U.S. Seeks Dismissal of Technology Export Counts Against 3

The U.S. attorney’s office asked a federal judge Tuesday to dismiss the charges it earlier had brought against two Los Angeles-area men and a Czechoslovakian for allegedly exporting to that Soviet Bloc country “highly sophisticated technology” that could be used by military forces there.

The government, in a motion now before U.S. District Judge Richard A. Gadbois Jr., seeks to drop charges of conspiracy, illegal export of high-technology equipment and making false statements to government officials lodged against Josef Kubicek, 50, of the Palos Verdes Peninsula and Martin Stastny, 41, of San Pedro, as well as Josef Chlumsky, a Czech trade organization official.

Assistant U.S. Atty. William Fahey, explaining why the government had decided not to prosecute the three men, said, “We analyzed the case and made a determination that it was in the best interest of all concerned that they be dismissed.” Fahey declined to comment in detail on the government’s action.

When a federal grand jury here handed down the charges last June, Fahey said the three were thought to have exported $600,000 worth of “highly sophisticated technology (that) could be used to manufacture integrated computer systems with military applications.”

He said then that the Department of Commerce’s Office of Export Enforcement and the Customs Service, after a two-year investigation, had concluded that the defendants had lied to federal officials to conceal the “true nature of the equipment and its real destination.”

The merchandise, Fahey said, was first shipped from the United States to Austria and then sent on to Czechoslovakia.

Kubicek’s attorney, Mark Beck, said Tuesday that the merchandise in question was “electronic components of a sophisticated variety.”

He said the government’s motion to dismiss the charges followed dismissal motions by the defense, which claimed that the prosecution had improperly sealed earlier grand jury charges against the three to sidestep the five-year statute of limitations on the charges.

Beck said his client, along with the other two men, was first indicted in December, 1983, for offenses that allegedly occurred in December, 1979. The indictment remained sealed until last June, when it was unsealed along with a second series of indictments that covered both the original offenses and later ones, Beck said.

Beck said his motion to dismiss the case also alleged “government misconduct.” He said he could not comment further on the alleged misconduct, because of a court order based on a federal law that precludes both sides from commenting on the specifics of a case that involves national security.

Stastny’s attorney, Victor B. Kenton, said Tuesday that his motion to dismiss the charges was partly based on the fact that “there were (U.S.) government agencies that were in some manner involved (in the shipment) that were acting apparently without the knowledge of the Department of Commerce.”

Kenton said he could not be specific, because of the court order limiting his comments.

Fahey, in declining to comment on Beck’s and Kenton’s contention of misconduct by the government, also cited the court order based on the federal Classified Information Procedures Act.

Kubicek is a developer and owner of a motorcycle sales agency, Beck said. Stastny is a freight forwarder, according to Kenton.

The third defendant, Chlumsky, has “never to my knowledge been in this country in recent years,” Beck said. “He was indicted in absentia.”

Beck said if the case had gone to trial, “we would have refuted the government’s contention that the equipment was ever shipped.”

Kenton said if the government had not asked for a dismissal of the charges, “my client would have been shown to be innocent and that he did not violate any law or regulation.”

The government’s motion to dismiss should be viewed as “an affirmation of his (Stastny’s) innocence,” Kenton added.

“I applaud the government for dismissing charges that should not have been filed in the first place,” he said.