Leaderboard 728 X 90

Friday, August 3, 2012

Siegelman Resentencing Serves as a Grim Reminder That His Prosecution Was Bogus from the Outset

Don Siegelman

Former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman was resentenced today to serve five years and nine months on top of the time he already has served in federal prison--plus three years of probation, a $50,000 fine, and 500 hours of community service.

All of this for committing what we have termed a "crime that doesn't exist." And that is an accurate statement because U.S. District Judge Mark Fuller did not include the "explicit agreement" language that is required by law to form an illegal quid pro quo in the context of a campaign contribution.

But today's events are disturbing for reasons that go way beyond legal lingo. Lost in all of the reporting about what does or does not constitute bribery in the political realm, is this undisputed fact--the charges against Siegelman and codefendant Richard Scrushy were barred by the applicable statute of limitations.

We have shown in an exhaustive series of posts that Siegelman and Scrushy committed no crime under the "explicit agreement" framework set out in McCormick v. United States, 500 U.S. 257 (1991), which both sides agree is controlling law. But even if the defendants had completed the most flagrant kind of bribery--with an unlawful deal memorialized in writing or tape-recorded conversations--their prosecution still was unlawful.

Why? The government waited too long to bring its case--even with former Siegelman defense attorney Doug Jones helping them by agreeing to extend the statute of limitations.

The undisputed facts are as follows:

* The statute of limitations for a bribery case brought under 18 U.S.C 666 is five years;

* The events constituting the alleged bribery took place in summer 1999;

* The original indictment in the case was dated May 17, 2005;

* The prosecution was late by almost one full year in bringing its case;

* That means the case against Siegelman and Scrushy had to be dismissed as a matter of law.

How could a prosecution proceed when it clearly was untimely? How could this happen?

Well, it happens when the U.S. Department of Justice is politicized as it was under George W. Bush--and as it remains because Barack Obama has refused to clean it up. It also happens when the trial judge is ethically challenged. And Fuller, who has made millions off government contracts from his interest in a company called Doss Aviation, could not have been more pro-prosecution. Here is how we explained it in an earlier post:

So how did prosecutors get away with this? First, they crafted a vague indictment that made it unclear when the alleged events took place. And U.S. District Judge Mark Fuller denied Siegelman's motion for a bill of particulars, which would have forced the prosecution to provide specifics. That probably was the first clear sign that the fix was in on this case.

Today's resentencing was just the latest sign that a fix was in on the Siegelman case. Why are statutes of limitation in place and why are they important? The U.S. Supreme Court explained in a case styled Toussie v. United States, 397 U.S. 112 (1970):

Such a limitation is designed to protect individuals from having to defend themselves against charges when the basic facts may have become obscured by the passage of time, and to minimize the danger of official punishment because of acts in the far-distant past. Such a time limit may also have the salutary effect of encouraging law enforcement officials promptly to investigate suspected criminal activity. For these reasons and others, we have stated before "the principle that criminal limitations statutes are 'to be liberally interpreted in favor of repose,' United States v. Scharton, 285 U. S. 518, 285 U. S. 522 (1932).

Translation: Any close call should go in favor of defendants who face charges that have grown stale. In this case, it wasn't a close call; the government was almost one full year late in bringing charges. Prosecutors in the case not only were corrupt, they were incompetent and lazy. But the Eleventh Circuit refused to follow clear precedent on the issue, claiming defense lawyers did not properly preserve the issue in Siegelman.

If that is the case, the defendants were the victims of grotesque legal malpractice. But it's more likely that they were the victims of a corrupt appellate court that was providing cover for a compromised trial judge. Consider this bizarre statement from the Eleventh Circuit ruling that upheld certain convictions in  Siegelman:

The defendants apparently made a strategic decision not to present a statute of limitations defense at trial. Such a defense would have required them to make an argument to the jury that assumed their guilt on the bribery charges. While defendants are free to make the strategic decision not to do so, they may not later be heard to complain when the claim is held to have been waived.

Why would a statute of limitations (SOL) defense require the defense to admit to guilt on the bribery charge? I have no idea, and the Eleventh Circuit cites no law to support that notion. An SOL defense and any determination of guilt on the bribery charge are separate and distinct issues. Why the appellate panel would link the two is beyond me. It appears to be a sign that the panel had a pre-determined outcome in mind and had to resort to nonsense in order to make it work.

The statute of limitations issue is clearly discussed on pages 57-61 of the Siegelman appellate brief below. Below that, the Eleventh Circuit brushes aside the issue on pages 33-35.

Any citizen who can read those pages and not want to wretch . . . well, a conscience transplant clearly is in order.

Siegelman Appellate Brief--Eleventh Circuit

Siegelman Eleventh Circuit Ruling

36 comments:

Anonymous said...

This just breaks my heart. x

Anonymous said...

DOES ANYONE FIND IT STRANGE:a couple points in his sentencing ??

legalschnauzer said...

What points are you referring to?

Anonymous said...

This is just messed up...Mark Fuller, a drugged up unhappy judge..he doesn't deserve to judge anyone except himself.

I am going to court in Springville Al for failure to MOVE OVER which is apparently a new Law? I was merging onto the ramp from the gas station and a cop was writing a ticket and I merged into the right lane which is the only lane you can merge onto...and the cop took off after me, I was doing 40...pulled me over and called for back up?/???? and wrote me a ticke for failure to Move Over; apparently a law passed in 2010 in FL, AL, GA, the three states with the highest IQ's right? So when I tried to call and pay the ticket I was told I had to come to court and the cost was $350.00.....so shameful. The cop was parked on the side of the road where cars were getting onto the interstate...we had no choice but to be in the right hand lane because we were merging...or at least me, that is. There is no justice or reason to the courts in Alabama for traffic citations, divorces, and apparently judges who are on the take can put you in prison for no reason whatsoever...hope I don't wind up there as I don't have $350. and I COULDNOT MOVE OVER because I was MERGING. I had a 14 year old passenger who has an above average IQ and she could not understand. How was I supposed to know the new law? I got my drivers license in 2003. I asked the cop if he knew if the law was in the drivers manual and he said he didn't know what was on the drivers test...duhhhh. I am sorry to talk about myself but anything, I repeat anything can happen in Alabama...and I don't mean that in a good way. I would like to start a movement to spring Don Seigelman.

Anonymous said...

two

Anonymous said...

two or three.

Anonymous said...

Racket Jackals

Howling at the sun beams
drinking blood dripping the moon isn’t full
nipping tenderest spot heeling in

Racket Jackals darkening our land
as far as sea is to shining
finding victims delicious tasting invitational

Scrumptious yummy shore scores a
case of the mores never
enough hills dales malls and

Wall Street building towers operated
by the Racket Jackal cultists,’ clans,’ mobs
tribal sniffing digit snorting addicts

Beware the virtual credit fraud
sold in the mainstream media as rare
commodities hell bent in austerity

Anonymous said...

Impressive legal team. Proves the system is a cult of corruption.

Anonymous said...

Remember Geronimo Pratt?

Well, Don Siegelman has now joined the league of the best in the U.S.

I cannot see past my rage at this time, there is no excuse for the U.S. of A. to behave worse than communist China and Russia, but here it is, Don Siegelman's and Geronimo Pratt prove the US is corrupt beyond redemption.

jeffrey spruill said...

Why? The government waited too long to bring its case--even with former Siegelman defense attorney Doug Jones helping them by agreeing to extend the statute of limitations.

*

Sounds as if Alabama has its David W. Bouchard,Esq. too.

Anonymous said...

Don Siegelman is not alone. Syria is in the same "hands," so to speak,

". . . UN Vote on Syria Reflects Changing Battlefield, UN Syria Resolution Signals Ebbing Western Legitimacy, Growing Western Aggression, by Tony Cartalucci, globalresearch.ca

August 3 General Assembly UN vote will no doubt be declared by the Western media as a resounding condemnation of Syria and a "universal" call for a "political transition" to install the US State Department's stable of hand-picked and groomed administrative proxies. However, aside from CNN, BBC, and Qatari Al Jazeera's ever-shrinking audiences, few on the planet will be convinced of these headlines.

UN's Last Chance

With the court of global public opinion clearly turning against the machinations of Wall Street and London, now would be a good opportunity for a resolution to be leveled not against Syria, but against the regimes of Saudi Arabia and Qatar who openly admit to funneling weapons and even foreign fighters into Syria. Libya could also be added to that list, with the United States, France, and Britain also cited under the resolution for undermining world peace and pursing an agenda that demonstratively supports international terrorism.

Surely the West could cobble together a majority based on its vast collection of neo-fiefdoms in the General Assembly, but it would yank the last bit of moral high-ground out from under them, forcing them, their policy makers, and the corporate-financier backers to proceed with their Hitlerian campaign in full light as the aggressors - as the villains.

AND

Anonymous said...

AND,

Thierry Meyssan is a frequent contributor to Global Research, globalresearch.ca

. . . The turning point occurred during the 3rd Conference of the “Friends” of the Syrian people in Paris on July 6. President Francois Hollande accorded a place of honor to individuals who had previously been paid in secret while taking care to deny knowing them. He elevated war criminals to the rank of heroes without eliciting the least discomfort among his foreign partners.

Without waiting for al-Qaeda to be invited to yet another conference of the “Friends” of the Syrian people, Sergei Lavrov expressed surprise at this behavior: “This signifies that [the West] will continue to support this kind of terrorist attack until the Security Council fulfills its obligations. It is a terrifying position.” He continued, “We do not know how we are to interpret this.”

Beyond the moral questions, what does this doctrinal turnaround signify in that for over a decade the Western powers have touted themselves as the champions of the “war on terrorism” while today they openly proclaim their support for terrorists?

Many authors, among them U.S. strategists such as Zbignew Brzezinski, have emphasized that the notion of a “war on terrorism” is an absurd concept. One can conduct a war on terrorists but not against their strategy. Be that as it may, the slogan has had the double advantage of placing certain states on the side of Good while justifying a “war without end” against all others.

Terrorism is a method of asymmetrical combat that is always resorted to by default. It permits the weakening of the adversary but it is insufficient to achieve military victory and always leads to political defeat. Those who use it must forgo indefinitely the prospect of actually exercising power. Thus, terrorism is an immoral method that is only used from a position of weakness, not for gaining advantage but for gaining time, until conditions are met to engage in conventional warfare.

Everyone understands that the Syrian crisis is not or is no longer an internal confrontation but is the result of a global readjustment of power relations. Washington is attempting to remodel the Greater Middle East and to change the regional military equation. Moscow challenges that authority and is attempting to usher in a new international order based on international law and on multilateralism. Syria is the line of demarcation between these new blocs.

Hence Sergei Lavrov’s perplexity: Are the Western powers in the process of acknowledging both their immorality and their impotence? What lies hidden behind their behavior? Could it be that their decadence is even more advanced than anyone has dared to conceive?

Geophysics teaches us that plate tectonics provoke earthquakes. Geopolitics functions in the same manner. The public relations experts of the so-called Free Syrian Army erred in evoking this image. Two blocs do confront each other in Syria but it’s the Western plate that is starting to slip and disappear beneath the Asiatic one and not the other way around. Sergei Lavrov considers Washington to be terminally ill. Aware that “empires do not die in their beds,” he is attempting to calm the “American empire” to prevent paroxysms of madness while gently accompanying the patient to his final resting place. He is observing the patient with care. Is the West’s current apologia for terrorism the onset of a crisis of dementia or the sign of irreversible anemia?

Thierry Meyssan, founder and chairman of Voltaire Network and the Axis for Peace Conference. Professor of International Relations at the Centre for Strategic Studies in Damascus. His columns specializing in international relations feature in daily newspapers and weekly magazines in Arabic, Spanish and Russian. His last two books published in English : 9/11 the Big Lie and Pentagate.

Translated from the French by Michele Stoddard

Anonymous said...

Mobbed-up US “justice” system hands down 9/11 injustice
by Dr. Kevin Barrett
August 1, 2012

This following is an extract from Kevin Barrett’s article “Mobbed-up US “justice” system hands down 9/11 injustice”

Sadly, the US federal courts are dominated by the same crime mob. A long series of federal court decisions, including several involving 9/11, have made a mockery of justice, blaming the victims and blessing the perpetrators with a disregard for logic and evidence that makes the courtroom scene in Alice and Wonderland seem a model of judicial probity.

Bollyn.com

Anonymous said...

Why not for Don?!:

Citizen Grand Jury Indicts Feds Over Sept. 11 Attacks

Patriots, Researchers Meet in LA to Plan Strategy Against Elite

By Christopher Bollyn

LOS ANGELES, California—A citizens grand jury has voted to indict high officials in the U.S. government for complicity in the events of 9-11 after considering evidence presented by five researchers. The 6-hour event, “Solving the 9-11 Crime —A Citizens Grand Jury,” was organized by Lynn Pentz of 911truthla.us and held at the Bob Hope Patriotic Hall in Los Angeles during the evening of Saturday, Oct. 23.

© American Free Press 2004

Anonymous said...

Roger, you're "tame" ...

Perhaps the most outrageous traitor posing as a federal judge is Alvin K. Hellerstein. Judge Hellerstein is a notorious asset of the Zionist crime mob that runs New York, which is why he was chosen as the choke point through which most New York 9/11 litigation must pass.

Mobbed-up US “justice” system hands down 9/11 injustice

It has been widely reported that the FBI was run for decades by Jewish mafia boss Meyer Lansky thanks to Lansky's blackmail photos of closet homosexual J. Edgar Hoover in various unflattering poses.

It is less well-known that the Bureau is still controlled - at least at the top - by organized crime. FBI whistleblower Sibel Edmonds has testified that the Bureau is full of mafia moles that enjoy high-level protection. She even implicates the FBI's leadership in the 9/11 cover-up.

. . .

Another traitor posing as a federal judge - a man whose chutzpah rivals that of Hallerstein and Silverstein combined - is Judge John Walker, a cousin of the two former presidents Bush. Judge Walker refused to rescue himself from Pentagon victim April Gallop's case alleging that George W. Bush and his neocon cabinet orchestrated the 9/11 attacks. When Gallop's attorney William Veale pointed out the monumental conflict of interest, Walker and his two co-panelists had the chutzpah to issue punitive sanctions against Veale for “impugning the integrity of a federal judge”!

These are just a few of the many thousands of examples illustrating that the US federal judiciary today operates as an appendage of organized crime, and is guilty of treason against the Constitution of the United States of America. If there were any justice in the USA, the entire federal bench would be hanged by the neck until dead. (But don't worry, there isn't.)

PressTV

Robby Scott Hill said...

Judge Fuller claims the appeal by Siegelman misrepresented what was a simple case of bribery. Yet, Fuller raked in millions from Doss Aviation's contract with the Bush Administration while he presided over the facts of a case that had already been thrown out by another Federal Judge, U.W. Clemon, in the Northern District of Alabama.

legalschnauzer said...

Good point, Rob. Fuller says "this court has no doubt" this was bribery.

Well, the record shows there is no doubt the govt brought the case almost one year too late. So even if it was bribery--and the actual facts and law show it was not--the prosecution was unlawful from the outset.

legalschnauzer said...

Rob:

Are you familiar with the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure? The Eleventh Circuit ruled that Siegelman's attorneys failed to preserve the statute-of-limitations defense, so it was waived. I've researched that issue a bit, and I suspect the 11th Circuit is wrong. In fact, I suspect the 11th Circuit is a glorified organized-crime outfit. But aside from that, doesn't the trial judge have the authority to dismiss a criminal case when it becomes clear it falls outside the SOL? Once evidence showed that the alleged bribery took place in summer 1999, and the indictment came in May 2005, couldn't Fuller, on his own, have called a halt to the proceedings. His failure to do this, and his denial on the request for a bill of particulars, might be the top two signs that the guy is crooked.

On a matter as fundamental as the SOL, it shouldn't be a matter of how the issue was preserved. If evidence showed the govt's case was outside the SOL, it seems the trial judge would have a duty to dismiss the charges on his own.

Anonymous said...

Roger, for your writing on money, drugs, etc.:

. . . Such weapons would force an immediate American withdrawal from its heroin smuggling operation in Afghanistan, [my emphasis added]

LIMITING THE INCOME OF MANY TOP ELECTED OFFICIALS . . . .

Breaking: Bandar Bush – Saudi Intel Chief Believed Dead Now ...
www.veteranstoday.com/.../breaking-bandar-bush-saudi-intel-chief-b...
You +1'd this publicly. Undo
1 day ago – Report From French Sources Have Saudi Intel Chief in Switzerland …by Sources in the Region with Gordon Duff. Bandar Bush has been ...

YouTube - Veterans Today - RE: "Afghanistan and Addiction," etc.

Robby Scott Hill said...

Roger - No, I'm not familiar with the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. I took an elective course on Federal Criminal Law, but it stressed the application of the statutes on appeal & was very light on procedure. Most first year Criminal Law classes at mainstream law schools stress the state level Model Penal Code because that's what appears on the MBE or multiple choice portion of the bar exam. When state bars want you to know criminal law for their essay exam, they want you to know the law of their state & not the federal criminal law. Making matters worse, the Federal Bar normally grants automatic admission to members of state bars. That means most defense lawyers are ignorant of the federal criminal statutes & procedures unless they worked for FBI or DOJ before they opened their defense practice. Because of the huge demand for competent federal defense lawyers, partners at private firms who pull in the big bucks from very lucrative practices have no interest in teaching young associates for fear that they will train their competition & lose the big bucks from their international drug dealer & lobbyist/politician clients.

I went to the Jones School of Law before the era of ABA Accreditation. So, we primarily studied appeals from the old Criminal Code of Alabama because that was what we needed to know to pass the old Alabama Bar Exam. The Legislature adopted a substantially modified version of the Model Penal Code that took effect in 1980 & while we were encouraged to read it on our own time, we didn't spend classroom instruction time on it. As you can imagine, I found most of my law school instruction in criminal law to be useless in the real world. Truly, I've learned more from reading your blog than I ever learned in school.

Robby Scott Hill said...

As for the civil side of the "facade of justice," that is the Federal Courthouse in Montgomery, Alabama, the tendency to appoint magistrates who aren't licensed to practice law in Alabama only adds to the confusion because federal courts frequently decide matters of state law under their diversity jurisdiction, as limited by the Eire Doctrine which requires federal judges to apply state substantive law to settle questions that arise under state law as opposed to federal questions. In other words, half the the lawyers & some of the judges in federal court don't know the proper application of the law that is being argued in the courtroom. A judge not licensed to practice in Alabama who was imported from another state may even be seeing Alabama state law for the FIRST TIME. It's the blind leading the blind & it results in way too many unlawful rulings.

Anonymous said...

LS, I think Don is a "lesson."

In my recent looking, there are the "Protocols of Zion" [see end of this post], and on it goes.

I, myself, was called a "Self-Hating Jew," in these news years of "Protocols."

In discovery, the book, The Wandering Who, by Gilad Atzmon, I discovered the "Jewish" NOT, it is "Zionism," decided "Jews" belong to the "Zionist Protocols."

Don belonged to the "Zion Agenda?"

He is being punished, and allowed to be punished, yet the most powerful lobby in the US is powerless to do something.

My own path, never practiced "Judaism," distant cousin Karl Marx, said it was a "made-up" religion.

Just as his work was wronged, he said cooperation and communication, NOT "communism," so is Don being a "self-hating Jew," sacrificial lamb for the "cause."

Rumor is Netanyahu knew his own brother was to be killed in a "false flag," nothing stands before the cause of "Zionism."

Free Don Siegelman, Posted by the middle on 5/13/2009 in Jewlicious · 6 Comments, Dana Siegelman, 5/14/2009, Hey! Thank you for posting this! Dad is appealing his case for a second time. He is out of prison pending the first appeal, and may have to go back at any moment. I do not know the docket number, but I have asked him for it, so I will post it here when I get it. Thank you again for reminding people about this!

Robby Scott Hill said...

Roger - Judges don't always have absolute authority. They usually have to rule based upon the pleadings & motions given to them by the lawyers. The statute of limitations is an affirmative defense, meaning it must be plead by the defendant, but I think where the defendant & everybody else was aware of his rights under the statute of limitations before trial, but his lawyer managed to talk him out of asserting it, a federal judge should be able to make a "sua sponte" motion that he lacked subject matter jurisdiction due to a Congressional statute, the statute of limitations. Rulings where a court lacked subject matter jurisdiction may be voided in a post trial motion, even years after a prison sentence is completed, allowing a felon to regain all of his rights, including the right to vote & run for political office.

Robby Scott Hill said...

If you think this case is all messed up, just wait until you have time to look at an alleged cased of income tax evasion presided over by a judge & argued by two lead attorneys who have never prepared a tax return. Current IRS policy automatically declares them competent to prepare returns because they have passed their state's bar exam which may or may not include questions on tax issues.

legalschnauzer said...

Rob:

As always, thanks for your insights. This case is filled with signs of bad faith on the prosecution's part. For example, the feds had to know that this alleged deal took place by summer 1999. That's when checks changed hands, the CON appointment was made, etc. The feds could have put those dates in the indictment, but they intentionally made it vague because the dates would have shown the prosecution violated the SOL and was bogus on its face. An honest judge, perhaps someone like U.W. Clemon, would have spotted this and booted it within 24-48 hours, I suspect.

Seems to me this amounts to the kind of fraud on the court that should result in serious sanctions against L Canary, L Franklin and S Feaga.

I wonder if Siegelman lawyers failed to preserve the SOL argument or if the 11th Circuit intentionally misstated that in the opinion. I know from firsthand experience that the 11th Circuit will blatantly lie about simple procedural matters in order to fit their predetermined outcome.

Anonymous said...

Tommy Cryer.

A Louisiana attorney who has fought the IRS for years.

IRS, a racket. Surprise surprise.

Tommy Cryer's case is on the www.

Thankfully he, as an attorney, has provided a very clear stand in the matter of "taxation."

e.a.f. said...

things are obviously not well in the U.S.A. I don't think they have been for some time. They used to interfer with the civil liberties of those who lived outside the U.S.A. by interfering in whatever country it was. They have moved those stategies to the U.S.A.

Some of the new game rules the U.S.A. has implemented as "laws" seem to violate any number of points in the American consitution. At the rate things are going Americans may have to move to other countries if they want to live in freedom, liberty, the right to assemble, free speach, the usual things most western countries have & some non western countries. But then the U.S.A. has the highest rate of incarceration in the world, yup, even more than China & they have more people.

Some body should pack up Lady Liberty & send her back to France because the U.S.A. doesn't deserve her any more. It really is sad, it used to be a great country.

Anonymous said...

Thank you for the insights, Roger. As always, an excellent post! :)

Anonymous said...

e.a.f.

Thank you very much. It is the conclusion that I have just now concluded myself. Have not studied the "Protocols of Zion," before, but Don Siegelman's case started a deep probe into another world I had never ventured into, before 9-1-1.

Another country, right, it would serve "America" just deserts for as many U.S. "sane" citizens to migrate en mass out.

Yes the intent was to take down America, it was about the other countries, too, but all-in-all:

Part 1 – America as an Israeli Colony, by Dr Lasha Darkmoon

Netanyahu: “Once we squeeze all we can out of the United States, it can dry up and blow away"

Indeed, most Americans remain unaware that their country no longer belongs to them. They fervently believe they still live in a democracy. This was a takeover not without precedent, however. It had happened to Germany. It had happened to Russia. It has now happened to America.

Take Germany and Russia. Germany, a mere shadow of what it might have been, is now a defeated and demoralized nation, thoroughly browbeaten by Jewry and terrified of their masters in Israel. Without stretching it too far, one could say that Germany has become Israel’s cash cow.

There is nothing particularly controversial about this observation. It had occurred to Eustace Mullins over twenty years ago:

Netanyahu: “Once we squeeze all we can out of the United States, it ...
www.catholicintl.com/.../775-netanyahu-once-we-squeeze-all-we-can...

Anonymous said...

Look at this research and if you follow it, it continues to uncover layer upon layer, upon layer; every where, in every way, America has been taken over to an extent which is simply amazing!

A Truth Soldier against the NWO bansksters

atruthsoldier.wordpress.com/category/israeli-control-of-america/

. . . This is not an in-depth study, there are many, many more involved – and at all levels of government, business and media -

yet studying even this skeletal report – anyone can tell – something is totally out of whack in the power structure!

Anonymous said...

Roger, your blog has been a primary awakening for me, to where I am in many levels of understanding, now, thank you.

Alabama had best appreciate your genius, you should consider writing to "Cuba" about journalism.

Just a thought.

I've written Fidel Castro and he actually had a poem of mine published. I do not touch your level of great writer.

Thanks again, /rk

Robby Scott Hill said...

That's right e.a.f. In the 1960s, the late US Senator Robert Byrd, a Ku Klux Klansman from West Virginia (who was not satisfied with the amount of information the FBI was sharing with his office), began encouraging the CIA to gather info. on the domestic activities of US Citizens. The CIA managed to infiltrate the FBI & they gave Senator Byrd the very files J. Edgar Hoover had refused to share with him. The CIA generally does a better job spying on people than the FBI. George W. Bush whose father was CIA Director in the 70s, knew this well. W would ask his most experienced CIA agents who were recommended by his father to officially retire from The Agency, but before they retired, he set them up with contractor jobs at AT&T & other private companies where they received huge pay raises to spy on US Citizens while under nominal FBI supervision. One guy told me typical profile of the FBI "supervisor" was a 20 something fresh out of the academy who answered directly to the White House. He would get paid to just sit there and listen to music on his mobile device or look at porn while the "retired" CIA agent was free to do whatever in the name of the FBI.

Anonymous said...

Monday, March 21, 2011
Naming Names: Your Real Government
When dark deeds unfold, point the finger in this direction.
by Tony Cartalucci

@ Land Destroyer Report

... The real revolution will commence when we identify the above equation as the true brokers of power and when we begin systematically removing our dependence on them, and their influence on us from our daily lives. The global corporate-financier oligarchy needs us, we do not need them, independence from them is the key to our freedom.

jeffrey spruill said...

Anon @1:47 PM

I know for a fact that the US federal judiciary works as an appendage of organized crime.

Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson's father was wealthy Richmond,Va. banker.

Richard Holland Sr. father revolutionized the banking industry in Va.

Isn't this rather convenient & TIMELY legislation?

http://bcove.me/xh82za7f

*

That's what dubya was referring to when he said this during his interview with Wilkinson Thursday-July14,2005:

''He thought I was well on my way to busting my knees,'' said Judge Wilkinson, 60. ''He warned me of impending doom.''

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9800E5DC153CF932A15754C0A9639C8B63

jeffrey spruill said...

Judge Wilkinson said he was not asked about his views on issues like abortion or even a particular legal case in his interview with Mr. Bush as well as in interviews with others on the White House staff; he would not say if he had talked to Vice President Dick Cheney.

*

You best believe Wilkinson talked to Vice President Dick Cheney about this:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/12/us/politics/12intel.html?_r=1

e.a.f. said...

to Anonomyous from e.a.f.

I don't think you & I are on the same page. I see a deterioration of American rights imposed by Americans & accepted by Americans. I do not see this as a Zionist plot, more like a corporate plot.

Some of my family are holaucost survivors so I'm a little senstive to the Zionist conspiracy theories.

Americans, in my opinion, have permitted the whole sale, sale of their country, much like the P.M. of Canada, Stephen Harper is currently doing. He is selling bitamen/oil to China. He wants pipelines to go through pristine wilderness & then tankers down our coast, which will destory marine life.

When the U.S.A. started selling their bonds to China, they allowed their country to be purchased. when the U.S.A. permitted foreign entities to purchase the port of Los Angelos, they sold the U.S.A. When the American government uses private companies to do work once done by the American military they are changing the face of how their country operates. The aims of these corporations is often very different than those of the american people & their government.

Spying on American citizens first started as a method of staying in power. Now its to ensure corporations which support politicians stay in business.

The best method of getting the U.S.A. back to its citizens is to first not permit any funding of elections by any corporations or foreigners. Limits need to be set on how much can be spent by the candidate & third party "contributors". What is spent on American elections could be used to solve the poverty in the U.S.A.

The politicians are all owned by someone other than those who voted them into office, to look after American citizens' interests.

We need look no further than the cases brought forward in this blog. Judges who run for office, need caimpaign funds. Judges annointed for life, owe their jobs to a politician. Nowhere does it indicate these judges, prosecutors, government officials owe anything to the American public.

The poverty in the U.S.A. is astounding, yet they have billions to support their favorite candidate. Now if someone will spent a billion to assist in getting some one elected, who do you think he is going to be concerned about, the billionaire or the citizens of the U.S.A.