On Behalf Of
Supreme Law Firm
Sent: Sunday, August 07, 2005 1:02 PM
Subject: White House Indicted? - US ATTORNEY'S OFFICE "ISSUES"
OFFICIAL COMMENT
Below there are interesting discussions of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure
and the potential for a "run-away grand jury".
http://citizenspook.blogspot.com/2005/08/treasongate-white-house-indicted-us
.html
TREASONGATE: White House Indicted? - US ATTORNEY'S OFFICE "ISSUES"
OFFICIAL
COMMENT
[UPDATE: August 5th, 2005, 11:10 p.m. EST. There are reports
circulating on
the internet that Randall Sanborn finally issued an official comment
(after
the following article was published?) which reversed the US Attorney's
original comments to Citizen Spook and others. Citizen Spook has not
verified the following comment, nor has it been officially posted by
the US
Attorney's office. The comment has been reported by Greg Syzmanski,
SANBORN:
“We are not talking about any aspect of this case and our office is not
commenting on anything regarding the investigation at this time,” said
Randall Sanborn from the office of U.S. federal prosecutor Patrick
Fitzgerald..."]
Citizen Spook has interviewed a representative of Randy Sanborn's
office at
the Dirksen Federal Courthouse in Chicago where the Fitzgerald
investigation
is headquartered. Randy Sanborn is the official spokesperson for the US
Attorney's Office in the Northern District of Illinois. Sanborn is also
the
official spokesperson for Patrick Fitzgerald.
It's crucial to ask the right questions, and the right questions need
the
right words. The political and legal environment we find ourselves in at
this strange moment in American history is centered upon the
manipulation of
citizen perception. We have been asked to endure a President who can say
with a straight face, "That depends on what the meaning of is, is." And
the
current right wing lunatic harbingers of Treason are flogging a defense
in
the Valerie Plame affair based upon the ridiculous assertion that
there's a
difference between outing "Valerie Plame" and outing "Joe Wilson's
wife".
Because of this environment, it's imperative that those of us in the
Blogosphere stay focused for pinpoint accuracy with the questions that
we
ask, the words we use, and our analysis of the answers we receive.
Yesterday, Tom Flocco published the following headline bombshell, "Bush
and
Cheney Indicted":
"U.S. federal prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald's Chicago grand jury has
issued
perjury and obstruction of justice indictments to the following members
of
the Bush Administration: President George W. Bush, Vice-President
Richard
Cheney, Bush Chief of Staff Andrew Card, Cheney Chief of Staff I. Lewis
"Scooter" Libby, Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez, former Attorney
General
John Ashcroft, imprisoned New York Times reporter Judith Miller and
former
Senior Cheney advisor Mary Matalin."
http://tomflocco.com/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewtopic&t=846&postdays=0
&postorder=asc&start=0
The story spread like wildfire through internet forums. As of last
night, I
couldn't find an official, "on the record", reply to the story from the
US
Attorney's Office in the main stream media or anywhere in the
Blogosphere.
That made sense, because grand jury proceedings are secret, and without
a
Judicial Order releasing grand jury results, the US Attorney's Office
would
not be allowed to comment on what the grand jury has done.
The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure:
"Rule 6(e) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure provide that the
prosecutor, grand jurors, and the grand jury stenographer are prohibited
from disclosing what happened before the grand jury, unless ordered to
do so
in a judicial proceeding. Secrecy was originally designed to protect the
grand jurors from improper pressures. The modern justifications are to
prevent the escape of people whose indictment may be contemplated, to
ensure
that the grand jury is free to deliberate without outside pressure, to
prevent subornation of perjury or witness tampering prior to a
subsequent
trial, to encourage people with information about a crime to speak
freely,
and to protect the innocent accused from disclosure of the fact that he
or
she was under investigation." http://www.law.ku.edu/research/frcriIII.htm
The prosecutor is barred from "disclosing what happened before the grand
jury, unless ordered to do so in a judicial proceeding." The law does
not
allow Fitzgerald to comment regardless of whether Indictments have been
"returned" or not.
Furthermore, according to the Federal Handbook for Grand Jurors,
keeping the
proceedings and findings of the Grand Jury secret, "[p]revents the
disclosure of investigations that result in no action by the grand
jury."
http://www.moed.uscourts.gov/Jury/FederalHandbookForGrandJurors.pdf
The US Attorney's office is not allowed to comment about proceedings
regardless of outcome.
So I was surprised this morning, when I came across a post at
flybynews.com
which contains a statement, alleged to be from the US Attorney's office.
Please note that I am not vouching for the credibility of the
flybynews.com
comment. I have conducted my own interview with the US Attorney's
office and
will discuss it below, but it was this flybynews.com comment which
percolated my curiosity and led me to dig a bit deeper. The flybynews
commentary:
"People's Attorney / Volks-Anwalt Wolfram Grätz" <> Leuren Moret
wrote:
'I called the US Attorney's office this morning and they had "no
comment"
but when I asked them when they would announce this to the public they
said
"we have not issued these indictments". They had a lot of phone calls.'
"
http://www.flybynews.com/cgi-local/newspro/viewnews.cgi?newsid1123024424,956
88,
Assuming for the moment, that the quote is accurate, the words must be
examined carefully in the context of grand jury linguistics and Federal
Rules of Criminal Procedure (FRCP), which do not empower the US
Attorney to
"issue" indictments.
So when Randy Sanborn's office released official statements to me this
morning, "on the record", which said, "This office has not issued any
indictments," and "No Indictments have been issued by this office", the
US
Attorney was telling the truth, was not in violation of the FRCP secrecy
laws, and in no way denied Tom Flocco's report that the "grand jury" has
issued indictments.
LEGAL LINGUISTICS
The grand jury and the US Attorney are two separate legal entities with
different procedural duties enumerated in the Federal Rules of Crimina
Procedure. With respect to indictments, the prosecutor, according to the
Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, is empowered to present
"information"
or an "indictment" to the grand jury, where the word "indictment"is
used as
a noun to describe the allegation against the defendant.
If the grand jury finds sufficient evidence that a crime has been
commited,
the grand jury is empowered to "indict" (a verb) and if the the grand
jury
indicts, it then "returns an "indictment" or a "true bill". But the
indictment returned by the jury is a "finding" whereas the "indictment"
(aka
"information") presented to the grand jury is an allegation.
It's important to note that there is a legal alchemy which transforms
the
indictment (or information) presented to the grand jury when the jury
votes
to "indict" (a verb), and return indictments to the magistrate.
The Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, Rule 7(c)(1) dictates what the
prosecutor must present to the grand jury for deliberation:
"In General. The indictment or information must be a plain, concise and
definite written statement of the essential facts constituting the
offense
charged and must be signed by an attorney for the government..."
Rule 7(c)(1) tells you exactly what the nature of an "indictment" from
the
prosecutor to the grand jury is. It does not empower the US Attorney to
"issue"an "indictment". Please understand that the words "issuance" and
"issue" are legal terms of art which are explained clearly in the
Federal
Rules of Criminal Procedure.
Rule 6(f):
"(f) Indictment and Return. A grand jury may indict only if at least 12
jurors concur. The grand jury--or its foreperson or deputy
foreperson--must
return the indictment to a magistrate judge in open court. If a
complaint or
information is pending against the defendant and 12 jurors do not
concur in
the indictment, the foreperson must promptly and in writing report the
lack
of concurrence to the magistrate judge."
Please notice that the grand jury, according to Rule 6(f), does not
"issue"
indictments either. According to the letter of the law, the grand jury
"returns" the indictment, not to the US Attorney, but directly to a
"magistrate judge in open court."
Additionally, Rule 6(3) states:
"(c) Foreperson and Deputy Foreperson. The court will appoint one juror
as
the foreperson and another as the deputy foreperson. In the foreperson's
absence, the deputy foreperson will act as the foreperson. The
foreperson
may administer oaths and affirmations and will sign all indictments. The
foreperson--or another juror designated by the foreperson--will record
the
number of jurors concurring in every indictment and will file the record
with the clerk, but the record may not be made public unless the court
so
orders." (emphasis added).
The foreman then signs it but does not return it to the US Attorney. The
foreman files the record with the clerk.
The Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, Rule 9(a) defines what the
word,
"issue" legally means with regard to a Federal grand jury proceeding.
"Rule 9. Arrest Warrant or Summons On an Indictment or Information
(a) Issuance. The court must issue a warrant--or at the government's
request, a summons--for each defendant named in an indictment or named
in an
information if one or more affidavits accompanying the information
establish
probable cause to believe that an offense has been committed and that
the
defendant committed it..."
Please note that it is "the court" which issues a "warrant" or a
"summons"
based upon the grand jury's finding.
The grand jury votes on whether "[t]here is sufficient evidence of
probable
cause to bring the accused to trial."
http://www.moed.uscourts.gov/Jury/FederalHandbookForGrandJurors.pdf
If the grand jury finds that there is sufficient evidence of probable
cause,
the grand jury "returns" an "indictment" which is also known as a "true
bill", or in the alternative, if there is not sufficient evidence of the
crime, the grand jury will return a "not true bill" aka "bill of
ignoramus".
It's not legally possible for the US Attorney's Office to "issue"
"indictments" when referring to information that a grand jury has voted
to
"return" "indictments" on. Those "indictments" are "returned" by the
grand
jury, not the US Attorney.
And just so we're clear, neither the US Attorney or the grand jury,
according to the letter of the law, is empowered to "issue" indictments.
Rule 9 empowers "the court" to "issue" a "warrant" or "summons".
Flocco's story specifically refers to indictments issued by "Patrick
Fitzgerald's grand jury". Flocco's story does not address indictments
preseneted to the grand jury by Fitzegerald.
The Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure are clear.
Flocco reported:
"U.S. federal prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald's Chicago grand jury has
issued
perjury and obstruction of justice indictments to the following members
of
the Bush Administration..."
The only problem with Flocco's story is that he should have written,
"...Patrick Fitzgerald's Chicago grand jury has returned perjury and
obstruction of justice indictments..." Flocco's use of the word
"issued" is
not legally accurate within the FRCP.
This is not semantics, it's a very important distinction. And if you
understand the Federal secrecy laws, you will also understand that the
US
Attorney's office did not break those laws when it issued their official
statement.
Had the US Attorney's office said, "This office has not presented any
indictments to the grand jury...", the US Attorney's office could be
held in
contempt for violating Rule 6(e):
"Rule 6(e) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure provide that the
prosecutor, grand jurors, and the grand jury stenographer are prohibited
from disclosing what happened before the grand jury, unless ordered to
do so
in a judicial proceeding."
It's clearly stated in the law that the prosecutor is prohibited from
disclosing what happened. However, since the US Attorney was asked a
question about actions which are a legal fiction, actions they have no
power
to execute, actions which are not involved in the proceedings before the
grand jury, then the US Attorney's office was completely within its
legal
rights to issue the very specfic statements in question.
I submit to you, that under Rule 6(e), my analysis is the only possible
analysis of the US Attorney's statement which would allow them to make
such
a statement, and I wouldn't be surprised if they cleared the exact
wording
with a judge.
PROCEDURE - RUNAWAY JURIES
Furthermore, the grand jury can return indictments or true bills of
their
own initiation. They are not constrained by the indictments or
information
presented to them by Patrick Fitzgerald. The grand jurors are allowed
to ask
their own questions and create their own indictments. Grand juries that
take
the reins like this are sometimes referred to as "runaway grand juries":
"A runaway grand jury is an exception to this rule--the grand jurors
ignore
the prosecutor(s) and start making their own decisions. Runaway grand
juries
were not uncommon in the early twentieth century. The best known of
these
runaway grand juries is probably the New York grand jury in the 1930's
that
barred prosecutors from coming into the grand jury room and took off on
its
own investigation of corruption in New York city government. This grand
jury
eventually cooperated with Thomas E. Dewey, whom the jurors apparently
decided they could trust, and returned many indictments against a
variety of
defendants, including some well known members of the New York Mafia.
Since
modern grand jurors tend to be ignorant of their ability to act
independently of a prosecutor's wishes, runaway grand juries have pretty
much become a thing of the past. There have, however, been a few
exceptions:
Recently, for example, a California state grand jury indicted all the
top
county officials, and nearly closed down county government. And a Texas
state grand jury began investigating a mayoral candidate and seems to
have
ruined his reputation sufficiently to cause him to lose the election,
even
though he was never charged with any crimes."
http://www.udayton.edu/~grandjur/faq/faq8.htm
I suggest you read Matthew Cooper's comments about his experience with
Patrick Fitzgerald's unique grand jurors:
" 'Grand juries are in the business of handing out indictments, and
their
docility is infamous,' Cooper writes. A grand jury, the old maxim goes,
will
indict a ham sandwich if a prosecutor asks it of them. 'But I didn't get
that sense from this group of grand jurors. They somewhat reflected the
demographics of the District of Columbia,' he wrote. 'The majority were
African-American and were disproportionately women... These grand
jurors did
not seem the types to passively indict a ham sandwich. I would say
one-third
of my 2-1/2 hours of testimony was spent answering their questions, not
the
prosecutor's.' "
http://www.blackamericaweb.com/site.aspx/bawnews/leakcase719
The grand jury may have returned indictments or true bills through
their own
proactive and fully Constitutional power, as opposed to reacting to
indictments or information presented by the prosecutor.
Another paragraph from Flocco's report lends credence to this issue:
"Sources close to the investigation report that members of the House,
Senate, 9.11 Commission and other members of the media are also under
investigation as potential targets by a grand jury regarding
obstruction of
justice and other oversight failures linked to the 9.11
attacks--indicating
that citizen panelists working with Fitzgerald may be seeking a
wholesale
cleansing of what many have said is a crime-wracked White House and
Congress. "
Pay attention to that last line, "--indicating that citizen panelists
working with Fitzgerald may be seeking a wholesale cleansing..."
That's a very strong tip off that Patrick Fitzgerald's grand jury, to
some
degree, may be taking things in their own hands. (And if that is the
case,
Citizen Spook commends them for doing so.)
It's important to note, that Fitzgerald may be constrained by his legal
mandate as to what he is allowed to investigate. He might also be
constrained by superiors and furthermore, both he and the grand jurors
might
have considered the possibility that his job may be taken from him.
After
all, the President will decide whether Fitzgerald returns to his job
when
his term is up in October. The grand jury might also be aware of that
fact,
and they may have taken over this investigation, not out of disrespect
for
Patrick Fitzgerald, but perhaps just the opposite.
Hopefully, they've awoken to the magnitude of the historical
significance
their questions, deliberations and votes may hold. It's possible that
the
future of our country, the lives of our soldiers, and the lives of
innocent
people in foreign countries all over the globe are now in the minds and
hearts of the "citizen panelists" now examining the actions of the Bush
administration and its facilitators.
CITIZEN SPOOK INTERVIEWS THE US ATTORNEY'S OFFICE
Citizen Spook has interviewed a female representative from Randy
Sanborn's
office. Randy Sanborn is the official spokesperson for Patrick
Fitzgerald at
the US Attorney's office in the Dirksen Federal Courthouse.
I first called the main number for the Dirksen Federal Courthouse. The
receptionist transferred me to the "duty paralegal". I explained to him
that
I was calling about the story circulating about "the White House
Indictments."
Duty Paralegal: "You're referring to the Valerie Plame case?"
CS: "Yes."
Duty paralegal: "We can't comment about that. Everything about the grand
jury proceeding is secret."
CS: "I know, but there are reports coming out on the internet that this
office has denied issuing the indictments and I'm trying to clear the
record."
Duty paralegal: "You need to speak to Randy Sanborn's office. He's in
charge
of press relations. Just call the switchboard back and they will
transfer
you."
I have the duty paralegal's name, but he asked for it not to be used.
I called the main number again at the Dirksen Federal Courthouse and
asked
for Randy Sanborn's office. I was transferred to his office and a woman
picked up:
CS: "May I speak to Mr. Sanborn?"
Female assistant: "What is this about."
CS: "I'm calling to verify the story about Patirck Fitzgerald's grand
jury
returning indictments agsinst the White House."
Female assistant: "That story did not originate from this office."
CS: "But people are spreading comments from your office."
Female assistant: "We have no comment."
CS: "But there are reports that your office denied executing the
indictments."
Female assistant: "No indictments have been issued from this office."
CS: "Who am I speaking with?
Female assistant: "I'm not giving you any names for anybody here."
CS: "Has the grand jury returned any indictments?"
She hung up.
I called the main number again, asked for Richard Sanborn's office, was
transferred and got the same female assistant on the phone:
Female assistant: "I told you we have no comment to your question."
CS: "But I have more than one question."
Female Assistant: "And we cannot comment, I have to go."
CS: "Please don't hang up, the duty paralegal said your office was the
only
place to go for a comment. And I understand you can't comment, and I'll
respect that, but I have to get you on the record as saying 'no
comment' to
the questions I have, and not just a blanket answer. I understand you
can't
comment, but will you please allow me to ask the questions, and if your
answer is 'no comment' that's fine, I won't press you, but please let
me ask
the questions so we can understand what you're saying 'no comment' to."
Female assistant: "What's your question, sir?"
CS: "Regarding Patrick Fitzgerald's investigation, has the US Attorney
presented any Indictments to the grand jury for deliberations?"
Female assistant: "No comment."
CS: "Is the grand jury currently deliberating over any indictments?"
Female assistant: "No comment."
CS: "Has the grand jury returned any true bills?"
Female assistant: "No comment."
CS: "Has the grand jury returned any not true bills?"
Female assistant: "No comment."
CS: "Has the grand jury returned any bills of ignoramus?"
Female assistant: "No comment."
CS: "Has your office issued any Indictments?"
Female assistant: "This office has not issued any indictments."
CONCLUSIONS
So there most certainly is an official comment from the US Attorney's
office...if you ask this very limited question. For any other question,
the
official response from the US Attorney's office is, "No comment."
Tom Flocco's story has not been denied by the US Attorney's office.
I sincerely hope that some reporter with a bit more pull than Citizen
Spook
can take this analysis and get Richard Sanborn to comment himself. I
really
don't see the problem. The duty paralegal told me that Sanborn usually
picks
up his phone, but it's obvious that his representatives are now
shielding
him from having to comment directly himself.
Sanborn has been identified in the Chicago Tribune and many other
newspapers
as the "offical spokesperson" in the US Attorney's office for the
Northern
District of Illinois, and for Patrick Fitzgerald.
http://rickx.com/document/ct990404.htm
Federal law does not allow the prosecutor to comment on the grand jury
proceedings. But it would not break any law for Sanborn to say, "No
comment." I find it very strange that he's allowing representatives
from his
office to issue any official statement other than, "no comment". The
very
specific answer his office is giving is only being given to a very
specific
question. Other questions were answered by, "No comment."
So what is it about the question, "Has your office issued any
indictments?",
that legally allows the US Attorney's office to make the comment, "We
have
not issued any indictments," and "No indictments have been issued by
this
office."
Considering Rule 6 of the FRCP, the only possible answer is this:
The official comment by the US Attorney's office does not break the
Federal
secrecy laws since the question presented, as phrased, which did elicit
an
official response, does not concern actions or information involved
with the
grand jury proceedings.
And to all other questions asked of the US Attorney, the official
response
was,
"No comment."
POST SCRIPT
Rule 6(e)(3) may be of interest.
3) Exceptions.
(A) Disclosure of a grand jury matter--other than the grand jury's
deliberations or any grand juror's vote--may be made to:
(i) an attorney for the government for use in performing that attorney's
duty;
(ii) any government personnel--including those of a state, state
subdivision, Indian tribe, or foreign government'--that an attorney for
the
government considers necessary to assist in performing that attorney's
duty
to enforce federal criminal law; or
(iii) a person authorized by 18 USC sec. 3322.
(B) A person to whom information is disclosed under Rule 6(e)(3)(A)(ii)
may
use that information only to assist an attorney for the government in
performing that attorney's duty to enforce federal criminal law. An
attorney
for the government must promptly provide the court that impaneled the
grand
jury with the names of all persons to whom a disclosure has been made,
and
must certify that the attorney has advised those persons of their
obligation
of secrecy under this rule.
(C) An attorney for the government may disclose any grand-jury matter to
another federal grand jury.
(D) An attorney for the government may disclose any grand-jury matter
involving foreign intelligence, counterintelligence (as defined in 50
U.S.C.
sec. 401a), or foreign intelligence information (as defined in Rule
6(e)(3)(D)(iii)) to any federal law enforcement, intelligence,
protective,
immigration, national defense, or national security official to assist
the
official receiving the information in the performance of that official's
duties. An attorney for the government may also disclose any grand jury
matter involving, within the United States or elsewhere, a threat of
attack
or other grave hostile acts of a foreign power or its agent, a threat of
domestic or international sabotage or terrorism, or clandestine
intelligence
gathering activities by an intelligence service or network of a foreign
power or by its agent, to any appropriate Federal, State, State
subdivision,
Indian tribal, or foreign government official, for the purpose of
preventing
or responding to such threat or activities.
DEVELOPING
By Citizen Spook
citizenspook@hotmail.com
PLEASE REPOST and LINK
Citizen Spook is an attorney licensed to practice in the US Federal
Courts.
posted by citizenspook at 7:29 PM
5 Comments:
fooser77 said...
CS, Thank you for your insightful analysis. If I understand you
correctly,
you are basically corraborating Tom Flocco's reporting based on U.S.
"rules
of law." Stating that what he has reported thus far does not violate the
"spirit" of the law, however possibly in minor ignorance of the
"letter" of
that same law.
Speculating beyond towards what "may come", if these indictments
do in
fact materialize "officially", and Cheney is incarcerated and GWB is
forced
to resign, does that make the Speaker of the House (Hastert) the acting
POTUS? And does a special election get called, or what? Since you are an
attorney, I figure you would know these matters better than most
commenting
and viewing thus far.
Also, does the Grand Jury sit in a room under the flag with gold
trim and
braid, and if so, does this make any difference under the Constitution?
From
what I understand, any room or space with the gold trim flag is
territory of
the U.S. vs. the U.S.A. The U.S. does not follow under the rules of the
Constitution (as does the U.S.A.) but under the rules of the U.C.C. and
ultimately the U.N. as a "corporatized" entity of the aforementioned.
Just
trying to get some clarification here as to what we citizens can really
and
honestly expect. Thank you for your time and consideration. Looking
forward
to your response.
P.S. Just curious. I have noticed that you just started your
blog this
past month. What motivated you to begin this blog?
3:20 AM
Zero Haven said...
Thanks so much. Some of us nerds don't know legaleez, so this is
very
helpful.
[if you want a wider layout, drop a line. I had to scroll for
miles to
read the whole post, it's so narrow]
4:50 PM
Wayne said...
This is great, thank you.
I have been collecting some of the documents around this.
http://miawmdwtfw.blogspot.com/
Keep up the good work!
2:46 PM
Truth Diamond said...
"Most recently, we have assembled reports that
plutonium has been delivered to the Mossad
at the Port of Amsterdam that was stolen by the
Russian Mafia from former Soviet nuclear stockpiles
in the Ural Mountains. Along these lines, we also learned
of a detailed report, prepared at Maxwell AFB, which
completely supports Ambassador Wilson´s assessment
of the Niger documents: the uranium did NOT go to Iraq,
but to Israel´s nuclear reactor at Dimona, in the Negev desert:
http://www.supremelaw.org/authors/thomas/pluto.txt
(see also discussion of Amsterdam´s Schipol Airport)
http://www.supremelaw.org/authors/farr/farr.htm
(search for "yellow cake")
Therefore, the Weapons of Mass Destruction are in Israel,
not in Iraq. And, we suspect that low-yield micro nuclear
weapons are being smuggled from there into the USA,
for purposes of political blackmail.
If something falls directly under their jurisdiction,
I also inform the duty officer assigned to me at
the U.S. Marshals in downtown San Diego.
The U.S. Marshals recently intercepted an
attempt to detonate explosives in the Chicago
subway, and they killed 4 suspects in that shootout;
the others were arrested and are now in custody.
We believe those bombs were intended to
disrupt Fitzgerald´s grand jury investigation.
I do not communicate directly with Fitzgerald,
but I am on Sherman Skolnick´s email list,
and we have already received reports that
Skolnick confirms the INDICTMENT.
Skolnick knows a lot of people in Chicago,
so he would be your primary source for confirmation,
one way or the other.
The alleged INDICTMENT is certainly warranted, imho.
We have already notified Alberto Gonzales that he too is
under formal investigation -- on suspicion of child abuse
in connection with the torture at prison Abu Ghraib:
Seymour Hersh has seen photographic evidence of children
being tortured there. Congress has custody of the photos
at the present time.
As a matter of law, lying to Congress about the
Niger "yellow cake" is a felony violation of 18 U.S.C. 1001,
to say nothing of all the treason and racketeering felonies
that were committed during the preparation and execution of 9/11.
The motive for outing Plame appears to be complex, involving
also a desire to prevent any interruptions in the smuggling of
plutonium
to the Mossad from the Russian Mafia. We think Plame´s assignment
was to track fissionable materials in the black market for same."
Sincerely yours,
/s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S.
Private Attorney General, Criminal Investigator and
Federal Witness: 18 U.S.C. 1510, 1512-13, 1964(a)
http://www.supremelaw.org/decs/agency/private.attorney.general.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/index.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/support.policy.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/guidelines.htm
Date: Thu, 4 Aug 2005 10:23:03 EDT
Subject: Re: [coyotehunters] Re: Tom Flocco
groups.yahoo.com/group/TheRevolutionaryCoalition/message/3134
In a message dated 8/4/2005 12:33:45 AM Central Standard Time,
freesia2@... writes:
Carole & group: I am suspicious that there has been a
"convenient"
glitch
(or worse), as Tom Flocco's site was up yesterday. He had sent
me the
info on
the Bush/Cheney indictment before Marci posted it. In the
e-mail, if
you
wanted to read the whole article, you had to click on "Read
more,"
which I did.
It took me to his website, where I read the whole article. Now
the
Still not up. There is a page up now that is showing a brief
note and
saying
check with "whitestar website design.com"..................
Being the
obedient
female, I did, got the phone number and called. A gentleman
named BOB
answered.
Thru my few ignorant questions, I derived that it the site for
Tom is
not
voluntarily down, the Man said his server has been under attack
since
Monday
over the indictment article (in so many words) Stated his
personal
computer has
been hacked into also. They have been working on it 24/7 since
it went
down. Bob
owns this server and quite a few more of the political sites.
Says he
knows who
it is doing it but can't say. Now again some one remind me where
we
live? Land
of the free?
Carole (Texas Proud)
9:12 AM
Rodney said...
Question for you citizen spook,
Is Tony Blair going to be dragged into the USA, and are they
going to have
to investigate the Turkish bribes to Dennis Hastert?
Evidently the whole criminal syndicate is entrenched, so there
must be a
plan with the Grand Juries. That would mean as the Vice President is
forced
out, the scandal involving PNAC will explode and deteriate fast.
What can they do with Fitzgerald's boss? Are they prepared to
get out of
the way if these kooks raise a nuclear attack?
Fitzgerald's new boss is a skull&bones conspiracy whackjob.
I imagine he
won't be too concerned about him, but these people all need to be fought
thoroughly.
-Rodney
12:39 AM