MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

McDONALD, District Judge.

Introduction

This is an action filed on April 16,1981 by an organization of Vietnamese Fishermen and individual Vietnamese fishermen against the Knights of the Ku Klux Klan, the Grand Dragon of the Ku Klux Klan in the State of Texas, certain unknown members of the Ku Klux Klan, the American Fishermen’s Coalition, various alleged members of that coalition, and several individual American fishermen alleging violations of various federal and state statutes.

Specifically, the plaintiffs allege that the defendants have violated their rights under several civil rights statutes: 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1982, 1985(c), and 1986; the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution; the Sherman Act, .15 U.S.C. §§ 1, 2, 15, and 26; the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), 18 U.S.C. §§ 1962 and *10001964; and the common law torts of assault, trespass to personal property, the intentional infliction of emotional distress and intentional interference with contractual relations. In addition, the plaintiffs allege in their Second Amended Complaint that defendants Louis Beam and the Knights of the Ku Klux Klan have violated their rights under Tex.Rev.Civ.Stat.Ann., art. 5780 § 6 (Vernon). Relief by way of preliminary and permanent injunction has been requested as well as a declaratory judgment.

The plaintiffs seek a preliminary and permanent injunction enjoining the defendants generally from engaging in any activity, including unlawful acts of violence or intimidation, conducted for the purpose of interfering with the rights of the Vietnamese fishermen prior to and during the shrimping season, which begins on May 15, 1981.1 In particular the plaintiffs request this Court to restrain the defendants from undertaking:

(a) activities undertaken with the purpose of interfering with the rights of the plaintiff class at issue in this case;

(b) unlawful acts of violence or intimidation against the plaintiff class;

(e) engaging, or inciting others to engage in acts of boat burning, armed boat patrols, assault and battery, or threats of such conduct;

(d) maintaining or conducting or attending military or paramilitary camps and giving or receiving military or paramilitary training except from military institutions operated by the state of Texas or United States government.

The plaintiffs also request this Court to require the conspicuous posting of all Orders as the Court may issue at all meetings and meeting places of any or all of the defendants and to appoint additional United States Magistrates and deputies to prevent the violation of any Orders of this Court.

The plaintiffs’ class of Vietnamese fishermen was certified by agreement of all parties on May 8, 1981. The class is defined as “all Vietnamese fishermen in the Galveston Bay, Texas area” and may be maintained under Rule 23(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The defendants’ Motion to Dismiss has previously been denied by Order of this Court on May 11, 1981. The Vietnamese Fishermen’s Association and the named Vietnamese plaintiffs clearly have standing to represent the plaintiff class. Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490, 511, 95 S.Ct. 2197, 2211, 45 L.Ed.2d 343 (1975), NAACP v. FPC, 425 U.S. 662, 96 S.Ct. 1806, 48 L.Ed. 284 (1976); NAACP v. New York, 413 U.S. 345, 93 S.Ct. 2591, 37 L.Ed.2d 648 (1973). The testimony and documentary evidence received during the hearing on the Motion for Preliminary Injunction makes it absolutely clear that the claims are justiciable.

The defendants’ Motion to Disqualify this Judge was denied after a hearing on May 7, 1981. A separate Memorandum and Order has been entered regarding that motion.

The Court conducted a hearing on the plaintiffs’ Motion for a Preliminary Injunction on May 11-14, 1981, during which both the plaintiffs and the defendants presented evidence and oral arguments. Upon the. conclusion of said hearing, the Court issues the following Memorandum Opinion and Order.

It is well settled that in order to obtain a preliminary injunction the plaintiffs must prove that: *1001 See Spiegel v. City of Houston, 636 F.2d 997 (5th Cir. 1981); Buchanan v. United States Postal Service, 508 F.2d 259, 266 (5th Cir. 1975); Allison v. Froehlke, 470 F.2d 1123, 1126 (5th Cir. 1972). See generally Wright & Miller, Federal Practice & Procedure, § 2948. In view of these requirements, the Court will consider each of the causes of action asserted by the plaintiffs to determine whether they have met their burden.

*1000(1) they have a substantial likelihood of prevailing on the merits;

(2) there exists a substantial threat of irreparable injury if the injunction is not granted;

(3) the threatened injury to plaintiffs outweighs the threatened harm the injunction may cause the defendant; and

(4) granting the injunction will not dis-serve the public interest.

*1001THE FACTUAL SETTING

On or about January 24, 1981, defendant Fisher was introduced to defendant Louis Beam, Grand Dragon in the State of Texas of the Knights of the Ku Klux Klan (hereinafter KKK or Klan), by defendant James Stanfield a member of the Original Ku Klux Klan of America. (Stanfield Depo. at 13) The admitted purpose for this introduction was for defendant Fisher to secure support of Louis Beam and the Klan in order to further the purposes of a group of American fishermen who were ostensibly concerned about “over fishing” in the Kemah-Seabrook area of Texas. Defendant Fisher considered that the Klan was an organization that had the “courage” to stand by their convictions and would provide needed publicity to draw the attention of various governmental agencies he felt had failed to address his concerns. This meeting resulted in a rally that was held on February 14, 1981 on the property of defendant Joseph Collins that is located in Santa Fe, Texas. Defendant Joseph Collins leased this property for that purpose for a $1.00 payment from Mr. Stanfield. Defendant Fisher testified that he contacted defendant Beam to speak at the rally. Defendant Beam brought with him to the rally approximately 13 men who he refers to as his “security force” who were dressed in military garb and he gave a speech at that rally. He stated in substance that he would give the government 90 days 2 to rectify the situation, (referring to the presence of the Vietnamese fishermen in the Kemah-Seabrook area) and if that was not accomplished the Klan would take action stating it “may become necessary to take laws into our own hands.” He admitted stating in his speech that it was necessary to “fight fight fight” and see “blood blood blood” if this country was to survive. That rally was covered extensively by the news media. At that same rally, Beam demonstrated how to burn a boat. A cross propped with the aid of a pickup truck of defendant Joseph Collins was also burned at the rally. On that evening, defendant Beam offered to train American fishermen at one of the “military camps”, later referred to as “locations” during his testimony in Court.

On March 15,1981, a “boat ride” was held in the waters surrounding the Kemah-Seabrook area. The boat was owned by defendant Joseph Collins and was navigated by defendant David Collins. The boat was the shrimping boat used by defendant Joseph Collins in his business, and by his own admission it is hardly a “pleasure craft.” Defendant David Collins denies that this boat ride was planned in advance and testified that it was essentially a spontaneous event taken because it was a beautiful day. However, Mr. Emery Waite, a seafood retailer and processor in Seabrook testified that he had heard about the impending boat ride a day or perhaps a week before the boat ride actually took place. Several persons who were on that shrimp boat on March 15, 1981 wore robes of the KKK, some also wore hoods and most were visibly armed. The boat was equipped with a small cannon and a figure hung in effigy. Defendant Stanfield was present on the boat and wore a Klan robe and hood. Other persons who through testimony were clearly identified as being members of the Klan were also on the boat. Defendant Beam testified that he was informed of this boat ride shortly before it occurred and gave his approval to a member of the Klan to wear robes and bear arms, but admonished the members to refrain from any violence. Defendant Fisher, however, testified *1002that he considered being armed a threat of violence. Other persons who viewed, participated in or heard of this boat ride acknowledged that this display would be fearful and intimidating to Vietnamese fishermen. Indeed, Joanne Oliphant-Curren, a reporter who was invited by David Collins to join them in the boat ride testified that she was “scared.” By way of explanation she stated that the presence of robed, armed Klansmen on the boat might incite others to respond in a violent way and acknowledged that if she were a Vietnamese fishermen she would be afraid by such a display. Not only did she testify to this effect, but she reported the account of the boat ride in the April 22, 1981 issue of the Santa Fe Express News (Plaintiffs’ Exhibit No. 38). She reported that “Collins steered the boat out into the bay well past the mile marker and the Klansmen fired their small cannon (Plaintiff’s Exhibit No. 38). Everybody else had their fingers in their ears, but I was snapping pictures and the cannon blast left me nearly deaf for a few moments.” The account in the newspaper further related the following: “Let’s hear it for the American fishermen, David Collins shouted and the fishermen cheered.”

Defendant David Collins acknowledged that the purpose of the boat ride was to gain media attention, asserting “violence sells stories.” Defendant Fisher testified that defendant Beam had informed him that one of the persons on this boat ride was a Klansman involved in the Greensboro, South Carolina shooting during which members of the Communist Workers Party were killed during a confrontation with members of the Ku Klux Klan.

Members of the class who testified by deposition also expressed fear because of the presence of the shrimp boat loaded with robed and armed Klansmen. Colonel Nam Van Nguyen testified that he was especially frightened by the weapons that were carried by the persons on the boat and the figure that was hanging in effigy on the boat' (Nam Depo. at 54). He also testified that the boat came right to his dock and stopped there for about four or five minutes and someone on the boat gestured toward his house (Nam Depo. at 55). Colonel Nam’s sister-in-law, Phuong Pham, was present in his house when the boat approached and she saw persons wearing white robes. This so frightened her that she took her infant niece and ran from the house to a nearby relative’s home. Although Miss Pham had previously lived with Colonel Nam, since this incident, she testified that she is too fearful to spend the night in that house. (Pham Depo. at 7-11)

Mr. Jerry Walzel, State Game Warden for the Texas Department of Parks and Wildlife testified that “fortunately” he was not on duty on the day of the boat ride; fortunate because if he had been in the area, undoubtedly he would have received a complaint of possible violations of water safety regulations and if he had tried to board the boat it would have been “like throwing a spark on gasoline.” He explained that he would be the spark and the armed Klansman the gasoline. In his opinion, the presence of armed Klansmen aboard shrimp boats would cause violence. That view was concurred in by the Chief of Police of the City of Seabrook. R. W. Kerber testified that he did not expect violence at the opening of the fishing season on May 15, 1981 because there had been no violence the previous year, but admitted that based on his 27 months service as the Chief of Police with extensive contacts with members of the community, he would have no doubt that Vietnamese fishermen would be fearful if there is Klan presence on May 15.

Chief Kerber testified further that the tension between Vietnamese and American fishermen did not stem solely from fishing conflicts. According to Chief Kerber, some American fishermen believe there are just too many Vietnamese people in Kemah-Seabrook and therefore these individuals will only be satisfied when some of the Vietnamese leave the area.

Mr. Louis Beam, the Grand Dragon of the Knights of the Ku Klux Klan of Texas testified about the history of his organization. Mr. Beam stated that the Knights of the Ku Klux Klan of Texas opened a public *1003information center in Pasadena, Texas in 1975. Prior to that time, he originally joined the United Klans of America in and about April of 1969 immediately after returning from Viet Nam. (Beam Depo. p. 12) According to Mr. Beam’s testimony, the United Klans of America was “destroyed” by “government subversion” in 1971. Consequently, in 1973, Mr. Beam helped organize the Original Ku Klux Klan in the state of Texas (hereinafter referred to as the “Original Klan”). (Beam Depo. p. 13)

At trial, Mr. Beam testified that the Original Klan received permission from now former Grand Dragon of Louisiana, Robert W. Fuller, to use the Original Ku Klux Klan of Louisiana’s charter. Mr. Beam testified that although the aims of the Louisiana and Texas organizations were different, the Original Klan was incorporated under the laws of Louisiana.

Sometime in late 1974 or early 1975 Mr. Beam advised all the members of the Original Ku Klux Klan of Texas to withdraw their membership from that Klan and affiliate themselves with David Duke’s Knights of the Ku Klux Klan out of Metairie, Louisiana (hereinafter referred to as “the Knights”). Mr. Beam subsequently abandoned the charter the Original Klan had operated under and adopted the charter utilized by the Knights. The Knights of the Ku Klux Klan is a national organization and David Duke’s group is incorporated under the laws of Louisiana. The Texas Knights of the Ku Klux Klan, of which Mr. Beam is the Grand Dragon, is an unincorporated association. Mr. Beam testified that the goals and objectives of the Texas Knights of the Ku Klux Klan are consistent with those of the Knights. However, he stated he felt the Texas Klan had some unique goals which were not reflected in the national organization.

Mr. Beam refused to reveal the names of the current officers of the Texas Knights of the Ku Klux Klan (Beam Depo. p. 15), and ordered destroyed all records which contained any names of the members of the organization.

The record is replete with provocative statements made by various defendants in this action. Defendant David Collins testified by way of deposition and reaffirmed at trial that he planned to have an armed Klansman on his boat on May 15, 1981. (Collins Depo. at 32, 33) Jim Craig owner of the Old Harbor Seafood House testified that he has 43 boats owned by Vietnamese fishermen docked at his establishment, referred to as the “Saigon Harbor”. He testified about a conversation during the Fall of 1980 with defendant Fisher. According to Mr. Craig, Mr. Fisher told him to “watch your boats — they’re easy to burn.” At trial Mr. Fisher testified that Mr. Craig’s memory of the conversation was better than his and did not deny making this statement.3

It is uncontroverted that defendant Fisher stated that it would not bother him if the Klan burned all of the [Vietnamese] boats; further adding that the Klan were the only ones with the courage of their convictions. He added that a certain number of Vietnamese boats would have to be taken out of the water and destroyed. At the rally on February 14, 1981, defendant Fisher publicly stated that “we’re going to help [Vietnamese fishermen] to control themselves.” At trial defendant Fisher equivocated with respect to some of the statements that were attributed to him. For example, he was quoted by the press as saying that he planned to have a squadron of the American fishermen trained at the Klan’s paramilitary training camp and that he currently had a group of 50 to 60 American fishermen in training. When confronted with this statement, Mr. Fisher responded that he was “lying” to the press. Mr. Fisher testi*1004fied that it was “possible” that he had stated that anyone who traded or did business with or aided or assisted Vietnamese were his enemies. However, defendant Fisher did not deny announcing that his “organization” would put armed men on the boats on May 15, 1981 if requested. (Fisher Depo. at 94) It should be noted that a few of these statements were made during the taking of depositions on or about May 2, 1981 and when Mr. Fisher testified on or about May 11 and 12, he admitted making those statements but said that he no longer felt that way.

A woman who lives in the Galveston Bay area had allowed a Vietnamese fisherman to use one of her docks for approximately two years. She testified that in January, 1981 she received a card in the mail, signed by the Knights of the Ku Klux Klan which read: “You have been paid a ‘friendly visit’ do you want the next one to be a ‘real one.’ ” She also received three threatening phone calls. The first asked if she knew where her children were; the second was a threat to burn her boat; the third, stated that she would die that night. Mr. Dang, a Vietnamese fisherman, testified that approximately four weeks ago an American pointed a gun at him while he was on his shrimp boat. Miss Do Thi Doi who is a shrimp seller and married to a Vietnamese fisherman testified that six weeks ago two American men drove up in a truck and pointed a gun at her. She testified that unless there is some solution to the conflict between the American fishermen and the Vietnamese fishermen her husband will not take out their shrimp boat on May 15, 1981 because she is afraid that he will be killed.

The plaintiffs have alleged that defendants Beam and the Knights of the Ku Klux Klan have operated one or more military or paramilitary training camps in the State of Texas in violation of Tex.Rev.Civ.Stat.Ann., art. 5780, § 6 (Vernon). The plaintiffs introduced a videotape depicting defendant Beam instructing persons dressed in military type uniforms in the art of psychological warfare, ambush and counter ambush, reconnaissance patrol and other types of military movements. (Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 35)4 Defendant Beam has referred to the group of persons who will receive his training as the “Texas Emergency Reserve.” He testified that in addition to civilians, he trained persons who were currently members of the armed forces. The Texas Emergency Reserve has a flag which it uses as an emblem of its organization. A witness with considerable military experience testified that after viewing the entire film footage (approximately four hours of Beam’s training sessions) he considers that Beam is training a viable military organization, for it has a command structure, has discipline and is being trained to act as a military unit. In his opinion, this is not the type of training that is provided for survival, but is training to act in a combat role.

Most defendants testified at trial that any assertions they made regarding an explosive situation in the Kemah-Seabrook area and the potential for violence or the need for an armed Klan sea patrol on the opening day of shrimp season, May 15, were no longer valid. Defendants testified that the primary purpose for inviting the Ku Klux Klan to speak on the behalf of American fishermen, was merely an attempt to gain media attention of the plight of the American fishermen because state, federal, *1005and local officials had attempted to “whitewash” (Joseph Collins Depo. at 9), the complexity of the nature of the conflict between the American and Vietnamese fishermen. The defendants stated that over the past year and a half to two years they had attempted to present their concerns to Austin with the hope that the Texas legislature would enact legislation designed to curtail the number of boats allowed to fish in the Galveston Bay. According to the defendants, such legislation would significantly decrease the amount of tension that exists between the American and Vietnamese fishermen, and would diffuse any explosive situation that may exist in Kemah-Seabrook. Defendants testified that they understood that the Texas legislature had passed a “limited entry” bill, which was awaiting the Governor’s signature, and that another bill establishing a 2:00 p. m. curfew for fishing in the Bay was to be passed shortly by the Legislature. Defendants testified that the existence of this legislation had considerably lessened the American fisherman’s concerns about over fishing in Galveston Bay and therefore they did not anticipate any violence or threats of intimidation to occur when the May 15th shrimping season opened.

Mr. Ken King, a legislative assistant to State Representative Lloyd Criss, testified about the status of these two pieces of legislation.5 Mr. King testified that Governor Clements signed the “limited entry” bill on or about May 12, 1981 and that the bill took effect immediately. This bill places a two year restriction on the issuance of new shrimping licenses by severely limiting the number of persons eligible for shrimping licenses in 1982 and 1983. (Defendants’ Exhibit No. I)6 Mr. King was not familiar with the piece of legislation establishing a 2:00 p. m. curfew for fishermen. He testified that to the best of his knowledge that bill was in a House Committee and had been passed by the Senate. Mr. King could not offer any information as to when the “curfew” bill may be approved by the legislature and signed by the Governor.

Mr. King testified that the need for the “limited entry” bill was brought to the attention of Representative Criss by representatives from the Texas Shrimp Association and an association called Pisces. These organizations represented commercial fishermen throughout the Texas gulf coast area. The fishermen’s primary concern was that due to a dramatic increase in the issuance of new bay shrimp fishing licenses, it was becoming increasingly difficult to operate a profitable shrimping business in Galveston Bay.

Mr. King testified that the “limited entry” bill was initially drafted in early January 1981. Public hearings were held on the bill, however Mr. King testified he was unfamiliar with any of the defendants to this action and that he never had any conversation with defendant Fisher or any coalition of American fishermen from the Kemah-Seabrook area. Mr. King stated no public testimony was ever received regarding violations of fishing laws and customs by Vietnamese fishermen. Although Mr. King was responsible for drafting the “limited entry” bill he never discussed the issue of overcrowding in Galveston Bay with either Mr. Emery Waite, chairman of the government task force established to resolve conflicts between American and Vietnamese fishermen, or Mr. Charles Travis, executive director of the Texas Parks and *1006Wildlife Department. Mr. King testified that when this legislation was drafted he was unaware of any conflicts between American and Vietnamese fishermen in Galveston Bay. He had no knowledge that any threats had been made against Vietnamese or American fishermen or that members of the Ku Klux Klan had offered to provide American fishermen with armed Klansmen on May 15th. Mr. King’s only information about the “boat ride” was what he read in the newspaper.

STATUTORY VIOLATIONS

42 U.S.C. § 1985(8)

Plaintiffs have alleged that the defendants have conspired for the purpose of depriving them and their class equal protection of the laws and of equal privileges and immunities under the laws and that the defendants have acted out of a class-based animus against Vietnamese persons. (Complaint, ¶ VI, ¶ 2) In McLellan v. Mississippi Power and Light Company, 545 F.2d 919, 923 (5th Cir. 1977) (en banc), the elements that a plaintiff must allege and prove for a 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3) cause of action, are set forth as follows:

(1) The defendants must conspire

(2) For the purpose of depriving, either directly, or indirectly, any person or class of persons of the equal protection of the laws, or of equal privileges and immunities under the laws; and

(3) The defendants must act in furtherance of the object of the conspiracy, whereby

(4) One was (a) injured in his person or property or (b) deprived of having and exercising any right or privilege of a citizen of the United States.

There is some authority for the proposition that equal privileges and immunities under the laws portion of 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3) does not apply to aliens. See United States v. Biloxi Municipal School District, 219 F.Supp. 691, aff’d 326 F.2d 237 (5th Cir. 1963), cert. denied, 379 U.S. 929, 85 S.Ct. 324, 13 L.Ed.2d 341. However, at this stage of the proceedings, the Court need not decide this issue since it is clear that aliens are entitled to equal protection of the laws section of 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3). See Doe v. Plyler, 628 F.2d 448 (5th Cir. 1980); In re Griffiths, 413 U.S. 717, 93 S.Ct. 2851, 37 L.Ed.2d 910 (1973); Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356, 6 S.Ct. 1064, 30 L.Ed. 220 (1886). Certainly, state action is not required, Griffin v. Breckenridge, 403 U.S. 88, 91 S.Ct. 1790, 29 L.Ed.2d 338 (1971); Paynes v. Lee, 377 F.2d 61 (5th Cir. 1967). In order to demonstrate a violation of the equal protection of laws section, it must be demonstrated that the plaintiffs have been subjected to racial or other class-based invidious discrimination by the conspirators’ actions. The actions of the defendants’ conspiracy must demonstrate a violation of some law, independent of § 1985(3).

The defendants argue that there has been no conspiracy established. First, they would suggest that the American Fishermen’s Association is not an organization but consists of only one person, e. g., defendant Eugene Fisher. That defendant indeed testified that he is an organization of one. However, he admitted that he had collected funds allegedly for the purpose of forming an organization, that he had expended funds in furtherance of the objective of this organization and that on at least one occasion he had a meeting with various American fishermen to discuss the objective of this organization which obstensibly was to file a lawsuit against the federal government. Moreover, in a press release issued by the defendant one day after this lawsuit was filed both Joseph and David Collins as well as Eugene Fisher were named as officers of the organization. Regardless of whether there was in fact a formerly established organization entitled the American Fishermen’s Coalition or an organization known by another name consisting of American fishermen which was established or attempted to be established by defendant Fisher, it is clear that the named defendants have acted together and the evidence establishes that those actions have had the effect of depriving the plaintiffs of their equal protection of the laws. The specific *1007laws that this Court finds have been violated by the defendants will be discussed herein.

42 U.S.C. § 1986

The plaintiffs have also alleged that the defendants have violated their rights by engaging in conduct made unlawful under 42 U.S.C. § 1986. Section 1986 is a companion to § 1985. It creates a cause of action against “[e]very person who, having knowledge that any of the wrongs conspired to be done, and mentioned in [§ 1985], are about to be committed, and having power to prevent or aid in preventing the commission of the same, neglects or refuses to do so.” See Dowsey v. Wilkins, 467 F.2d 1022, 1026 (5th Cir. 1972). Hamilton v. Chaffin, 506 F.2d 904 (5th Cir. 1975).

The rights protected under § 1986 are those rights which are safeguarded under § 1985; no claim lies under § 1986 except on the basis of a valid claim under § 1985. By its language, § 1986 extends protection to “the party injured” and this is construed the same way the equivalent term in § 1985 is construed. Aliens are protected under § 1986, and since the language authorizes suit against “every person” there is no requirement of state action or color of law under § 1986. 1 C. Antieau, Federal Civil Rights Acts, §§ 281-282 (2d Ed. 1980).

The testimony elicited at trial clearly established that the defendants had knowledge of the wrongs conspired to be done, and neglected to aid in preventing the commission of these wrongs. David Collins testified that he informed James Stanfield that a “boat ride” had been scheduled and he solicited Stanfield’s assistance in inviting people to participate on the boat ride. Mr. Beam testified that he was notified of the boat ride on the morning of its departure. Mr. Beam stated he was informed that members of the Ku Klux Klan planned to participate in the “boat ride” and he knew these members planned to wear their robes and carry semiautomatic weapons. Although Mr. Beam admonished members of the Klan not to use violence, he did not attempt to dissuade them from joining the boat ride. Both Mr. Stanfield and Mr. David Collins participated fully in the boat ride.

The evidence establishes that all of the defendants were aware that Louis Beam and the Knights of the Ku Klux Klan had been invited to lend their support to the efforts of American fishermen to see a reduction in the number of Vietnamese fishing boats in the Kemah-Seabrook area. Moreover, all of the defendants had knowledge that Louis Beam had been invited to speak at a rally held in Santa Fe, Texas on February 14, 1981 in which he stated that the Klan may have to “take laws into our own hands” if the presence of Vietnamese fishermen in the Kemah-Seabrook area had not been decreased by May 15, 1981.

42 U.S.C. § 1981

Plaintiffs have alleged that the defendants’ actions have denied the plaintiff the same right to make and enforce contracts as is enjoyed by white persons, and have further deprived plaintiffs of the full and equal benefit of laws and proceedings for the security of persons, as is enjoyed by white persons, in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1981.7 (Complaint, ¶ IX). When aliens are the victims of racial or other forms of discrimination actionable under § 1981, they have standing to sue under this section. Takahashi v. Fish & Game Co., 334 U.S. 410, 68 S.Ct. 1138, 92 L.Ed. 1478 (1948); Guerra v. Manchester Terminal Corp., 498 F.2d 641 (5th Cir. 1974), reh. den. 503 F.2d 567; Spiess v. C. Itoh & Co., 408 F.Supp. 916 (S.D.Tex.1976).

*1008Section 1981 is constitutionally supported by the implementing of clauses of the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments. McDonald v. Santa Fe Trail Transportation Co., 421 U.S. 273, 96 S.Ct. 2574, 49 L.Ed.2d 493 (1976), on remand 540 F.2d 219 (5th Cir.); Runyon v. McCrary, 427 U.S. 160, 96 S.Ct. 2586, 49 L.Ed.2d 415 (1976), later app. 569 F.2d 1294 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 927, 99 S.Ct. 311, 58 L.Ed.2d 320. In Jones v. Alfred H. Mayer Co., 392 U.S. 409, 436, 88 S.Ct. 2186, 2201, 20 L.Ed.2d 1189 (1968) the Supreme Court indicated that the Civil Rights Act of 1866, which was the forerunner of § 1981, was designed “to prohibit all racial discrimination, whether or not under color of law ...” and as such was within the constitutional power of Congress under the Thirteenth Amendment. The rationale of the Jones case, which authorized a private cause of action for discrimination in the sale or rental of property under 42 U.S.C. § 1982, has been followed in actions under 42 U.S.C. § 1981, Penn v. Schlesinger, 490 F.2d 700, 703 (5th Cir. 1973) cert. denied, 426 U.S. 934, 96 S.Ct. 2646, 49 L.Ed.2d 385 (1976); Boudreaux v. Baton Rouge Marine Contracting Co., 437 F.2d 1011, 1016 (5th Cir. 1971); Sanders v. Dobbs Houses, Inc., 431 F.2d 1097, 1099 (5th Cir. 1970), cert. denied, 401 U.S. 948, 91 S.Ct. 935, 28 L.Ed.2d 231 (1971). Since there is no “state action” or “color of law” requirement under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 private citizens are proper defendants in suits arising out of purely private relationships. Id. See also: Caldwell v. National Brewing Co., 443 F.2d 1044 (5th Cir. 1971), cert. denied, 405 U.S. 916, 92 S.Ct. 931, 30 L.Ed.2d. 785 (1972).

Section 1981 protects a panoply of individual rights the primary one being the right to contract to earn a living. E. g., Johnson v. Railway Express Agency, 421 U.S. 454, 459-60, 95 S.Ct. 1716, 1719-1720, 44 L.Ed.2d 295 (1975); Penn v. Schlesinger, supra, 490 F.2d 702; Guerra v. Manchester Terminal Corp., supra; Boudreaux v. Baton Rouge Marine Contracting Co., supra. In order to demonstrate a violation of § 1981, it is only necessary that the plaintiffs show that they were unlawfully denied, by the defendants, one of the rights protected by this statute. 1 C. Antieau, Federal Civil Rights Acts §§ 32, 33 (2d Ed. 1980).

The plaintiffs argue that the commercial fishing business operates by contract and that the plaintiffs’ claims of interference with their ability to participate in this business, and in particular with their ability to make commercial arrangements with dock owners, gives rise to a denial of freedom of contract claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1981. The Court is of the opinion that the plaintiff class has established a substantial likelihood of success on the merits of this cause of action.8

Section 1981 also provides that “[a]ll persons . .. shall have the same right ... to the full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of persons and property as is enjoyed by white citizens.” It is well established that the guarantee “to full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of persons and property” is a distinct and separate right from the right “to make and enforce contracts.” Strauder v. West Virginia, 100 U.S. 303, 25 L.Ed. 664 (1879). It is well established that the “full and equal benefit of all laws” guarantee of § 1981 applies to private action. See Central Presbyterian Church v. Black Liberation Front, 303 F.Supp. 894, 901 (E.D.Mo.1969). The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit however, has held that the concept of state action is implicit in the “equal benefit” clause of § 1981. Mahone v. Waddle, 564 F.2d 1018, 1029-1030 (3rd Cir. 1977), cert. denied, 438 U.S. 904, 98 S.Ct. *10093122, 57 L.Ed.2d 1147 (1979) (dictum). However, at this stage of the proceedings, the Court need not decide this issue since it is clear that the plaintiffs are entitled to the guarantee of the right “to make and enforce contracts” clause of 42 U.S.C. § 1981.

15 U.S.C. § 1

The plaintiffs allege that the defendants’ actions constitute a conspiracy to prevent the plaintiffs from engaging in the commercial fishing business, a business in interstate commerce, and further have conspired to prevent other persons from trading with the plaintiffs in this business. The plaintiffs allege that by so doing the defendants have injured and will continue to injure the plaintiffs in their business, and have thereby violated title 15 U.S.C. § 1 of the Sherman Anti-Trust Act. (Complaint, ¶ 11, § 2).

Section 1 of the Sherman Act provides that “every contract, combination ..., or conspiracy, in restraint of trade or commerce among the several states, ... is declared to be illegal.” 15 U.S.C. § l.9 Section 1 of the Sherman Act is the broadest in scope of the major antitrust acts, and was designed to protect free and unfettered competition in interstate commerce 1 Von Kalinowski, Antitrust Laws and Trade Regulation, § 4.01 (1980). A restraint will be found to violate § 1 if the following factors are present: (1) there are at least two persons acting in concert; (2) the restraint restrains trade or commerce; (3) the trade or commerce is trade or commerce among the several states or within foreign nations; and (4) the restraint is unreasonable. Standard Oil Co. v. United States, 221 U.S. 1, 31 S.Ct. 502, 55 L.Ed. 619 (1911); Aviation v. United Technologies, 568 F.2d 1186 (5th Cir. 1978).

Under the Sherman Act any unreasonable restraint that occurs in the flow of interstate commerce or that affects interstate commerce is subject to the provisions of § 1. The terms “trade” and “commerce” have been broadly construed by the courts. 1 Von Kalinowski, Antitrust Laws and Trade Regulation, § 4.02 (1980). Practically every commercial activity that is in the flow of or affects interstate commerce constitutes the requisite trade or commerce within the meaning of § 1. See McLain v. Real Estate Board of New Orleans, Inc., 444 U.S. 232, 100 S.Ct. 502, 62 L.Ed.2d 441 (1980). It has been uncontested that the commercial fishing business in Galveston Bay is clearly a part of, and substantially affects interstate commerce within the meaning of § 1 of the Sherman Act.

Unreasonable restraints fall into two categories, (a) those that are regarded as so inherently anti-competitive that they are illegal per se; and (b) those which are found to illegally suppress competition under a “rule of reason” analysis. The elements of a cause of action for an unreasonable restraint of trade under the “rule of reason” have been succinctly stated in Roberts Waikiki U-Drive v. Budget Rent-A-Car, 491 F.Supp. 1199 (D.Haw.1980). They are: 1) an agreement among two or more persons; 2) which is intended to harm or unreasonably restrain competition and 3) which actually causes injury to competition. Under the “rule of reason,” even though a restraint may have a tendency to suppress competition it may have certain redeeming virtues which, under appropriate circumstances, would not constitute a violation under § 1 of the Sherman Act.

It has been repeatedly stated that the anti-trust laws protect “competition not competitors” Brunswick Corp. v. Pueblo Bowl-O-Mat, Inc., 429 U.S. 477, 488, 97 S.Ct. 690, 697, 50 L.Ed.2d 701 (1977). The anti-trust laws do not protect an individual competitor from individual injury to his business. Instead, the anti-trust laws only become operable when there has been *1010a lessening of competitive conditions in the relevant market. United States v. General Dynamics Corp., 415 U.S. 486, 494 — 498, 94 S.Ct. 1186, 1192-1194, 39 L.Ed.2d 530 (1974). Northwest Power Products, Inc. v. Omark Industries, 576 F.2d 83 (5th Cir. 1978), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 1116, 99 S.Ct. 1021, 59 L.Ed.2d 75 (1979). A lessening of competitive conditions, can be shown if the number of competitors is reduced appreciably. Eastern States Retail Lumber Dealers v. United States, 234 U.S. 600, 34 S.Ct. 951, 58 L.Ed. 1490 (1914). The Supreme Court has stated that a Sherman Act § 1 civil violation may be established by proof of “either an unlawful purpose or an anticompetitive effect. United States v. United States Gypsum Co., 438 U.S. 422, 436, n. 13 [98 S.Ct. 2864, 2873, n. 13, 57 L.Ed.2d 854] (1978); see United States v. Container Corp., 393 U.S. 333, 337 [89 S.Ct. 510, 512, 21 L.Ed.2d 526] (1969); United States v. National Assn. of Real Estate Boards, 339 U.S. 485, 489 [70 S.Ct. 711, 714, 94 L.Ed. 1007] (1950); United States v. Socony Oil Co., supra, 310 U.S. [150] at 224-225, n. 59 [60 S.Ct. 811 at 844-845, n. 59, 84 L.Ed. 1129] [1940].”10 McLain v. Real Estate Board of New Orleans, Inc., 444 U.S. 232, 243, 100 S.Ct. 502, 509, 62 L.Ed.2d 441 (1980).

The plaintiffs allege that the defendants have conspired to force the Vietnamese fishermen class to terminate or at the very least curtail their commercial fishing business in the Galveston Bay area. The plaintiffs assert that the defendants have attempted to intimidate them into selling off sixty percent of their shrimping boats and by so doing have acted to eliminate or reduce competition for the American fishermen in the Kemah-Seabrook area. (Complaint, ¶ V, § 2).

It is well established that joint collaborative action designed to eliminate a class of competitors ready and able to compete is a violation of § 1 of the Sherman Act. United States v. General Motors Corp., 384 U.S. 127, 86 S.Ct. 1321, 16 L.Ed.2d 415 (1966); United States v. Parke, Davis & Co., 362 U.S. 29, 80 S.Ct. 503, 4 L.Ed.2d 505 (1960); United States v. Socony-Vacuum Oil Co., 310 U.S. 150, 60 S.Ct. 831, 84 L.Ed. 1129 (1940). Section 1 has been held to apply to an unlawful boycott occasioned by coercion, threats and intimidation. Loewe v. Lawlor, 208 U.S. 274, 28 S.Ct. 301, 52 L.Ed. 488 (1908). Moreover, courts have found that foreclosing and eliminating competitors from a substantial portion of the market is per se illegal. See Streiffer v. Seafarers Sea Check Corp., 162 F.Supp. 602 (E.D.La.1958).

The plaintiffs argue that the actions of the defendants constitute per se violations of the Sherman Act because their actions have a “pernicious affect on competition and lack . . . any redeeming virtue.” Northern Pacific Railroad Company v. United States, 356 U.S. 1, 5, 78 S.Ct. 514, 518, 2 L.Ed.2d 545 (1958). Although the facts adduced at the hearing may not have established a per se illegal restraint such as price fixing or group boycott, the evidence did reveal that the defendants agreed to engage in conduct which had the stated intent of eliminating a class of competitors from the commercial fishing business in Galveston Bay. This type of anticompetitive conduct is not likely to be condoned under Section 1 of the Sherman Act. Therefore, the plaintiffs have shown a substantial likelihood of success on the merits of their Sherman Act § 1 claim.

*1011TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE WITH CONTRACTUAL RELATIONSHIPS

The plaintiffs have alleged that the actions of the defendants constituted the tort of intentional interference with contractual relationships, i. e., interference with their commercial fishing business. (Complaint, ¶ XIII).

It is well established that a wrongful or malicious interference with the performance or the formation of a contract or the right to pursue a lawful occupation constitutes a tort for which damages may be recovered. See 86 C.J.S. Torts, § 43 (1954); Restatement of Torts § 766 (1939). Texas courts recognize a cause of action for improper interference with contractual relationships. Clements v. Withers, 437 S.W.2d 818, (Tex.1969). Common law has well established that the reasonable expectancy of a prospective contract is a property right to be protected from wrongful interference in the same sense as an existing contract is protected. Leonard Duckworth, Inc. v. Michael L. Field & Co., 516 F.2d 952 (5th Cir. 1975) [cites omitted]. Under Texas law a party has the right to be free from malicious interference with the right to conduct negotiations that have a reasonable probability of resulting in a contract. Martin v. Phiilips Petroleum Co., 455 S.W.2d 429, 435 (Tex.Civ.App.1970) rehearing denied. Texas courts have also recognized a cause of action for tortious and wrongful interference with advantageous business relationships. Cooper v. Steen, 318 S.W.2d 750, 757 (Tex.Civ.App.1958).

The elements of the tort of wrongful interference with a prospective contract right are as follows: the plaintiff must show that (1) there was a “reasonable probability that he would have entered into a contractual relationship; (2) the defendant acted maliciously by intentionally preventing the relationship from occurring with the purpose of harming plaintiff; (3) the defendant was not privileged or justified, and (4) actual harm or damage occurred as a result.” Duckworth v. Michael L. Field, supra at 956 [cites omitted]. As the plaintiffs have stated, the commercial fishing business is essentially contractual in nature. Moreover, the commercial fishing business is a lawful occupation which the plaintiffs have a right to pursue without wrongful interference on behalf of the defendants. The evidence adduced at the hearing clearly established that the defendants acted intentionally to impede and prevent the plaintiffs from pursuing their lawful occupation. As a result of the defendants’ actions, many members of the plaintiff class have agreed to sell their shrimping boats and many have been reluctant to pursue their lawful occupation. In light of these facts and the Court’s earlier discussion of 42 U.S.C. § 1981, there is a substantial likelihood that the plaintiffs will prevail on this tort claim.

OTHER CAUSES OF ACTION

The plaintiffs have asserted as additional bases for their injunctive relief, Section 1982 of Title 42 of the United States Code; the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution; Section 2 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. § 2; the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), 18 U.S.C. §§ 1962 and 1964; and the common law torts of assault, trespass to personal property; and the intentional infliction of emotional distress (Original Complaint ¶¶ IX, V, XI, XII, XIII). In addition, the plaintiffs allege in their Second Amended Complaint that defendants Louis Beam and the Knights of the Ku Klux Klan have violated their rights under Tex.Rev.Civ.Stat.Ann., art. 5780 § 6 (Vernon). The Court finds, for the following reasons, that the plaintiffs have not shown a substantial likelihood of success on the merits of these causes of action. On the final day of the hearing the plaintiffs’ attorneys informed the Court that they were not going to pursue a cause of action under 42 U.S.C. § 1982 or the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments. Therefore these claims will be dismissed.

Except for the 42 U.S.C. § 1982 claim and the claims under the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments, the remaining additional causes of action are not dismissed at *1012this time, but will be considered at a trial on the merits.

42 U.S.C. § 1982

Section 1982 of Title 42 of the United States Code provides that all citizens of the United States have the same right, in every state and territory, as is enjoyed by white citizens thereof to inherit, purchase, lease, sale, hold and convey real and personal property. By its language, § 1982 is available only to “citizens”, thus the plaintiff class cannot sustain a cause of action under this statute.

Fourteenth Amendment

The plaintiffs also allege that the defendant deprived the plaintiff class of their right to the privileges and immunities of citizenship, and to the equal protection of the laws, guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment. It is well established that a cause of action under the Fourteenth Amendment requires the existence of state action. The plaintiffs have failed to establish, or even assert, that the actions of the defendants were done under color of state law. Therefore, the plaintiff class cannot maintain a direct cause of action under the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution.

Thirteenth Amendment

The plaintiffs alleged that their right to be free from the badges and incidence of slavery, protected by the Thirteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution, and their right to interstate travel were violated by the defendants.

The Thirteenth Amendment gives power for Congress to create private rights of action versus private defendants who deprive individuals of basic rights of free men (“badges and incidents of servitude”). This private right of action is enforceable through 42 U.S.C. § 1981, Runyon v. McCrary, 427 U.S. 160, 96 S.Ct. 2586, 49 L.Ed.2d 415 (1976), and § 1985(3). Griffin v. Breckenridge, 403 U.S. 88, 91 S.Ct. 1790, 29 L.Ed.2d 338 (1971). However, these statutes define the scope of the cause of action; one cannot try for broader scope by suing under the Thirteenth Amendment itself. See e. g., Alma Society v. Mellon, 601 F.2d 1225 (2d Cir. 1979).

This Court is unaware of any authority which would support the proposition that a direct cause of action exists under the Thirteenth Amendment of the Constitution. In Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388, 91 S.Ct. 1999, 29 L.Ed.2d 619 (1971) and Davis v. Passman, 442 U.S. 228, 99 S.Ct. 2264, 60 L.Ed.2d 846 (1979), the Supreme Court held that direct causes of action existed under the Fourth and Fifth Amendments respectively. The facts of this case, however, differ significantly from those in Bivens and Davis. These two decisions, therefore, are of limited value in this case.

Since the plaintiffs have dropped their claim for relief directly under the Thirteenth Amendment, the Court need not consider whether such a cause of action actually exists.

The Common Law Tort of Assault

The plaintiffs also alleged that the defendants had committed the common law torts of assault, trespass to personal property, and the intentional infliction of emotional distress. The cause of action for the tort assault recognizes a plaintiff’s right to be free from apprehension of a harmful or offensive contact. Any act of such a nature as to excite an apprehension of a battery may constitute an assault. W. Prosser, The Law of Torts, (4th Ed. 1971), § 10. It is an assault to hold a weapon in a threatening position, or to surround an individual with a display of force. Id. at 38. As a rule, however the defendant’s act must amount to an offer to use force, and there must be an apparent ability and opportunity to carry out the threat immediately. There is no assault where the defendant is too far away to do any harm. With respect to weapons, when the defendant presents the weapon in such a manner as to indicate that it may immediately be made ready for use, the threat becomes sufficiently imminent to constitute an assault. Id. at 39.

*1013Under Texas law, a person commits an assault if he intentionally or knowingly threatens another with imminent bodily injury. V.T.C.A., Penal Code § 22.01. The definition of assault is the same whether it is the subject of a criminal prosecution or of a civil suit for damages. Hogenson v. Williams, 542 S.W.2d 456 (Civ.App.1976). An assault can only be committed when the act is coupled with the ability to commit a battery. For example, if the parties are too far separated for the accused to commit violence with the means used, there is no assault. Marthall v. State, 34 Tex.Cr.R. 22, 36 S.W. 1062 (1896).

At the hearing, Miss Do Thi Toi testified that two American men pointed a gun at her. Mr. Dang, another member of the plaintiff class, also testified that an American pointed a gun at him while he was on his shrimp boat. Although these acts may constitute an assault, none of the actions of these Americans could be attributed directly to the defendants.

Several members of the plaintiff class also testified that when they witnessed the “boat ride” on March 15, 1981 they became frightened. Although there were several armed persons on this “boat ride”, there was no testimony that any of these individuals were in close enough proximity to any of the plaintiffs to actually commit a battery. It is certainly clear that the actions of the defendants created an atmosphere conducive to the commission of violence and that such violent acts were the foreseeable natural cause of the calls for violence, especially those of defendants Beam and Fisher and acquiesced in by the remaining defendants. At this stage of the proceedings, the Court will not foreclose the plaintiffs from introducing such evidence and further evidence of a direct connection between the defendants and actual acts of assault and battery; however, insufficient evidence has been adduced to demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits and therefore, the request for preliminary injunctive relief will be denied.

The Intentional Infiietion of Emotional Distress

The plaintiffs’ Original Complaint also sought relief from the defendants’ alleged intentional infiietion of emotional distress. The elements of a prima facie case of this intentional tort are: 1) an act by the defendant(s), 2) intent, 3) extreme and outrageous conduct, 4) causation and 5) damages. See generally, W. Prosser, The Law of Torts, § 12 (4th Ed. 1971).

The evidence adduced at trial demonstrated a substantial likelihood that the “boat ride” constituted extreme and outrageous conduct on the part of defendants David Collins, James Stanfield and several, as yet, unidentified members of the Ku Klux Klan. Colonel Nam’s young sister-in-law, Phuong Pham, testified that she was so frightened by the sight of armed and robed Ku Klux Klan members, on the “boat ride,” that she ran from Colonel Nam’s home and is now afraid to spend the night there. Ordinarily under Texas law, damages for mental anguish and fright are not recoverable unless they result from or are accompanied by physical injury. See Pargas of Longview, Inc. v. Jones, 573 S.W.2d 571, 574 (Tex.Civ.App.1978). However, Texas plaintiffs have a damage action for mental/emotional suffering, unaccompanied by physical injury, “when the wrong complained of is a willful one intended by the [defendant] to produce mental anguish or from which such result should be reasonably anticipated as a natural consequence.” Stafford v. Steward, 295 S.W.2d 665, 667 (Tex.Civ.App.1957) [assault and battery case]. Here, the plaintiffs produced sufficient evidence to establish a substantial likelihood that the defendants intended, or at least could have reasonably anticipated that the “boat ride” would cause plaintiff class members severe emotional/mental distress.

Nevertheless, the facts of this case as well as the governing law need to be more fully developed for the plaintiffs to show a likelihood of success. The plaintiffs have failed to cite any Texas authority allowing a damage action for mental anguish, *1014unaccompanied by some other intentional tort such as trespass or assault. Moreover, the evidence adduced at the hearing failed to establish that any member of the plaintiff class suffered a mental and/or emotional injury severe enough to maintain a cause of action for the intentional infliction of emotional distress. Phuong Pham is not a member of the plaintiff class. The plaintiffs, therefore, have not demonstrated a substantial likelihood that any of the class members would be entitled to recovery of damages for Ms. Pham’s emotional distress. See Landreth v. Reed, 570 S.W.2d 486 (Tex.Civ.App.1978).

Trespass to Personal Property-

The plaintiffs have also alleged that the defendants have committed the tort of trespass to chattels. (Complaint ¶ XIII). It is well established that it is a trespass to damage or destroy goods in the possession of another. See The Law of Torts, supra § 14. Testimony at the hearing established that in or about January and March of 1981 three Vietnamese owned and/or operated shrimp boats were destroyed by arson. However, there was no testimony to link any of the defendants with this event. Therefore, the plaintiffs have failed to carry their burden with respect to this cause of action.

RICO

The plaintiffs assert as an additional basis for their injunctive relief the civil remedies provided in the Racketeer influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1964. Section 1964(a) establishes jurisdiction in district courts of the United States to restrain violations of § 1962. § 1962(b) orovides as follows:

It shall be unlawful for any person through a pattern of racketeering activity or through collection of an unlawful debt to acquire or maintain, directly or indirectly, any interest in or control of any enterprise which is engaged in, or the activities of which affect, interstate or foreign commerce.

Section 1962(c) provides as follows:

It shall be unlawful for any person employed by or associated with any enterprise engaged in, or the activities of which affect, interstate or foreign commerce, to conduct or participate, directly or indirectly, in the conduct of such enterprise’s affairs through a pattern of racketeering activity or collection of unlawful debt.

The Court finds, for the following reasons, that the plaintiffs have not shown a substantial likelihood that they will be successful on the merits of a cause of action under the RICO statute.

“The two crucial elements which [must be] prove[n] to sustain a conviction under § 1962 are the defendants’ association with an ‘enterprise’ and the existence of a ‘pattern of racketeering activity.’ ” United States v. Morris, 532 F.2d 436, 441 (5th Cir. 1976). The plaintiffs have adequately demonstrated that the defendants are associated with an “enterprise” as defined under § 1961(4). The plaintiffs have not, however, established that there was in this case a “pattern of racketeering activity” within the meaning of RICO. Under § 1961(5) there must be at least two acts of racketeering activity, occurring within ten years of each other, in order for there to be a pattern of such activity. “Racketeering activity” is defined in § 1961(1), it includes four broad categories of crimes: (A)ny of several specified acts or threats not specifically alleged herein, (B) any act which is indictable under several specified sections of title 18 U.S.C., (C) acts which are indictable under title 29 U.S.C. involving union funds or loans to labor organizations, or (D) federal offenses involving narcotics or other dangerous drugs. 18 U.S.C. § 1961(1). There has been no substantial showing of any “pattern of racketeering activity” within the meaning of these subsections. The plaintiffs have not alleged any violation of a specific statute identified in this subsection as racketeering activity.

ARTICLE 5780(6)

In their Second Amended Complaint, plaintiffs added a further ground for *1015relief, based on violation of Tex.Rev.Civ. Stat.Ann., art. 5780 § 6 (Vernon). This statute essentially prohibits the formation of private military organizations. The plaintiffs introduced considerable evidence which indicates that defendant Louis Beam and the Knights of the Ku Klux Klan operate private paramilitary training camps. However, the evidence could not establish exactly where this “camp” was located or whether or not it was still in operation. The language of the statute implies that only those military organizations operating within a “town or city” is prohibited. Here, there was inconclusive evidence as to where defendant Beam’s paramilitary camp was located.

This statute has never been interpreted by a Texas state court. Therefore, such issues as the constitutionality of the statute and the extent of this court’s authority to enjoin a violation of the statute is better left to be considered at a full trial on the merits.

Section 2 of the Sherman Anti-Trust Act

Finally, the plaintiffs’ Original Complaint alleges that the defendants have conspired and attempted to monopolize the shrimping business for the benefit of American fishermen and thus have injured the plaintiffs in violation of § 2 of the Sherman Act. 15 U.S.C. § 2. (Complaint ¶ XI) Section 2 of the Sherman Act provides that any person “who shall monopolize, or attempt to monopolize, or combine or conspire with any other person or persons, to monopolize any part of the trade of commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations,” is guilty of a crime. Section 2 proscribes monopolization, i. e. the possession of monopoly power in the relevant market coupled with an intent to exercise that power. Antitrust Laws & Trade Regulation, supra at § 7.01[1]. The two essential elements of monopolization are monopoly power and intent. United States v. Grinnell Corp., 384 U.S. 563, 86 S.Ct. 1698, 16 L.Ed.2d 778 (1966). Monopoly power has been defined as the power to fix or control prices or to exclude or control competition. United States v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 351 U.S. 377, 391, 76 S.Ct. 994, 1004, 100 L.Ed. 1264 (1956); American Tobacco Company v. United States, 328 U.S. 781, 811, 66 S.Ct. 1125, 1139, 90 L.Ed. 1575 (1946). The existence of monopoly power depends upon two factors: (1) a relevant market within which the quantum of power is to be measured, and (2) a degree of power which will be sufficient to control prices or competition. See E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., supra, 351 U.S. at 393, 76 S.Ct. at 1006. In order to determine whether monopoly power exists, the relevant market must first be defined, then the power of the defendant must be measured in light of the competitive conditions in such market. Id.

In addition to actual monopolization, § 2 makes it unlawful to attempt to monopolize, or to combine or conspire to monopolize. Anti-trust Laws & Trade Regulations, supra at § 7.01[1] p. 7 — 16. The attempt to monopolize which § 2 prohibits reaches the situation in which there is a “dangerous probability” of monopoly in a relevant market, coupled with a specific intent on the part of the prospective monopolist to fix or control prices or exclude competition.

Here, no evidence was offered to show that there was a strong likelihood that the defendants possessed the requisite degree of monopoly power in a relevant market. Therefore, the plaintiffs have failed to establish a strong likelihood of success on the merits with respect to an anti-trust violation of § 2 of the Sherman Act.

CONCLUSIONS

The defendants, Eugene Fisher, Louis Beam, and David Collins have admitted making statements which this Court considers to be intimidating. These uncontroverted provocative statements, coupled with such overt acts as the burning of a shrimp boat and cross at the February 14, 1981 rally, the March, 1981 “boat ride”, other cross burnings, the burning of Vietnamese owned and/or operated shrimp boats, and pointing pistols at members of the plaintiff *1016class and/or their family members11 convince this Court that the predictable and intended result of the defendants’ actions was to interfere with the rights of the plaintiff class. Moreover, as previously noted, the statements themselves constitute intimidation and have a substantial possibility of inciting others to engage in acts of violence and intimidation directed at the Vietnamese fishermen.

The Court has heard testimony from several defendants that certain provocative and threatening statements admittedly made by them should not, for one reason or another, be taken as an expression of their true feelings. These statements, say some of the defendants, were made only for effect, to impress or deliberately mislead the press, or merely for purposes of calling attention to the problems they perceived. The defendants assert that the recently enacted “limited entry” bill, discussed above, has quelled all tension between the American and Vietnamese fishermen. This legislation may indeed ease many of the problems once perceived by American fishermen. The Court, however, remains frankly skeptical of the wholesale reversal of positions taken, in some instances, only days before their repudiation in open court. As the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, quoting decision from a sister court, has eloquently observed,

“Such a last minute change of heart is suspect, to say the least. We recently had occasion to observe in Lankford v. Gelston, 364 F.2d 197, 203 (4 Cir. 1966), under somewhat different circumstances, that ‘protestations of repentenee and reform timed to anticipate or to blunt the force of a lawsuit offer insufficient assurance’ that the practice sought to be enjoined will not be repeated.” And in a different context we phrased it this way. “What has been adopted can be repealed, and what has been repealed can be readopted. We conclude, therefore, that the plaintiffs are entitled to have their injunction against state action depriving them of their constitutional rights, based on the record at the time the case was tried.”

Jenkins v. United Gas Corp., 400 F.2d 28, 33 n. 11 (5th Cir. 1968), quoting Cypress v. Newport News General & Nonsectarian Hosp. Assoc., 375 F.2d 648, 658 (4th Cir. 1967) (en banc).

Upon consideration of all the evidence adduced at the hearing, it is the opinion of this Court that the plaintiffs have met their burden of proving a substantial likelihood of success on the merits with respect to the following causes of action: 42 U.S.C. § 1981; 42 U.S.C. §§ 1985(3) and 1986; 15 U.S.C. § 1; and the Texas common law tort of tortious interference with contractual relationships.

The Court also finds that there is an existence of a substantial threat that the plaintiff class will suffer an irreparable injury, if the injunction is not granted. Moreover, the threatened injury to the plaintiff class outweighs the threatened harm that the injunction will cause the defendants, and the grantirig of the injunction will not disserve the public interest. See generally; Wright & Miller, Federal Practice & Procedure, §§ 2947, 2948.

It is well established that victims of discrimination suffer an inseparable injury regardless of actual pegjpniary damage. See, e. g., United States v. Hayes International Corp., 415 F.2d 1038, 1045 (5th Cir. 1969). See also Bean v. Southwestern Waste Management Corp., 482 F.Supp. 673, 677 (S.D.Tex.1979); Ethridge v. Rhodes, 268 F.Supp. 83 (S.D.Ohio 1967). Moreover, here the very ability of the plaintiff class to earn a living is being severely jeopardized by the defendants’ alleged unlawful actions. Clearly it is in the public interest to enjoin *1017self help tactics of threats of violence and intimidation and permit individuals to pursue their chosen occupation free of racial animus.

ENGEL, Circuit Judge.

Ronald Ebens appeals from a judgment of conviction and a twenty-five year sentence following his conviction by a jury of count II of a two count indictment charging him and his stepson Michael Nitz under 18 U.S.C. § 245(b)(2)(F)1 with violating the civil rights of Vincent Chin, a United States citizen of Chinese descent. Ebens had killed Chin in an altercation which occurred on June 19, 1982.

We cannot permit the judgment to stand because Ebens was denied a fair trial.

Ebens was originally prosecuted in the Wayne County, Michigan, Circuit Court and prior to trial pleaded guilty to the crime of manslaughter. When he was placed upon probation and fined $3,720, public outrage at the perceived lenity of the penalty was extensive, especially within the Chinese-American community. The case was accompanied by massive publicity at both the state and national levels and undoubtedly because of activity on behalf of the Chinese-American community, the United States Department of Justice, overruling the decision of the local United States Attorney not to prosecute, instituted proceedings under the Civil Rights Act in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan.

We address the issues in the order in which they have been raised by appellant and the facts are further developed as pertinent to each issue.

I.

Ebens claims that the trial court erred in failing to grant his motion for change of venue.

Ebens had originally moved the district court for an eight to twelve month continuance of the trial in order to permit the effect of the extensive publicity surrounding the case to dissipate. Before that motion was decided, Ebens on February 17, 1984, filed a motion for change of venue.

The joint appendix filed in the appellate record contains sixty-eight pages of articles from Detroit newspapers about the Chin matter. Three video tape recordings of television broadcasts were also made a part of the record. As the trial judge noted, the publicity was not only extensive but was all adverse. A Detroit attorney, Lisa Chan, formed a group known as The American Citizens for Justice, and appears to have been instrumental in publicizing the killing, the handling of the case by the Wayne County Prosecutor’s office and the sentences given to Ebens and Nitz in the state court. Rallies were held and the pub*1426licity generated much television coverage including at least two special news stories on the subject and a program over national television as well. The public excoriation of the state trial judge who placed Ebens and Nitz on probation was particularly severe. The headlines can only be described as scathing. One large cartoon, appearing in The Detroit News, even showed the trial judge putting a baseball bat in one ear, as if it were a pencil, and sharpening it with a pencil sharpener installed in the opposite ear.

We have carefully reviewed the extensive record made of the publicity in the case and agree that it was indeed pervasive. The question of venue is made particularly difficult because of the framework in which the prosecution arose. The nearly unanimous public judgment that Ebens and his stepson should have received jail terms and the harsh criticism of the state trial judge, followed by the federal prosecution of defendants based upon the same incident, was bound to lead to a strong public impression that justice had not been done in the state court and that it was incumbent upon the federal government to right that wrong by a second prosecution. Nevertheless we are unable to hold that the trial judge committed error when she determined to proceed to impanel a jury. While it probably would have been advisable for the trial judge to have ordered a change of venue, we conclude that it was not reversible error for her to proceed to impanel the jury. A change of venue would undoubtedly have occasioned great inconvenience both to the defense and to the government. Further, the publicity was so extensive that it was not altogether certain that any location to which the trial might be removed would itself be free from the potential impact of the publicity which had already occurred and that which was bound to accompany the trial, wherever it was held.

We are further persuaded in our holding by our observation that the process for selecting the jury was carried out with exceptional care and sensitivity. Prior to voir dire, each potential juror was required to complete a seven page questionnaire containing forty-two questions. In addition to the usual inquiries bearing upon a juror’s potential bias generally, the jurors were specifically asked to set down what they knew about the Chin case and what the source of that knowledge was. Of the one hundred fifty-nine potential jurors who were ultimately examined on voir dire by the court and counsel, seventy-eight were excused for cause, the vast majority of them by the court on its own motion. Ebens’ counsel moved to exclude only four jurors for cause. Of the seventy-eight excused for cause, thirty-four were excused because they acknowledged that they were unable to disregard the publicity. Thirteen of the one hundred fifty-nine potential jurors stated that they had not been exposed to any publicity. All of those ultimately seated were carefully questioned concerning their ability to hear the evidence in the case free of any prior knowledge of the case through the media. Of the thirteen ultimately seated, three had no prior knowledge and ten possessed some knowledge but satisfied the court that they would be able to hear the case free of any bias as a result of that knowledge. Each defendant was allotted twenty peremptory challenges. Counsel for Ebens exercised seven peremptory challenges (although the trial judge understood that the defense had exercised only five).

Both government and defense rely upon Irvin v. Dowd, 366 U.S. 717, 81 S.Ct. 1639, 6 L.Ed.2d 751 (1961), to support their positions concerning the necessity for a change of venue. The trial court specifically found that the jurors chosen were free of bias. It is well settled that a juror’s previous knowledge of the facts of the crime through the media is not itself dis-positive of the issue of that juror’s qualification to sit. The jury selection process was fair and in accord with the concerns expressed by the majority of our court in United States v. Blanton, 719 F.2d 815, 830 (6th Cir.1983) (en banc), cert. denied, 465 U.S. 1099, 104 S.Ct. 1592, 80 L.Ed.2d 125 (1984), as well as those expressed by *1427this writer in his dissent and cases cited therein. While we do not hold that the failure to exercise all of the allowed peremptory challenges, or failure to challenge for cause all of the jurors who were seated, is invariably fatal to a motion for a change of venue, certainly this factor is of great importance in determining whether the jury so selected was capable of meeting the demands of impartiality placed upon it by law.

II.

Ebens next claims that he was entitled to a directed verdict of acquittal. We disagree.

In review of such issues, the court is of course obliged to consider the evidence in the light most favorable to the government. Glasser v. United States, 315 U.S. 60, 62 S.Ct. 457, 86 L.Ed. 680 (1942); United States v. Adamo, 742 F.2d 927 (6th Cir.1984), cert. denied sub nom. Freeman v. United States, 469 U.S. 1193, 105 S.Ct. 971, 83 L.Ed.2d 975 (1985). Only if no rational jury could have convicted is it error not to grant the motion. Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560, reh’g denied, 444 U.S. 890, 100 S.Ct. 195, 62 L.Ed.2d 126 (1979). Ebens’ motion in this regard must be considered in the light of the elements of the crime with which he was charged. His arguments go not to the factual events of the altercation itself and of his wielding the baseball bat which caused Chin’s death, but to the specific intent which is inherently a part of the statute.

Ebens was acquitted of count I of the indictment charging him with conspiracy to deprive Chin of his civil rights under 18 U.S.C. § 241. He was convicted of count II charging him with interfering with Chin’s civil rights by wilfully injuring, intimidating and interfering with Chin on account of his race or national origin and because the latter was and had been enjoying the privileges and accommodations of the Fancy Pants Lounge, a place of entertainment open to the public, by threatening, beating, and assaulting Chin with the result that the latter died, all in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 245(b)(2)(F).

The incident giving rise to this litigation occurred on June 19, 1982, in Highland Park, a suburb of Detroit. Chin, then twenty-seven years old, lived with his mother in Oak Park, Michigan, another suburb of Detroit. He had come to this country from China in 1961 when he was adopted by a Chinese-American couple. He became a United States citizen in 1965.

To celebrate his upcoming wedding, Chin invited his friends Robert Sirosky and Gary Koivu to meet him at a topless bar at 7:00 p.m. that night. After about an hour there and after having several drinks the group went on to the Fancy Pants Lounge, a nude dancing establishment in Highland Park. En route they purchased a pint of vodka and it is rather apparent from the record that they were in a mood of elevated joviality in consequence. Koivu later left to pick up one Jimmy Choi, another of Chin’s friends, and together they brought another bottle of vodka into the Fancy Pants. The group was laughing, tipping the dancers heavily, and generally celebrating. At that time Ronald Ebens and his stepson, Michael Nitz, were also at the Fancy Pants, sitting directly across the elevated dancing runway from Chin and his friends. Construing the evidence most favorably to the government, Ebens began making racial and obscene remarks toward Chin calling him a “Chink” and a “Nip” and making remarks about foreign car imports. It is apparent that Ebens seemed to believe that Chin was Japanese and he was quoted as having made the further comment that “it’s because of you little mother fuckers that we’re out of work.” Ebens may not have distinguished between Orientals of Japanese and Chinese descent since there is testimony to show he made references to both. After a further exchange of words Chin got out of his chair and walked up to the stage where Ebens was sitting and there was general jostling and fighting between Ebens and Chin in which Nitz then joined. The doorman and the parking lot attendant broke up the fight. The parking *1428lot attendant took Chin outside and the doorman took Ebens and Nitz to the men’s room. The doorman got a towel and some ice for Nitz who was bleeding from a cut on the head and later escorted Ebens and Nitz outside. The quarrel resumed outside the Fancy Pants Lounge. Chin challenged Ebens to finish the fight outside, calling him names. Ebens thereupon went to Nitz’s car, opened the hatchback and removed a baseball bat. Seeing Ebens with a bat, Chin fled across Woodward Avenue and was pursued a short distance by both Ebens and Nitz.

While still in the Fancy Pants parking lot, Chin’s three friends had decided that Choi would join Chin across Woodward Avenue and that Koivu and Sirosky would get their car and pick him up. Ebens and Nitz drove by in their car and, seeing Sirosky and Koivu, stopped and asked where their friend was. When they said they didn’t know, Ebens then saw Choi and started after him. Nitz threw a glass bottle at Choi, and Ebens and Nitz returned to their car and drove off after Choi. After driving about a block from the Fancy Pants, Siro-sky and Koivu stopped the car, removed a tire iron from the trunk and headed back toward the Fancy Pants. Unexpectedly they came upon Nitz’s car which was parked on Woodward Avenue. Ebens got out of the car with the baseball bat and chased Sirosky and Koivu a short distance before getting back into Nitz’s car. Meanwhile, after Choi had crossed Woodward Avenue he found Chin and suggested that they should flee. The two then ran south on Woodward Avenue for a few blocks until they stopped at a McDonald’s restaurant where they apparently sought protection in the crowd, also hoping that Koivu and Sirosky would find them. Choi picked up a piece of wood for protection and handed Chin an unbroken bottle. Ebens and Nitz continued to look for Chin and upon meeting one Jimmy Perry, Nitz offered Perry $20 to help him find and catch a “Chinese guy.”

According to Perry’s testimony Ebens and Nitz talked during the ride about catching a “Chinese guy” and “busting his head” when they caught him.

The final confrontation occurred in the lot of a supermarket next to McDonald’s. Ebens and Nitz approached Chin and Choi using a parked truck for cover. Ebens was still carrying the baseball bat. Chin saw them coming and yelled “Scram.” Choi escaped but Nitz grabbed Chin in a bear hug from behind. Chin broke loose and ran onto Woodward Avenue. Ebens struck Chin several times with the bat on the back and head causing Chin to fall to the ground. While the precise circumstances of the assault are in dispute, especially whether Nitz was holding Chin at the time, it is undisputed that Ebens was the aggressor. Meanwhile, the Highland Park police officers who were working as security guards at McDonald’s came up, drew their guns and ordered Ebens to drop his bat.

Chin was taken to Henry Ford Hospital, losing consciousness several times en route. He suffered two lacerations on the back left side of his head and abrasions on his shoulder, chest and neck and lapsed into a severe coma. After the performance of emergency surgery his brain ceased functioning entirely. At 9:50 p.m. June 23, 1982, a ventilator which had been employed to keep him breathing was removed and he was pronounced dead.

In claiming that there was insufficient evidence to convict him of a violation of section 245, Ebens essentially admits the physical facts of the assault. He nonetheless claims that what transpired was simply a barroom brawl which got out of hand and resulted in the death of one of the participants and injuries to another. He claims that there is an absence of any evidence by which the jury could find beyond a reasonable doubt (1) that he was motivated because of the race, color and national origin of Vincent Chin and (2) that his purpose was to injure, intimidate, and interfere with Vincent Chin’s right to enjoy a place of public accommodation. He disclaimed the racial nature of the remarks attributed to him and asserted that the fight arose over Chin’s insulting treatment *1429of one of the dancers. He also claimed that the actual physical contact was initiated by Chin both in the Lounge and outside when Chin waited outside for Ebens to emerge and then challenged him to a fight.

We do not agree with Ebens’ initial contention that, in enacting section 245, Congress intended to limit its application exclusively to vindicate the rights of blacks and of white civil rights workers who aid blacks but not to alleged discrimination against citizens of Oriental descent by whites. Section 245(b)(2) protects any person “because of his race, color, religion or national origin” from intimidation or interference in the enjoyment of the facilities or accommodations of any “place of exhibition or entertainment which serves the public____” Orientals come within the broad constitutional protections of the Fourteenth Amendment even though the original thrust of the amendments was primarily motivated by concern for the rights of black persons. See Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356, 6 S.Ct. 1064, 30 L.Ed. 220 (1886).

Ebens relies upon Screws v. United States, 325 U.S. 91, 65 S.Ct. 1031, 89 L.Ed. 1495 (1945) and United States v. Guest, 383 U.S. 745, 86 S.Ct. 1170, 16 L.Ed.2d 239 (1966), as requiring proof of a specific intent to deprive a person of a federal right made definite by decisions or other rule of law. In interpreting the predecessor to 18 U.S.C. § 242, the Supreme Court stated,

[T]he specific intent required by the Act is an intent to deprive a person of a right which has been made specific either by express terms of the Constitution or laws of the United States or by decisions interpreting them____ Of course, willful conduct cannot make definite that which is undefined. But willful violators of constitutional requirements, which have been defined, certainly are in no position to say that they had no adequate advance notice that they would be visited with punishment.”

Screws, 325 U.S. at 104-05, 65 S.Ct. at 1036-37. Any deficiencies in the charge brought under section 241 need not concern us for Ebens was in all events acquitted of that charge. He was convicted of section 245. As evidenced by its plain statutory language of section 245, the federal right itself is specifically spelled out: it includes the right to be free from intimidation or interference in the enjoyment of public facilities such as the Fancy Pants Lounge. The statute does not suffer from lack of specificity.

A jury could have concluded beyond a reasonable doubt that Ebens, in initiating the ultimate conduct by uncomplimentary remarks toward Chin, was motivated by his belief that Chin was Japanese, not Chinese. The jury could have believed that this color and race-based or national origin bias against Chin induced Ebens to make the comments he did and that he was further irritated when he saw Chin enjoying himself in the lounge and spending money freely. The jury could further have found that his remarks were intended to make Chin’s remaining on the premises uncomfortable and embarrassing and to intimidate and dissuade him from remaining on the premises because of that bias.

It is true that the ultimate assault which caused Chin’s demise may also have been motivated by Chin’s injury of Ebens’ stepson, but defense counsel acknowledges that a specific intent to violate federal law need not have been the first among several evil intents. See, e.g., Anderson v. United States, 417 U.S. 211, 94 S.Ct. 2253, 41 L.Ed.2d 20 (1974) (dealing with section 241); United States v. Bledsoe, 728 F.2d 1094 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 838, 105 S.Ct. 136, 83 L.Ed.2d 76 (1984) (a substantial motivating factor).

We find no merit in the claim that the prosecution must fail because of an absence of direct evidence that the beating in front of McDonald’s restaurant related to Chin’s race or the fact that he had been in a place of public accommodation earlier. A rational jury could have found that the events at McDonald’s were the culmination of a single and basically inseparable incident. It was altogether proper for the jury to consider this evidence and the comments *1430made by Ebens as bearing upon his specific intent.

III.

Ebens claims that the trial court committed reversible error in refusing to permit the admission of certain evidence which was offered by Ebens to impeach the government’s witnesses. Specifically, two types of evidence are involved.

As we have stated, after the state court sentencing, Lisa Chan, a Detroit attorney, formed a group known as the American Citizens for Justice and appears to have been instrumental in publicizing the killing and the handling of the case by the Wayne County prosecutor’s office. Ms. Chan traveled to Washington, D.C., to discuss the matter with William Bradford Reynolds, Assistant Attorney General in charge of the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice with respect to the possibility of federal prosecution. Rallies were held in Detroit, in which the protestors carried placards reading “Jail the racist killers” and “It’s not fair,” the latter a comment made by Chin before he lapsed into unconsciousness. It is undisputed that the events occurring after the state court sentencing received widespread publicity.

The three principal government witnesses were Choi, Sirosky, and Koivu. All testified, in one form or another, concerning the incident and the statements purportedly made by Ebens in the course of the evening from which racism could be found.

Ebens and codefendant Nitz sought to introduce into evidence tape recordings of interviews which had been conducted by Lisa Chan with these witnesses. The defense purpose was to demonstrate that the witnesses’ testimony concerning Ebens’ racist statements was false and that it was the result of improper coaching of them by Chan in preparation for the trial. He claimed that the tapes were admissible to show collusion, witness influence, and prior inconsistent statements. Each time the defendants sought to introduce the tapes, however, the court sustained the government objection on hearsay grounds, ruling however that the defense counsel could confront a witness who takes the stand with his own words on the tape but that the statements of Lisa Chan to the witness which elicited that witness’ statement could only be introduced through her should she be called. The government concedes that these rulings were erroneous.

The government correctly notes in its brief on appeal that the definition of hearsay under the federal rules requires that the third party statement testified to by the witness in question be offered for the purpose of proving the truth of the matter asserted. Fed.R.Evid. 801(c); United States v. Gibson, 675 F.2d 825 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 972, 103 S.Ct. 305, 74 L.Ed.2d 285 (1982). Obviously the purpose of introducing the Chan tapes was to show the effect of Chan’s statements on the testimony of Choi, Sirosky, and Koivu. Plainly, Chan’s out of court utterances were admissible to show not the truth of what she said but the effect on Choi, Sirosky and Koivu as bearing on whether the witnesses’ subsequent sworn testimony was coached and hence inaccurate. See 4 Weinstein’s Evidence ¶ 801(c)[01], at 801-77 to -80 (1985). In this light, the tapes were highly relevant and important to the defense.

The defense did use the transcripts of the tapes to some extent during the trial. Counsel for Ebens examined Koivu concerning the purpose of his meeting with Chan. Koivu replied, “Well, she wanted to get an idea of what happened, just to get the flavor of the night, to get an idea of what happened.” The defense also questioned Koivu about specific responses he had made to Chan’s questions. In the interview, Koivu expressed fear that his testimony, as well as that of Choi and Sirosky, would sound too rehearsed. On cross-examination, defense counsel asked Koivu whether he had expressed this fear to which he replied, “In a way.”

In cross-examining Robert Sirosky, the defense again attempted to prove two prior inconsistent statements by reciting questions asked by Ms. Chan and the responses given by Sirosky. However, the most ex*1431tensive use of the Chan tapes was during the testimony of Jimmy Choi. Defense counsel sought to discredit Choi’s testimony that he heard racial slurs by introducing a portion of the Chan tapes. In this portion Choi suggested to Lisa Chan that he did not hear any racial slurs made by Ebens on the night of the fight. When he denied making any such statement, defense counsel read Chan’s questions and Choi’s responses. Later in Choi’s cross-examination, the defense used the transcript of the tapes to refresh Choi’s recollection.

The government relies upon our decision in United States v. Touchstone, 726 F.2d 1116 (6th Cir.1984). In that case a panel of our court held that cross-examination of a witness may properly be restricted under the rules limiting the use of other acts evidence in impeachment of witnesses where, notwithstanding the limitation, there is otherwise sufficient evidence presented to the jury to enable it to make a “discriminating appraisal” of the credibility of such witnesses.

The erroneous exclusion of testimony on grounds of hearsay is reversible error if the reviewing court finds that such error affects the substantial rights of the defendant. Fed.R.Crim.P. 52(a). United States v. Parry, 649 F.2d 292 (5th Cir.1981); United States v. Barrett, 539 F.2d 244 (1st Cir.1976). In these cases, the convictions were reversed and the cases remanded for new trials upon a finding that the erroneous hearsay rulings resulted in the exclusion of testimony favorable to the defendants. Both cases relied upon Kotteakos v. United States, 328 U.S. 750, 66 S.Ct. 1239, 90 L.Ed. 1557 (1946), for the proposition that the erroneous hearsay ruling constitutes reversible error where it affects substantial rights. Kotteakos held that in considering whether the ruling has such an effect, “[n]ecessarily the character of the proceedings, what is at stake upon its outcome, and the relation of the error asserted to casting the balance for decision on the case as a whole, are material factors in judgment.” Id. at 762, 66 S.Ct. at 1246.

We unanimously conclude that a consideration of these cited factors mandates reversal.

Ebens should have been permitted to introduce into evidence the entire contents of the tapes at least insofar as they involved conversations occurring at the time the government witnesses were present. The three witnesses were the most crucial of all witnesses for the government. Each testified as to events inside the Fancy Pants Lounge and to verbal exchanges between Ebens and Chin. The Chan tapes were offered to support Ebens’ claim that Choi, Koivu and Sirosky did not tell the truth when they testified that they heard the racial statements. Since the physical facts of the assault were essentially undisputed, the entire defense hung upon Ebens’ claim that the fight was not racially motivated. It is true that the district court permitted the defense to elicit the statements made in interviews and did allow a few of the statements, but it was not within the province of the court’s proper discretion to prevent the jury from hearing the tapes themselves and judging for themselves the impact upon the witnesses which the purported conversation had and measuring that against the statements made in court by the witnesses.2 The de*1432fense has called our attention to a First Circuit opinion, authored by Chief Judge Campbell, which states the case well:

“We know of no case holding or even suggesting, and the government has cited none, that counsel must introduce testimony in a manner so as to avoid eviden-tiary problems. It is the essence of our adversary system that counsel, not the court, chooses how evidence is to be presented. Trial tactics and strategy are the responsibility of counsel. Counsel offers the testimony; the court determines its admissibility based on the rules of evidence, not whether an alternative method of introducing it would be preferable. Particularly in a criminal case, a defendant cannot be penalized by the exclusion of otherwise admissible testimony because his counsel has chosen to proceed in a manner which requires a difficult ruling by the court. * * * We also note that, given a choice, defense counsel in a criminal case might well want to avoid calling [hostile witnesses] even though rebuttal testimony is available.”

United States v. Ouimette, 753 F.2d 188, 192 (1st Cir.1985).

IV.

Ebens next asserts that the trial court erred in permitting the testimony of government witness Willie Davis concerning events which allegedly occurred and were observed by him in 1974 in a Detroit bar by the name of Jo-Jo’s. It was the government’s theory that a tall blond man named Ron harassed Willie Davis, a black, inside the bar and that the tall blond man was Ronald Ebens. Davis testified that he went into Jo-Jo’s Bar to talk with the owner and that three white men entered after him. One of the three addressed another as Ron. Davis then testified that “Ron said something about niggers.” Although Davis said that he did not pay much attention to the statement, the owner’s wife suggested that Davis leave. When Davis asked whether she was speaking to him, Ron said, “yes, nigger, she’s talking to you.” Davis further testified that the men made other racial remarks. It was.the government’s theory that the Ron in Jo-Jo’s Bar was the defendant Ronald Ebens and it introduced the testimony for the purpose of showing that Ebens generally was possessed of a bigoted mind and that he therefore possessed the requisite intent under 18 U.S.C. § 245 when he assaulted Chin.

We are convinced that it was reversible error for the trial court to have admitted this testimony, for several reasons. Courts may admit evidence of prior bad acts if the proof shows by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant did in fact commit the act. United States v. Leonard, 524 F.2d 1076, 1090-91 (2d Cir.1975), cert. denied, 425 U.S. 958, 96 S.Ct. 1737, 48 L.Ed.2d 202 (1976).

Ebens challenges the Davis testimony on two bases. First he asserts that the prior event was too remote in time to be relevant to this case. Second, he claims that Davis’ identification of Ebens was too indefinite to be probative. We agree particularly with the second argument and conclude it was error to have permitted such testimony and also, once elicited, to have refused to strike it.

The government, in defense of the propriety of its calling Willie Davis, relies upon the admissibility of his testimony under Fed.R.Evid. 404(b) to show that Ebens had committed prior similar acts. Rule 404(b) provides:

Other crimes, wrongs, or acts. Evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts is not admissible to prove the character of a person in order to show that he acted in conformity therewith. It may, however, be admissible for other purposes, such as proof of motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake or accident.

*1433Fed.R.Evid. 404(b). Case law in our circuit has been quite supportive of the broad discretion accorded the trial judge in determining whether such other acts evidence is admissible against a defendant in a criminal case. See United States v. Dabish, 708 F.2d 240, 243 (6th Cir.1983); United States v. Vincent, 681 F.2d 462, 465 (6th Cir.1982) and cases cited therein. While our court in Vincent had no occasion on the facts before it to choose between a “clear and convincing” standard for admission of such evidence of prior acts or whether to adopt what it characterized as a minority view that it was admissible if “sufficient to support a finding” that the act was committed, see also Dabish, 708 F.2d at 243 n. 2, the court there found that in any event the prior acts had been established “beyond doubt.” Here, it was an abuse of discretion under either test to have admitted the testimony. The proof that Ebens was the same man as the Ron in the bar some eight years earlier was entirely too unreliable to justify its use against him in any event.

The following language from Vincent, also cited with approval in Dabish, illuminates what we consider to be the proper approach to an evaluation of testimony whose admission is sought under Rule 404(b):

In reviewing the admission of evidence challenged under Rule 404(b), we must make two determinations. First, we must decide whether Vincent’s post-arrest conduct was admissible for any proper purpose, as distinct from the improper purpose of showing “character” or “propensity.” United States v. Cooper, 577 F.2d 1079, 1088 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 868, 99 S.Ct. 196, 58 L.Ed.2d 179 (1978). If we conclude that there was a proper basis for admission, we must then consider whether the probative value of the evidence outweighed its potential prejudicial effects. See advisory committee note to Subdivision (b); United States v. Ring, 513 F.2d 1001 (6th Cir.1975). In the second instance, the standard of review on appeal is whether the trial judge abused his discretion in admitting the evidence. United States v. Czarnicki [sic], 552 F.2d 698 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 431 U.S. 939, 97 S.Ct. 2652, 53 L.Ed.2d 257 (1977).

Vincent, 681 F.2d at 465.

The “other acts” which the government would have attributed to defendant Ebens were statements containing racial slurs cast at the witness Davis on account of his race and reference to him as a “nigger.” The government sought to persuade the jury that the party who made that statement was Ebens and that the reference to “nigger” evidenced a specific prejudice against minorities generally. Had the statement been made in the recent past and against someone of Oriental extraction, a strong case might have been made for the admission of such testimony under 404(b). A jury could then rationally have concluded that the racially insulting words were intended to persuade a patron to leave the bar. Further, the testimony at least by Davis, was that he was asked to leave, presumably to avoid the risk of further confrontation.3 The difficulty is that the comments about which Davis testified were directed to someone of a different race and were substantially remote in time, having happened in 1973 or 1974 whereas the incident in question occurred in 1982.

More serious, however, is the failure to establish by any standard that Ebens had in fact been present at Jo-Jo’s Bar at the time of the statements and if so had been the person who had made them. The government agents and government counsel obviously believed they were one and the same and that Davis’ reluctance to testify on behalf of the government and against Ebens was induced by fear and intimidation. The difficulty is that there was no testimony to support this belief. Inferences to the contrary although implicit in the unsworn questions were not corroborated by sworn answers.

It was apparent that the government attorney had had a prior conversation with *1434Davis and the form of the prosecutor’s questions suggested that an extra-judicial statement had been made by Davis at the time which was inconsistent with his statement at trial. That statement, however, was never introduced in evidence and we do not know what it was or whether it was shown to Davis. Davis admitted having talked to government agents but testified that he had refused to make statements and had insisted that he would talk only upon being subpoenaed. He admitted that he had been approached by defense counsel but likewise denied that he had been intimidated or threatened by them, contrary to the implications in the questions put to him by the government. He did claim that a person named Ron who was tall and blond had been among three men who had come into Jo-Jo's Bar on the night in question when certain demeaning statements had been made to him concerning his race. He steadfastly refused, however, to identify defendant Ebens as that same person.

It developed that Ronald Ebens had himself owned a bar known as Ron’s Bar not too far from Davis’ home and that he had opened it after the incident in Jo-Jo’s Bar. The proof showed also that Davis had had occasion to go into Ron’s Bar at least twice. He therefore readily admitted that he identified and knew Ronald Ebens but insisted that he was unable to identify the person named Ron who had several years previously come into Jo-Jo’s Bar.

The end result was that the government failed to establish by either the weight of the evidence or by clear and convincing evidence that the “other acts” sought to be introduced were in fact those of defendant Ebens. Under the circumstances therefore we conclude that the application of the cited rule from Vincent should have led the trial court to a determination that the probative value of the evidence, if it possessed any at all, was in all events outweighed by its potential prejudicial effect. See United States v. McFadyen-Snider, 552 F.2d 1178, 1184 (6th Cir.1977); United States v. Czamecki, 552 F.2d 698, 702 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 431 U.S. 939, 97 S.Ct. 2652, 53 L.Ed.2d 257 (1977). See also United States v. Ismail, 756 F.2d 1253, 1259 (6th Cir.1985), which requires that such evidence must be substantially similar and near in time to the offense charged in the indictment. We believe that this testimony is too remote in time, too uncertain in its authenticity, and in its application here was highly prejudicial to the rights of defendant Ebens.

While the better course would in any event have been to make a special record before determining the admissibility of the evidence, thus keeping it from the jury altogether, cf. United States v. Robinson, 700 F.2d 205 (5th Cir.1983), cert. denied, 465 U.S. 1008, 104 S.Ct. 1003, 79 L.Ed.2d 235 (1984), certainly when the tenuous nature of Davis’ testimony was not followed up by any corroboration, it should have been stricken and the jury instructed to disregard it. It does not take much imagination to understand how such grossly biased comments would be viewed by the jury. We need not know the racial composition of the jury, for nearly all citizens find themselves repelled by such blatantly racist remarks and resentful of the person claimed to have uttered them. Davis’ testimony could only have inflamed the jury rather than have enlightened it concerning any real predisposition or specific intent on the part of the defendant himself. Further as we shall note later the error was compounded when the prosecutor sought unsuccessfully to attribute to Ebens a comment which he claimed was made to Willie Davis in 1974 by the person in Jo-Jo’s Bar, a comment to the effect that defendant had called Davis a “black son of a bitch.” In Davis’ direct examination, counsel sought to elicit that Ebens had made this demeaning statement:

Q. Now, Mr. Davis, didn’t this man, Ron, say other things to you?

A. They was talking about niggers looking for white women and so on and so forth, like that. It didn’t bother me because I wasn’t looking for that sort of thing. I wasn’t interested in that.

Q. Didn’t he say, what is this black son of a bitch doing in the bar?

*1435A. They made a lot of remarks. I can’t recall all the remarks. They was making remarks when I went out the door.

Q. Didn’t you tell Agent Garrety that he said that specific statement?

A. I don’t know as I told you all that. I don’t know what all the remarks they did make, but I do know about the nigger and the white—

Q. Didn’t you tell me, Mr. Davis, that specific statement?

A. No, sir, I didn’t. I didn’t have too much to say to you because the reason I didn’t was when you all came [to] my door I didn’t know who you was. One of my neighbors was in front of you and when the doorbell rang I went to the door. I don’t know whether it was you or the other gentleman, says he was first. My neighbor asked me for a broom.

Proper examination of a hostile witness (assuming Davis was hostile) based upon a prior inconsistent statement, is to produce the statement for the witness’ examination for the purposes of refreshing his memory. Use of cross-examination had the improper effect of implying to the jury not only that the witness made the statement in question but that the government had proof to that effect. This is particularly dangerous when the material so implied is inflammatory. Even had the statement been introduced to impeach the credibility of Davis, it would not in any event have been admissible as substantive proof that Ebens uttered the statement. United States v. Lester, 491 F.2d 680 (6th Cir.1974); Fed.R.Evid. 801(d)(1). While the trial court here gave a precautionary instruction to the jury it was only to the effect that “the testimony of Mr. Davis insofar as it attributes certain statements to Mr. Ebens and certain conduct to Mr. Ebens is received here only as evidence directed at Mr. Ebens and may not be against co-defendant Nitz.” The precaution did not limit the purported out-of-court statement to impeachment only but instead concentrated its inflammatory effect upon Ebens. The prejudice is further compounded by the closing argument of government attorney Theodore Merritt:

You remember, he was subjected to at least one other episode that that racial animal unleashed. Remember the testimony of Willie Davis? Well Mr. Davis testified that he knew Ronald Ebens, that he owned a bar right behind his house in 1976. But Mr. Davis said he went into that bar two times even though it was right behind his house. Well I think you know the reason why. In 1974, he told you that a man named Ron, who looked like Ronald Ebens, came into a different bar where Willie Davis was having a drink and started calling him a nigger and a black son of a bitch, and accusing him of chasing white women. And Willie Davis told you that he didn’t want to cause any trouble so he left the bar. But Ron and his friend followed him to the door, and only when Willie Davis grabbed a tool from his truck, did they go back inside. Does that sound like a familiar scenario? You heard Willie Davis testify that the FBI interviewed him three times, once in my firm, and that we wanted him to be a witness for the government. And you also heard him testify that after he was visited by the defense investigators that weekend before he was going to testify, that they waived [sic] his police record in front of him and they said that they had spoken to Ronald’s friends, they knew nothing about this. Well, Willie Davis was a lot more reluctant to positively ID Ronald Ebens. But you know why Willie Davis lost his memory about that.

Finally, to compound the prejudice to Ebens further, the trial court rejected an offer of proof by defense counsel that during the two years when Ebens had operated a bar of his own, he had served both blacks and whites and had neither harassed, intimidated nor otherwise bothered minority persons who used his place of accommodation.

Normally this might be considered as having at best a peripheral relevance to rebut the inference made by government *1436attorneys from the fact that Davis, because of Ebens’ hostility to blacks, had entered Ron’s Bar only twice during the years he owned it although it was located very close to Davis’ home. Moreover, the government is correct that Ebens himself was permitted to testify in his own behalf that while he owned his own bar, Ron’s Place, he served people of all races. He also called Hattie Sepak, the owner of Jo-Jo’s, who testified that she could not recall any racial incidents occurring there. His effort to call two other witnesses, regular customers at Ron’s Place, to testify as to the absence of refusal of service and racial incidents while Ebens owned the bar, was rejected by the trial judge on the basis that evidence of noncriminal conduct to negate the inference of criminal conduct is generally irrelevant. See United States v. Grimm, 568 F.2d 1136, 1138 (5th Cir.1978). While the trial court indicated that it would have permitted him to present evidence of prior acts as character evidence, the defendant maintained he did not intend to employ Fed.R.Evid. 405(a) which thereby put his general character in issue, but instead believed that he was entitled to corroborate his own testimony in view of the most damaging inferences made through the questioning of Davis. The government claims that Ebens has not shown any case law as authority that dissimilar acts are admissible on behalf of the defense under Fed.R.Evid. 404(b) to rebut like testimony of similar acts.

While we would normally not fault the trial judge’s exercise of discretion in excluding such testimony, permitting a similar latitude in the defense that was granted the prosecution might at least have helped to dissipate the highly prejudicial impact upon the jury of the inadmissible evidence and to preserve the general fairness of the trial.

Ebens also asserts that he was prejudiced by the trial court’s improper exclusion as hearsay of the proofs he offered of prior inconsistent statements of government witnesses Jimmy Perry and police officer Michael Gardenhire. It was Perry’s testimony at trial that he had been picked up by Ebens and Nitz after they left the Fancy Pants and had been brought along to help locate Chin and Choi. Perry further testified that one of them had offered him $20 to help them find and catch “a Chinese guy.” In cross-examination Ebens’ counsel tried to discredit Perry’s statement concerning the offer of $20 by showing that Perry himself was suspect and that his testimony concerning the $20 offer was not originally part of his story. When Perry, Ebens and Nitz reached McDonald’s, Perry saw Highland Park police officers Gardenhire and Roberts who were at the time acting as private security officers for the McDonald’s restaurant. Perry appears originally to have denied to the officers that he had been with Ebens and Nitz but then admitted that he was in their company but was assisting them to get Nitz to the hospital. Statements given initially did not include the offer of $20, or so it was claimed. Ebens asserts that he was unduly restricted in his cross-examination of the officer concerning the inconsistent statements.

Similarly officer Gardenhire, who was present at the scene and testified in great detail as to the onslaught itself outside of McDonald’s and on Woodward Avenue, was cross-examined very closely concerning prior statements he had made about the exact manner in which Ebens had assaulted Chin and particularly whether he had been trying to hit Chin on the head or elsewhere on the body. Cross-examination did bring out that Gardenhire admitted that he may have made somewhat different statements earlier but Gardenhire denied that he had made any statement to a television newsre-porter that he was dissatisfied with the outcome of the state court prosecution. This question was undoubtedly aimed at showing some bias on Gardenhire’s part which would have colored his recollection of the ferocity and particulars of the assault with the bat. When counsel sought to introduce video tape recordings showing Gardenhire’s statements on television indicating such dissatisfaction, he was precluded, again on the basis that the evidence *1437was hearsay. If the defense is correct, the video tape would have been admissible, if properly preserved, as bearing upon credibility of the witness. At the same time, we must observe, particularly with respect to the endeavor to introduce Perry’s out-of-court statement, that Perry himself quite readily acknowledged that he had not at first mentioned the $20 offer to the police. Similarly with respect to officer Garde-nhire, the trial court’s exclusion of his testimony would not of itself be cause for reversal especially since it appears to have had some but not great relevance. The severity of the attack seems to be unquestioned although in a close case it could bear upon the question of the intent with which Ebens attacked Chin.

V.

The defendant next claims that the trial was interspersed with incidents of prosecu-torial misconduct mandating reversal. The government defends the conduct of its prosecutor and makes the point that the defense, having failed to object contemporaneously, may not do so now.

The best starting point for an evaluation of the prosecutorial misconduct claims here, is a repair to the recently decided United States v. Young, 470 U.S. 1, 105 S.Ct. 1038, 84 L.Ed.2d 1 (1985). Specifically in issue in Young was the extent to which it is necessary to make timely objections to the prosecutorial conduct deemed improper in order to preserve them for potential reversal on appellate review. While the effect of Young was to reinstate a jury verdict of guilty upon a finding that certain statements, although improper, did not amount to plain error, any government attorney, reading the opinion carefully, can have no doubt whatever of the Supreme Court’s continued dedication to its historic insistence that prosecutors representing the United States in criminal prosecutions should refrain from improper conduct calculated to produce a wrongful conviction. See Berger v. United States, 295 U.S. 78, 55 S.Ct. 629, 79 L.Ed. 1314 (1935).

We need not determine whether the instances of misconduct complained of here, which we believe are far more egregious than those examined in Young, would have brought about reversal on a plain error basis since the conviction must in all events be reversed. Most of the complaints of misconduct, however, are directed to the closing argument of government counsel and, as the government points out, most occurred without specific objection by the defense.

As to the failure to object during the course of the government’s closing arguments, Chief Justice Burger, with great wisdom we think, observed what has been universally recognized by practitioners, that “interruptions of arguments, either by an opposing counsel or the presiding judge, are matters to be approached cautiously.” Young, 105 S.Ct. at 1046. The reason obviously is that such interference with counsel’s right to address a jury is often resented by both the court and the jury and even where justified, produces the adverse effect of emphasizing the objectionable matter. However, Chief Justice Burger did follow the above quotation with the comment that “[a]t the very least, a bench conference might have been convened out of the hearing of the jury once defense counsel closed, and an appropriate instruction given.” Id. Because the present case must be retried, however, we deem it necessary to register most strongly our disapproval of the inflammatory language employed by government counsel. United States v. Young makes it plain that the object of a fair trial is for counsel for both the government and defense to confine themselves within the bounds of professional ethics in presenting their arguments to the jury. The failure of one side to observe the rule does not confer on opposite counsel the license to “right the scale” by engaging in equally inappropriate conduct. In this respect Chief Justice Burger repeatedly calls attention to the obligation of the court on its own motion and on its own initiative to assure that neither the defense nor government counsel tran*1438scends the bounds of ethics and lawyer-like propriety.

It is clear that counsel on both sides of the table share a duty to confine arguments to the jury within proper bounds. Just as the conduct of prosecutors is circumscribed, “[t]he interests of society in the preservation of courtroom control by the judges are no more to be frustrated through unchecked improprieties by defenders.” Defense counsel, like the prosecutor, must refrain from interjecting personal beliefs into the presentation of his case. Defense counsel, like his adversary, must not be permitted to make unfounded and inflammatory attacks on the opposing advocate____

******

We emphasize that the trial judge has the responsibility to maintain decorum in keeping with the nature of the proceedings; “the judge is not a mere moderator, but is the governor of the trial for the purpose of assuring its proper conduct.” Quercia v. United States, 289 U.S. 466, 469, 53 S.Ct. 698, 699, 77 L.Ed. 1321 (1933). The judge “must meet situations as they arise and [be able] to cope with ... the contingencies inherent in the adversary process.” Geders v. United States, supra, 425 U.S. [80,] 86, 96 S.Ct. [1330,] 1334, 47 L.Ed.2d 592. Of course, “hard blows” cannot be avoided in criminal trials; both the prosecutor and defense counsel must be kept within appropriate bounds.

Id., 105 S.Ct. at 1043-44. (Most citations omitted.) (Footnote omitted.)

United States v. Young makes repeated references, with approval, to the ABA Standards for Criminal Justice (2d ed. 1980). Rather than repeat them once more here, we refer trial counsel and the court to footnotes 5, 6, and 7 at page 1043 of the Young opinion. We can think of no better expression of the ethical principles which should guide an attorney in his representation of the United States.

As Young makes clear,

[t]he plain error doctrine of Federal Rule Criminal Procedure 52(b) tempers the blow of a rigid application of the contemporaneous objection requirement. The Rule authorizes the Courts of Appeals to correct only “particularly egregious errors,” United States v. Frady, 456 U.S. 152, 163, 102 S.Ct. 1584, 1592, 71 L.Ed.2d 816 (1982), those errors that “seriously affect the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings.” United States v. Atkinson, 297 U.S. [157,] 160, 56 S.Ct. [391,] 392, 80 L.Ed. 555 (1936).

Id., 105 S.Ct. at 1046-47. (Footnote omitted.)

The principal message of Young is that in reviewing prosecutorial misconduct for plain error, it is necessary that the error be measured not within the narrow confines of the argument but against the entire record. “It is simply not possible for an appellate court to assess the seriousness of the claimed error by any other means.” Young, 105 S.Ct. at 1047. Accordingly, we have carefully reviewed the entire record and against the background of all of the evidence. It must be remembered at the outset that the case itself arose in an atmosphere of extraordinary publicity. The video tapes contained as part of the special record made with respect to the motion for a change of venue, demonstrate the deep sense of public outrage especially after it was perceived that the Chin incident was motivated by racial bias. Nearly every news telecast showed the pathetic figure of Chin’s weeping mother making pleas for justice. There are countless photographs of marches and demonstrations in front of both the county office buildings and the federal office buildings in Detroit, some, according to the accounts, attracting over 700 persons carrying large placards. The city council of Detroit was shown awarding a memorial plaque to Chin’s mother in affirmation of its dedication to a bias-free administration of justice. The mayor of Highland Park was quoted as critical of the state’s investigation. There were many videotaped news recordings showing Lisa Chan and reporting particularly the claim made by her committee that the state trial *1439judge had been deprived of essential evidence in sentencing Ebens, evidence which if known would have induced him to impose a heavier sentence.

Every stage of the proceeding was followed with great care by the media. It was even noted that the incident was prominently featured in the press as far away as San Francisco and Hong Kong. Almost nothing was said which would have been derogatory concerning Chin or which would have carried the defendant’s own version of the events leading up to the ultimate tragic climax. Every element of the population was queried in the news media concerning its reaction; that reaction was almost without exception condemnatory of Ebens. There were videocasts showing purported auto workers or others in Detroit paying or making donations for the privileges of attacking Japanese-made automobiles with sledgehammers as showing some of the uncontrolled spleen directed at the competition from Japanese imports.

We mention these elements not because we conceive that there can be any justification whatever for the assault which took place nor because the government prosecutor was chargeable with any part of the massive publicity. Likewise we recognize fully that this was a public event and a matter of great and crucial importance to the Detroit metropolitan area. We do not remotely suggest that there should be any inhibitions on the First Amendment rights of the media to report matters of such great public importance. We mention these circumstances, however, only to show that a heightened sensitivity on the part of the prosecutor was necessary if the values of a fair trial under such explosive circumstances were to be preserved. Of the jurors, only three professed no knowledge of the incident at all. The others had all been exposed to one extent or another to the massive publicity which continued right up to and through the trial itself. Plainly, it seems to us, the government attorneys were under a very special burden of responsibility to make sure that their own conduct did not contribute to what was already a very great risk that the verdict would be the product not of the evidence but of public dissatisfaction with the earlier state court sentence.

The closing arguments of the government counsel began as a model of aggressive yet entirely fair advocacy. His review of the evidence was careful and made telling use of inconsistencies in the stories and arguments of the defense. It was a classic example of the hard but fair blows recognized in Berger. As he progressed, however, he took advantage of the rulings of the trial court to make impermissible inferences from evidence which ought either to have been kept out of the trial or, if admitted, to have been held to a limited use.

Thus while we have already held that it was error to have excluded the Chan tapes, had those tapes been played they would have indicated an effort on the part of Lisa Chan to orchestrate the testimony of the witnesses who attended the meeting so that they would appear to be sufficiently diverse in character as not to sound rehearsed and yet would include all the essential elements to prove a racial bias. The prosecutor then took advantage of the excluded testimony by making the following comment which might otherwise be entirely proper:

Now ladies and gentlemen, this probably doesn’t need to be said; but just because these witnesses heard different things at different times doesn’t mean they contradict each other. Naturally, when the music was loud and their perspectives were different, when they were paying different degrees of attention, they wouldn’t hear or recall the exact same things. No, they don’t contradict each other. You should worry if they came in here and said, yes, I heard the exact same thing. Now they corroborate each other, because the one thing that they all heard was that Vincent Chin was never aggressive or hostile____

Had the jurors been permitted to hear the tapes of Lisa Chan’s joint witness inter*1440view of May 17,4 they would have had at least a means to determine whether the witnesses’ testimony was in fact correct or the extent to which it was coached. Excerpts from that interview are appended hereto as appendix A and show the nature of the coaching which took place.

Government attorney Mr. Merritt then proceeded with a very strong point bearing on the existence of Ebens’ guilt under the federal act: the evidence that Ebens and Nitz appeared to have singled out for pursuit only the Orientals, Vincent Chin and Jimmy Choi, and to have left their white companions largely undisturbed. This evidence of Ebens’ bias was further fortified by emphasis on the testimony that Jimmy Perry was offered $20 to, as Mr. Merritt characterized, “help catch those Chinese guys.” Thus the $20 offer and the reference to Chinese guys was a very vital part of the government’s attempt to show express bias against Orientals and that there was calculation which precluded any excuse of spontaneous anger centering on a fight over the dancing girls at the bar. We do not fault the prosecutor for forcefully emphasizing this evidence once it had been allowed in by the trial court. At the same time it can be seen that the successful efforts to exclude evidence concerning Jimmy Perry’s initial failure to mention to the police officer anything about the $20 and the request to find “the Chinese guy” had to have at least an important bearing on the credibility of Perry’s testimony. The error in restricting the cross-examination is apparent.

Up to this point, therefore, we conclude that the prosecutor had stricken harsh blows but fair ones, especially in light of the evidence which was admitted. We point up the foregoing arguments only as showing the prejudicial effect of the admission of the evidence or the limitation on cross-examination and not on the conduct of the prosecutor himself. However when Mr. Merritt came to discussing the Willie Davis incident his argument went far beyond what we believe to be the permissible inferences of the proof submitted concerning that incident. After pointing to some of the evidence from which the inference of identity could be made, he argued strongly that Ronald Ebens came into the bar that night where Willie Davis was having a drink and “started calling him a nigger and a black son of a bitch” and accusing him of chasing white women. He then argued very forcefully that Davis had been intimidated from testifying by improper defense pressures when they sought to interview him:

You heard Willie Davis testify that the FBI interviewed him three times, once in my firm, and that we wanted him to be a witness for the government. And you also heard him testify that after he was visited by the defense investigator that weekend before he was going to testify, that they waived [sic] his police record in front of him, and they said they had spoken to Ronald’s friends, they knew nothing about this. Well, Willie Davis was a lot more reluctant to positively ID Ronald Ebens. But you know why Willie Davis lost his memory about that.

The prosecutor thus took full advantage of the fact that the trial court had failed to caution the jury about the out-of-court statements inferentially attributed through government questioning to Willie Davis. The impermissible hearsay was thus elevated to substantive proof without restriction and the purported reason for using it was only peripheral at best.

The government counsel also took unfair advantage, in our view, of the restrictions upon the use of the transcripts of the Lisa Chan interviews by inferring that the defense had endeavored to use only selected portions of the tapes so as to keep their impact from the jury. Thus he argued

*1441[t]he defense selected lines from these voluminous transcripts, lines where they may have said something different on occasion. But how many times were those lines taken out of context, when they were trying to impeach Bob Sirosky and Jimmy Choi, where they left out part of the proceedings, where there were answers on the tape, and they said there was an interruption on the tape? How many of these inconsistencies are really about minor things like whether or not he said you son of a bitch or mother fucker.

The government also chided the defense for not putting in the entire tapes while knowing it had been prevented from doing so by the court’s adverse ruling on admissibility.

The injection of the Davis incident had the effect of suggesting a negative attitude toward blacks on Ebens’ part. In addition the prosecutor pointed out that one of the witnesses who saw Vincent Chin was herself black and later testified that she saw the defendant with a baseball bat. The obvious strategy was continued in arguments which the prosecutor then made that “this was more than some barroom fight. This was violent hatred turned lose [sic]. This was years of pent-up racial hostilities and rage unleashed. This was a modern-day lynching, but there was a bat instead of a rope.”

The government prosecutor became more strident in his remarks after the defense had finished its summation. In a series of comments on the evidence, some of it disputed, the prosecutor preceded each comment with the term “We know,” such as “We know that Ebens and Nitz went after Jimmy Choi and not his white counterparts ... that Ebens said that he would have gotten [Choi] too if they hadn’t stopped him ... that they offered Jimmy Perry $20 to get those Chinese guys.” He then went on to observe that “We’re not Niggers; we’re not Kikes, we’re not Polaks, we’re Americans. And as Americans, we must condemn this type of racial violence.” He then closes by saying, “Now these defendants have had a fair trial and now it’s up to you to do your duty, to hold them responsible for their actions.”

The employment by the prosecutor of comments which represent his “personal impression” are, as pointed out by Chief Justice Burger in United States v. Young, directly violative of the American Bar Association’s standards for criminal justice that “[i]t is unprofessional conduct for a lawyer to express a personal belief or opinion in his client’s innocence or personal belief or opinion in the truth or falsity of any testimony or evidence, or to attribute the crime to another person unless such an inference is warranted by the evidence.” Id. 105 S.Ct. at 1043 n. 7 (quoting ABA Standards for Criminal Justice 4-7.8(b)).

With respect to personal impressions, Chief Justice Burger observed in Young, “[notwithstanding the defense counsel’s breach of ethical standards [engaging in similar conduct] the prosecutor’s statement of his belief that the evidence showed Apeo had been defrauded should not have been made; it was an improper expression of personal opinion and was not necessary to answer defense counsel’s improper assertion that no one on the prosecution team believed respondent intended to defraud Apeo.” Id. at 1048. Also while recognizing that such argument may not always be reversible, Chief Justice Burger specifically held that “[t]he prosecutor was also in error to try to exhort the jury to ‘do its job’; that kind of pressure, whether by the prosecutor or defense counsel, has no place in the administration of criminal justice.” Id. Thus, it appears that the prosecutor’s comments again violated the ethical standards as reaffirmed in Young and defined by the American Bar Association. ABA Standards for Criminal Justice, at 3-5.8(c) and 4-7.8(c).

Two other complaints by appellant merit further comment.

One of the defense witnesses was a nude dancer at the club, Angela Rudolph, whose stage name was Starlene. It was Star-lene’s testimony that she was the subject *1442of derisive remarks made by Chin, remarks which triggered Ebens into the quarrel.

During its case-in-chief government counsel produced testimony from Sharon Fleming, a dancer at the Fancy Pants Lounge, that Ebens had engaged in an act of oral sex with Starlene. Both Ebens and Starlene flatly denied the charge and it was otherwise uncorroborated. Because Star-lene had testified favorably to Ebens’ theory of defense, the government attorney on rebuttal argument attacked her credibility and observed, “Ms. Starlene is not known for her truthfulness among the circle that she travels in, and the law enforcement agency, her friends and her co-workers. And ladies and gentlemen, her defensive denial that she would never let anyone touch her, let alone have oral sex with her, well, that shows you how much stock she puts in telling the truth here, under oath.”

We recognize that the sociological standards of those who frequent or entertain at places such as the Fancy Pants Lounge are likely to be substantially foreign to the experiences of most jurors and that what occurs in such places is almost certain to offend some. We think that, unless absolutely required by the needs of the case, the government erred in initiating testimony concerning this conduct. Evidently it was determined to destroy the credibility of the witness by showing that she and the defendant had engaged in an act of oral sex. Such evidence is so likely to offend the normal sensibilities of the average juror as to leave us in serious question whether it should not have been immediately the subject of sua sponte correction by the trial judge. Arguably there may have been some relevance to the testimony, such as showing that Starlene and Ebens enjoyed a special relationship and that therefore her testimony might favor him. And it is also true that broad latitude concerning the circumstances in which a crime occurs, must necessarily be allowed, even though it brings in the bizarre, the unpleasant, and the distasteful. Cf. United States v. Brady, 595 F.2d 359 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 862, 100 S.Ct. 129, 62 L.Ed.2d 84 (1979). We think, however, that injection of such evidence in this case was highly objectionable as tending to demean the witness and also as tending to depict the defendant in a depraved light before the jury, and thus to distract the jury from its very real task of determining whether Ebens acted with the requisite specific intent under the statute.

VI.

Numerous other claims of error are made, and we have reviewed them all. Without endeavoring to comment expressly on each, we do conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by excluding a letter written by United States Attorney Leonard Gilman on July 6, 1983, explaining his personal opinion that there was insufficient evidence to support the government’s prosecution in this case. This is classic hearsay, was totally irrelevant to the issues before the jury, and was properly excluded. We likewise find no merit in the claim that defendant was improperly held twice in jeopardy for the same offense. It is firmly established under the dual sovereignty doctrine that “an act denounced as a crime by both national and state sovereignties is an offense against the peace and dignity of both, and may be punished by each.” United States v. Lanza, 260 U.S. 377, 382, 43 S.Ct. 141, 142, 67 L.Ed. 314 (1922). In any event the federal civil rights offense requires proof of facts substantially different from manslaughter, Blockberger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299, 52 S.Ct. 180, 76 L.Ed. 306 (1932), so there is no support for the proposition that double jeopardy was implicated here in any way.

REVERSED and REMANDED for a new trial.

APPENDIX A

Excerpts from joint witness interview of May 17, 1983:

“Liza [sic] Chan: The purpose of this meeting tonight is so we can help each other remember exactly what happened, how it happened, when it happened and all the minor details. We were just going over — I *1443was talking with Eddie Hollis this afternoon, the parking lot attendant, the black guy, I don’t know when he came in. I think — but according to his version of the facts, it’s quite different from what I have so far understood them to be. So, I would center on my facts on what you, three of you, say they are and somehow try to either fit all the facts around these, or if they don’t fit, then I have to watch out, you know, there’s something else, somebody’s saying something else.”

******

“Liza [sic] Chan: We will agree this is the story, this is it. When it’s a federal prosecution, h’m, we’re all going to have to be agreeing on this is what happened. Now, if you don’t agree, like I explained to them earlier, you definitely remembered certain things happened, say, it’s a black car and you definitely remembered it’s a white car and we kind of (inaudible), okay, other than that, let’s all have it sort of down, have it down pat, is it five minutes or is it ten minutes. Is it more like eight minutes, let’s all agree. Otherwise, you all look funny on the stand. You all supposedly were there. But one says two minutes, the other says eight and that’s what robbed me before.”

******

“Gary Koivu: Is there any harm in getting too accurate, because they could say, well, you all rehersed [sic] this, like if you’re in court and we all have exactly the same times.

“Liza [sic] Chan: As long as you’re within, you know, you could say 8:10, you could say 8:20, I mean, that doesn’t matter.

“Gary Koivu: Mm hmm. Right, but as long as they have example.

“Liza [sic] Chan: Right. But as far as the crucial facts, the crucial ones are not conflicting. I’ll give you an example. Like what you’ve people have been telling me and then what Eddie Hollis told me. Totally make me completely confused. That is going to be raising a question in the jury’s mind: well, who’s telling the truth? Or what actually happened. Maybe nobody’s to be believed. Now, I don’t mean exactly everybody agreed okay, everbody [sic] agree at 6:30 right on the dot.

“Robert Siroskey [sic]: Mm hmm.

“Liza [sic] Chan: This could have a little bit of leeway.

“Robert Siroskey [sic]: Okay.

“Liza [sic] Chan: Okay. H’m, but I mean, you know, you can’t say that we stayed at Fancy Pants for two hours and then another person says we stayed at Fancy Pants for half an hour. I mean that’s a big discrepancy there.

“Robert Siroskey [sic]: Right.”

******

“Liza [sic] Chan: H’m, also, you don’t have to volunteer any information. Well, Jerry Craig [FBI agent] may be slightly different because we do want to facilitate in terms of investigation. The question is not whether it is a murder or justifiable, the question is whether there was any reason that they— Vincent was bothered at all, let alone killed, because of his race, bothered from enjoying the services and entertainment because of his race. So, right now, it’s not whether there’s sufficient cause, who [inaudible] whether — it’s still essential that you know, the essential point is that Vincent didn’t fight back, or, you know, being chased, just fled. And those are still essential. We’re not going to say, well, now, since that’s the case, we don’t have to say anything good for Vincent, just the truth. If he’s good, he’s good; if he’s bad, he’s bad. If he’s semi-bad, he’s semi-bad. Don’t volunteer information. If the guy didn’t ask you, or whoever, didn’t ask you, did they have any words exchanged when Ebens and Nitz walked out? You don’t have to say it. They say, what happened next? Ebens and Nitz were escorted out. Okay. And then went to the car and they took out a baseball bat. Unless someone says did anybody say anything, or did anything happen in between, you don’t have to volunteer. You don’t have to unless you’re asked.”

*1444“Liza [sic] Chan: Then he started out of the chair?

“Gary Koivu: Yeah.

“Jimmy Choi: He ran over.

“Gary Koivu: Yeah.

“Liza [sic] Chan: So, that’s — you remember

“Robert Siroskey [sic]: That’s why I remember just before he got up, he says: don’t call me a motherfucker. I remember that.

“Liza [sic] Chan: Okay. We all remember our different lines, okay. There’s no agreement that that’s fine, just remember your different lines—

“Robert Siroskey [sic]: Right.

“Liza [sic] Chan: Chink, foreign car part, big fucker, little fucker, all fuckers, don’t call me a fucker, we all remember our lines, okay? Umm, then what happened? Go ahead.”

******

Lisa Chan Maybe you heard that before: don’t call me a fucker.

Robert Sirosky See, I have to go with what he said.

Lisa Chan Wait a minute now. That might make sense. Little fuckers, big fuckers, we’re all fuckers.

Robert Sirosky Mm hmm.

Lisa Chan Then VINCENT could have said: don’t call me a fucker. Could be. I’m just saying—

Gary Koivu No, I’m just saying what I— like I said, I’m not saying I saw everything, but I did see—

Lisa Chan But what you did hear or did hear, was after the words: don’t call me a fucker, I’m not a fucker.

Gary Koivu Mm hmm.

Lisa Chan So, but you did remember hearing something about little fuckers and big fuckers, we’re all fuckers.

Jimmy Choi Mm hmm.

Gary Koivu Yeah.

Lisa Chan And you, same thing?

Robert Sirosky Yes. I remember hearing something to the effect that—

Lisa Chan Coming from EBENS or NITZ. Coming from EBENS or NITZ?

Robert Sirosky Who’s EBENS? Who’s NITZ? I don’t—

Gary Koivu EBENS was the big guy.

Lisa Chan Is it the big guy?

Gary Koivu The older guy.

Robert Sirosky The older guy.

Lisa Chan Okay.

Jimmy Choi The blond haired guy.

Lisa Chan Okay. Let’s presume that he said — let’s presume that he said chink, let’s presume you heard something about foreign cars, let’s presume also that you — I’ll let the jury decide who said what first, but let’s also presume that you heard EBENS saying big fuckers, little fuckers, we’re all fuckers. Both of you heard that.

Robert Sirosky Right.

Lisa Chan Then maybe at that point VINCENT said don’t call me a fucker, I’m not a fucker.

Gary Koivu Was made me presume that VINCENT said something to — maybe VINCENT, perhaps, called him a fucker. Why would he all of a sudden say big fuckers, little fuckers, we’re all fuckers? I was under the impression that VINCENT wasn’t saying anything to this guy until—

Lisa Chan Mm hmm, mm hmm.

Gary Koivu —he said, whatever he said, and VINCENT said, don’t call me a fucker, I’m not a fucker.

Lisa Chan Well, it could be afterwards, too. Don’t call me a fucker, I’m not a fucker. EBENS could have said big fuckers, little fuckers, we’re all fuckers. No?

Gary Koivu I sure would have seen it. I was sitting right next to VINCENT—

Lisa Chan That didn’t blow over—

Gary Koivu —and looking right at EBENS.

Lisa Chan Well, any suggestions? We’re all sure what we heard? That’s okay, I mean, that’s fine, too. I just—

Robert Sirosky I’m positive—

Lisa Chan —while I have all three of you — "

*1445Robert Sirosky Pm positive what I heard after VINCENT said that.

Gary Koivu Yeah, what VINCENT said after that.

Lisa Chan Okay. We rely on you whatever was said afterward.

Gary Koivu Before that VINCENT said Pm not a fucker—

Lisa Chan Right.

Gary Koivu Pm out of it, you know, these two.

Lisa Chan You weren’t paying attention.

Gary Koivu See what they heard.

Lisa Chan At some point you heard chink definitely, for sure.

Robert Sirosky Right, right.

Lisa Chan Could it be into the fight?

Robert Sirosky Into the fight? No.

Robert Sirosky We’re all sitting—

Lisa Chan Sitting.

Robert Sirosky Yes.

Lisa Chan Still things are going fine. The first thing you heard was something about chink.

Robert Sirosky Mm hmm.

Lisa Chan Fighting and all other words came later?

Robert Sirosky Mm hmm.

Lisa Chan You heard something about foreign cars; that’s also the same situation, not in the middle of the fight or anything, or in the middle of an exchange?

Robert Sirosky There’s a lot of destruc-tions [sic], too, because the music is loud—

Jimmy Choi The people—

Robert Sirosky —The people

Jimmy Choi —were around, girl dancing—

Robert Sirosky —girls dancing.

Jimmy Choi —and then — he and I were talking.

Lisa Chan All right, then, the next thing. We’ve got all these lines.

Gary Koivu I told you I tapped VINCENT on the arm saying forget it, you know,—

Lisa Chan Okay.

Gary Koivu —I may have said, it’s not important.

Lisa Chan Right. And?

Gary Koivu And when EBENS said, you know, I just don’t know if you’re a big fucker, little fucker—

Lisa Chan Makes sense.

Gary Koivu —and that’s when VINCE—

Lisa Chan Makes sense, makes sense. If he had said big fuckers, little fuckers, we’re all fuckers, if he had said that, by the time you heard: I just don’t know whether you’re a big fucker or little fucker, he was referring to something that he had said before.

Gary Koivu Yeah, I never heard anyone say it.

Robert Sirosky Yeah, right.

Gary Koivu So may have—

Robert Sirosky Exactly.

Lisa Chan Pm just guessing, it’s just logic. You know, I could be wrong. Okay, so he said: I just don’t know whether you’re a big fucker or a little fuckers? Because he had earlier said big fuckers, little fuckers, we’re all fuckers—

Gary Koivu Maybe that’s how they thought they heard that.

Lisa Chan —I just don’t know whether you’re a big one or a little one.

Robert Sirosky Right.

Gary Koivu Yeah, could be.

Lisa Chan Okay.

Gary Koivu But after I tapped him and EBENS said, I just don’t know if you’re a big or little fucker, that’s when VINCENT said I told you Pm not a fucker, friend.

Lisa Chan Did anybody hear that?

Robert Sirosky I didn’t hear it, but, you know, he’s talking to him and, you know, I might have saw him point out of the — no, I can’t say something like that—

Jimmy Choi I think I heard him say nobody calls me a mother fucker.

Robert Sirosky —I can’t even say that.

Lisa Chan Mm hmm.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER OF TRANSFER

ANNA DIGGS TAYLOR, District Judge.

This matter is before the court on defendant’s motion for change of venue for prejudice in this district, filed pursuant to Rule 21(a) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. For the reasons outlined below, this court finds that because of the saturation publicity which has surrounded this case for five years and continues, there exists in the district in which this prosecution is pending and in all other Michigan districts, as well as in the Northern District of Ohio, so great a prejudice against the defendant that he cannot obtain a fair and impartial trial at any place fixed by law for holding court therein. Accordingly, the motion is granted. When the defendant has formalized this motion’s implicit waiver of his rights under Article III, § 2, 113, and Amendment VI of the United States Constitution to a trial by a jury of the state and district within which the crime is alleged to have been committed, the case will be transferred to the Southern District of Ohio.

Defendant stands charged pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 245 and § 2, of violation of the civil rights of Vincent Chin, an American citizen of Chinese descent, by blows to the head with a baseball bat on June 19, 1982, resulting in Chin’s death. Defendant was previously convicted by a jury in this district in June of 1984, and was thereafter sentenced to twenty five years of imprisonment by this court. Saturation publicity surrounded the trial and the events which had led up to it.

That conviction was reversed by the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals and remand*145ed for a new trial, on September 11, 1986. 800 F.2d 1422.

Although this court denied defendant’s motion for a change of venue prior to his 1984 trial, it is compelled to grant the renewed motion under the circumstances surrounding this second trial. The Court of Appeals wrote, concerning the 1984 trial, that “while it probably would have been advisable for the trial judge to have ordered a change of venue, we conclude that it was not reversible error for her to proceed to impanel the jury.” To obtain the first jury, 178 veniremen were screened by questionnaires, and 159 were individually interviewed on voir dire by the court and counsel over five days. Of those, thirteen had no knowledge of the case, and of them, three were ultimately selected to sit as jurors. Those who knew of the case and were selected had denied any prejudice. This court is confident that today, a great many more veniremen would have to be screened and interviewed to select an impartial jury if, indeed, it is possible at all. It would be extremely unfortunate to make the attempt and, after calling such a large number of citizens, to be forced to change venue. Moreover, in a different venue it is likely that the week-long sequestration of the jury in a hotel, during deliberations, will not again be necessary. Accordingly, the motion is granted at this time.

The Court of Appeals found as follows concerning the publicity surrounding the first trial:

The joint appendix filed in the appellate record contains sixty-eight pages of articles from Detroit newspapers about the Chin matter. Three video tape recordings of television broadcasts were also made a part of the record. As the trial judge noted, the publicity was not only extensive but was all adverse. A Detroit attorney, Lisa Chan, formed a group known as the American Citizens for Justice, and appears to have been instrumental in publicizing the killing, the handling of the case by the Wayne County Prosecutor’s office and the sentences given to Ebens and Nitz in the state court. Rallies were held and the publicity generated much television coverage including at least two special news stories on the subject and a program over national television as well. The public excoriation of the state trial judge who placed Ebens and Nitz on probation was particularly severe. The headlines can only be described as scathing. One large cartoon appearing in the Detroit News, even showed the trial judge putting a baseball bat in one ear, as if it were a pencil, and sharpening it with a pencil sharpener installed in the opposite ear.

We have carefully reviewed the extensive record made of the publicity in the case and agree that it was indeed pervasive. The question of venue is made particularly difficult because of the framework in which the prosecution arose. The nearly unanimous public judgment that Ebens and his stepson should have received jail terms and the harsh criticism of the state trial judge, followed by the. federal prosecution of defendants based upon the same incident, was bound to lead to a strong public impression that justice had not been done in the state court and that it was incumbent upon the federal government to right that wrong by a second prosecution.

The situation has not improved since the filing of that opinion. The fact of the reversal of defendant’s conviction in this court, the government’s subsequent decisionmaking process as to whether to retry him, and its ultimate decision to do so, each precipitated a new wave of highly publicized outcry and comment reiterating the entire history of this case.

Most damaging to jury selection of all the post-reversal coverage, in the view of this court, was the October 12,1986 Detroit News Sunday Magazine cover story on the victim’s mother, Lily Chin. The magazine cover was comprised of full page color photographs of the still-grieving mother. The lengthy story inside, accompanied by more photographs, told of the tragic deterioration of her life to that of a homeless wanderer, since the death of her son. The *146effect of this major feature alone, in the newspaper of largest circulation in Michigan and Northern Ohio, is extremely prejudicial to the court’s ability to secure an impartial jury in this area.

Moreover, the leadership of this community, including the President and members of the Detroit City Council, who declared a day of mourning in honor of Vincent Chin and presented a memorial to his mother, have been quoted by the news media uniformly to the effect that the defendant must be punished. Similar statements have been widely publicized with attribution to the Mayor of Highland Park, the Attorney General of the State of Michigan, the American Citizens for Justice, the American Civil Liberties Union, the Archdiocese of Detroit, the Roundtable of Christians and Jews, the Latino-Amerieans for Social and Economic Development, B’nai Birth, the Anti-Defamation League, and the NAACP. Editorial comment, both broadcast and press, and letters to the editor, continue strenuously and unanimously to stress the fact that defendant has never been punished.

The media also, in post-reversal coverage, have continued to give full play to the factual allegations which the Sixth Circuit has found must be excluded from evidence in the second trial.

Factors such as the comment and castigation of public figures, the intensity and long duration of the publicity (since 1982), its inflammatory tone and content, and the continually repeated factual recitations, all militate toward the conclusion that a change of venue from the State of Michigan and the northern Ohio area must be granted. This court is convinced that the problem has become too severe to cure by careful voir dire, and that it would be extremely wasteful to attempt to do so. As Judge Hungate wrote in United States v. Engleman, 489 F.Supp. 48, 50 (E.D.Mo.1980):

Effective and economic judicial administration is not well served by calling an inordinate and unwieldy number of veniremen to see if an unbiased jury might be obtained, especially when it is already apparent that a substantial chance of intolerable prejudice exists. E.g. United States v. Carbone, No. CR78-93T (W.D.Wash. Jan. 26, 1979).

Although the government argues for awaiting voir dire, the court finds that the logistics of trying this case are too great to wait until the eve of trial before reaching a decision on where the trial will be held.

Rule 21(a) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure provides for transfer of a cause to any district, and defendant has not specified in his written motion any district as appropriate for transfer.

This court has broad discretion in choosing where to transfer the case. See U.S. v. Angiulo, 497 F.2d 440 (1st Cir.) cert denied, 419 U.S. 896, 95 S.Ct. 175, 42 L.Ed.2d 140 (1974); U.S. v. Marcello, 423 F.2d 993, 1004 (5th Cir.), cert denied, 398 U.S. 959, 90 S.Ct. 2172, 26 L.Ed.2d 543 (1970).

Therefore, upon execution of a written consent and waiver by defendant, and contingent upon the statement in open court by defense counsel and defendant himself that counsel has fully informed defendant of his Constitutional rights of the waiver implicit in this motion, and that said waiver is reaffirmed, this court will enter its order transferring this cause from the Eastern District of Michigan to the Southern District of Ohio.

IT IS SO ORDERED.