2005.
The trial will continue this morning, and it may wrap up by the end
of the day.
VARALLO’S DISBARMENT
Michael Varallo has been disbarred twice for mishandling client funds
and not fulfilling his duty. He was initially disbarred in February
1993 and was readmitted in October 1999.
In December 2002, he was disbarred again after improperly controlling
funds from an Armenian family who faced deportation, and failing to
complete a domestic relations order on a different client’s behalf.
“In both cases, Varallo’s misconduct caused and exposed his clients
to serious injury,” the disciplinary judge wrote in disbarring Varallo.
The decision said he intentionally deceived clients, made false
statements, incompetently represented his clients and “prejudice(d)
the administration of justice.”
Source: Colorado Bar Association, Tribune research

OVER 3,5 THOUSAND ENTERPRISES WITH FOREIGN CAPITAL PARTICIPATION
OPERATE IN ARMENIA
YEREVAN, AUGUST 25, NOYAN TAPAN. Over 3.5 thousand companies with
the participation of foreign capital are now operating in Armenia,
which is by 2,000 more than in 2003. RA Deputy Minister of Trade
and Economic Development Tigran Davtian told NT correspondent about
it. According to him, in 2003, the amount of foreign investments
in Armenia made about 200 mln USD (without the banking system and
official transfers), in 2005, this amount increased to 500 mln USD. It
is expected that by results of 2006, these investments will amount to
over 500 mln USD. According to expert opinions cited by T. Davtian,
in 1998-2004, 60-70% of foreign investors operating in Armenia were
Diasporan Armenians or foreigners having business links with them,
while the share of investments made by Diasporan Armenians over the
indicated period made up 25-30%. The deputy minister said that the
Diaspora’s activity is especially considerable in opening small and
medium enterprises in food industry, jewelry making, diamond cutting
and tourism, and investing in these sectors. In T. Davtian’s opinion,
the Diasporan Armenians’ potential for making investments in Armenia
is much greater. He said that in 2005, the amount of remittances
transferred to Armenia by Diasporan Armenians and Armenian citizens
working abroad made about 1 bln USD, while investments made in the
country by Diasporan Armenians totalled 150 mln USD. “A few years ago
this amount of investments in case of annual GDP of 1 bln USD was a
considerable result, whereas the same amount cannot be considered
large in ratio to GDP of 6 bln USD forecast for 2006,” the deputy
minister said.