Page 81 - Anatomy-of-a-Fraud

Page A-12 of La Estrella de Panamá for April 27, 1984, published a
photograph with the following caption (see exhibit 19): “On the evening of Monday,
April 23, at the Continental Hotel’s Blue Room, Barletta held a positive meeting with
a large group of prominent national figures in the fields of literature, science and the
arts. The UNADE candidate used the occasion to explain his platform proposals
regarding science and the arts. Seated with Barletta at the head table were Professor
Aristides Martínez Ortega; Dr. Rómulo Escobar Bethancourt; Professor Jilma N. de
Jurado, a journalist and mayoral candidate on the UNADE ticket; Dr. Susana Richa de
Torrijos, Minister of Education; and Professor Ismael García”.

Twelve days later, Ismael García would be presiding over the National
Returns Board. García, one of the organizers of the testimonial given by the pro-
government intelligentsia to honor Barletta, Chairman of the most important electoral
body in the land…! What “guarantee of impartiality” could inspire a man who publicly
and actively displayed his favoritism for one of the candidates?

García, a professor of Spanish language and Chairman of the Panamanian
Academy of the Language, had moreover amply exhibited his lack of leadership and
his inclination to legitimize dubious results when the 1977 plebiscites on the Torrijos -
Carter Treaties.
García’s performance at that time evinced a proclivity towards allowing
others, perhaps more forceful, and more familiar with the handling of the laws, to take
the initiative. This is in addition, of course, to an extraordinarily low rate of abstention
of 2.67 % that evidently points towards a possible fraud. Summing up, then: García
was not only a known Barletta supporter, but he also lacked the forcefulness required
to face the heated and momentous debates that no doubt would take place in the
National Return Board. And that is exactly what happened. García proved an adequate
chairman during the initial stages, when only the Board’s internal rules, regulations and
other less important questions were discussed. But when things heated up, he simply
got up and left, allowing his alternate to handle matters in an arbitrary fashion, as we
shall presently see.

It was Ulises Pitti, the alternate chairman, a young attorney, and professor at
the Law School of the National University of Panama –where he is known as a
supporter of pro-government student groups– who presided over the debates… and not
exactly in a fair and equitable manner, as required by the Electoral Code.
The important job of secretary was held by a public official, Víctor Levy,
President of the Technological University. His alternate was Judith Gadeloff, an
attorney-at-law, and a senior partner in a well-known law office. Neither of these
officials was known to belong to any party, although it is evident that the former would
not have been appointed president of so important a public institution as the
Technological University unless his sympathies were with the regime. His subsequent
performance at the National Returns Board confirmed this inference.