 |
SwiftVets.com
Service to Country
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
dusty
Admiral
Joined: 27 Aug 2004
Posts: 1264
Location: East Texas
|
 Posted: Thu Jul 13, 2006 7:49 pm Post subject: Valerie Plame suing Cheney and Rove |
 |
|
Now this ought to be interesting to watch play out.
Joe Wilson and his wife have just become the top dogs on my list of complete idiots.
They were already pretty high up there but this sent them to the very top.
Just saw it on Fox News.
Dusty
_________________
Left and Wrong are the opposite of Right! |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
homesteader
PO3
Joined: 17 Sep 2004
Posts: 294
Location: wisconsin
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 13, 2006 8:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Just finished Ann Coulters' "Godless". She has a great section about these two and their enablers. They do not know when to quit, even when it is going to cause them more embarrasment. (They do not have enough moral consciousness to be embarrased about anything). As stated above "this is going to be interesting". My guess it is also going to be entertaining and amusing. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
shawa
CNO
Joined: 03 Sep 2004
Posts: 2004
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 13, 2006 8:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Here is the press release from their lawyer.(posted by a commenter at Strata Sphere)
I agree these two are idiots! I think this is a ploy to stay in the public eye until Val's book comes out. Prosecutor Fitzgerald's case against Libby appears to be crumbling and could be dismissed, so they hope to generate publicity for the book.
I certainly cannot see any basis for their lawsuit. Novak says his source for her name was Joe Wilson's listing in Who's Who.
| Quote: | WASHINGTON, Jul 13, 2006 (BUSINESS WIRE) — Valerie Plame Wilson, Ambassador Joseph Wilson and their counsel, Christopher Wolf of Proskauer Rose LLP, will hold a news conference at 10 AM EDT on Friday, July 14 at 10:00 AM at the National Press Club, 529 14th St. NW, 13th Floor, Washington, DC 20045, to announce the filing of a civil lawsuit against I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby, Vice-President Richard Cheney and Karl Rove.
WHO:
Valerie Plame Wilson
Ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV
Christopher Wolf, Esq.
WHAT:
News conference to announce filing of civil lawsuit
WHEN:
Friday, July 14, 2006
10:00 AM
WHERE:
National Press Club
529 14th St. NW, 13th Floor
Washington, DC 20045
ADDITIONAL CONTACT FOR INTERVIEW FOLLOWING PRESS CONFERENCE:
Constitutional law scholar Erwin Chemerinsky, who is Of Counsel in the Wilson lawsuit, will be available for interviews following the news conference at (323) 931-8612 or by leaving a message at (919) 613-7173.
For any technical or logistical questions about the news conference, contact George Arfken at the National Press Club, (202) 662-7597.
SOURCE: Proskauer Rose LLP
National Press Club
George Arfken, 202-662-7597
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Left by MerlinOS2 on July 13th, 2006
LOL! |
_________________
“I love the man that can smile in trouble, that can gather strength from distress, and grow brave by reflection. ‘Tis the business of little minds to shrink; but he whose heart is firm, and whose conscience approves his conduct, will pursue his principles unto death.” (Thomas Paine, 1776) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
noyesj
Seaman Apprentice
Joined: 20 May 2004
Posts: 77
Location: n w washington (that is the state)
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 13, 2006 8:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
\ I am waiting for wilson to be put under oath and see if he can still spin
his lies as well as he can in the media. 
_________________
noyesj USAF 1953-1959 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
LewWaters
Admin
Joined: 18 May 2004
Posts: 4042
Location: Washington State
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 14, 2006 2:04 am Post subject: |
|
|
Some people just don't know when to leave well enough alone. I hope they go through with this lawsuit and everything comes out publicly before it is dismissed.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
GenrXr
Master Chief Petty Officer of the Navy
Joined: 05 Aug 2004
Posts: 1720
Location: Houston
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 14, 2006 2:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
These shallow people need something to talk about at their dinner parties. Nothing more then that.
_________________
"An activist is the person who cleans up the water, not the one claiming its dirty."
"All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to stand by and do nothing." Edmund Burke (1729-1797), Founder of Conservative Philosophy |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
shawa
CNO
Joined: 03 Sep 2004
Posts: 2004
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 14, 2006 12:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Lew Waters said
| Quote: | | Some people just don't know when to leave well enough alone. I hope they go through with this lawsuit and everything comes out publicly before it is dismissed. |
I would love to see the defense uncover Joe Wilson's past, and if his consulting company represented French mining interests. Just what were Joe's previous trips to Niger all about?
This article from last November speculates on Wilson's connections and the plan to bring down President Bush. (emphasis mine)
| Quote: | Joseph Wilson IV: The French Connection
November 7th, 2005
By James Lewis
There are an amazing number of French fingerprints all over the Plame-Wilson affair. While it is not easy to penetrate the dark fog of lies, there is a highly consistent pattern pointing to French government involvement with a Watergate-style assault on the American Presidency, fronted by Ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV.
In 2002 French intelligence forged the notorious document claiming that Saddam tried to obtain Niger uranium. The Italian middle man, Rocco Martino, later confessed to French involvement in open court. Rocco Martino might sound like a small-time mafia hood from the Sopranos. Actually, he works at times for Italian military intelligence. The truth about the French connection came out when Martino confessed in court that the French had given him the forged document to peddle to various intelligence agencies. The Italians and French have had a furious war of words ever since then about who was responsible for the forgery.
The FBI just leaked a claim that Rocco did it just for the money. That is very doubtful. The French naturally deny any responsibility, but the forged document was dropped on the public at exactly the time that Dominique de Villepin, then Foreign Minister, was in New York trying to make Colin Powell believe that France was prepared to help overthrow Saddam. The French forgery was a stink bomb, designed to be exposed in public as soon as Colin Powell publicly accepted it.
At the very same time the Niger forgery showed up, France’s Foreign Minister, Dominique de Villepin, was sand bagging Secretary Powell at the UN by pretending to support American efforts against Saddam – even as he got ready to pull out the rug in a surprise press conference. Reporter Kenneth Timmerman told Brit Hume for FoxNews that:
“Our administration thought that the French were with us, that French had dispatched their top general to Centcom, Chirac had promised the president (to support the United States against Saddam). Villepin the foreign minister had promised Powell. They said they were with us, and they weren’t. ...”
“So then de Villepin goes outside at noontime. ... Powell is actually watching Fox News… as de Villepin goes on TV … And that’s when he announces to the world that France will never ever support the use of force against Saddam Hussein. ... Powell’s jaw dropped to the floor….”
It was a carefully planned ambush. Timmerman summed it up by saying that
“Chirac lied to the president of the United States, and then he ordered his Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin to do the same thing with Colin Powell.”
And then, they pulled the plug.
De Villepin’s ambush triggered a giant anti-American firestorm in Europe and around the world. Germans, French, Brits and Swedes were foaming at the mouth for months and months. France was therefore extremely successful in discrediting American policy against Saddam.
But that was not enough, because Saddam was quickly knocked over by the US-led coalition forces. Somehow the media fires had to be kept alive. The “Bush lied us into war” slogan had to be kept going in the minds of the public.
Enter our hero, Joseph C. Wilson, from stage left. The French forgery about Niger led straight to Wilson’s bogus trip to Africa. Wilson supposedly went there to find out the truth for the CIA. But every government involved already knew the truth about the bogus document, because it showed incorrect names of Niger officials. A single telephone call to Niger would have established that fact.
The reason why Wilson had to travel to Niger in person to “investigate,” while drinking mint tea with his uranium mining friends, was to establish his bona fides – to make him an instant “expert witness” on Saddam’s dealings with Niger. Did French intelligence urge Wilson to make his trip and enlist his wife Valerie to propose him? Without that trip, Joseph C. Wilson had no special claim to any expertise about Saddam’s weapons. It was Valerie Plame who was the CIA WMD expert, but it was Wilson who became the front man.
Notice that the modus operandi for the Wilson trip was much the same as for the Niger forgery: a classic con game. Find a sucker, tell him what he wants to hear, and use that credulous embrance by the mark to destroy your enemy. In the first case the sucker was Colin Powell. In the second case it was the New York Times Op-Ed page. In both cases the enemy to be shafted was George W. Bush and the administration. This is how disinformation is supposed to work.
Joseph Wilson had intimate French connections for many years before his mint tea-sipping journey to Niger. In fact, he met his first wife at the French Embassy in Washington. His second wife, Jacqueline, to whom he was still married when he took up with Valerie Plame, was a former French diplomat. There is even a report that she was a “cultural attaché” in Francophone Africa, a post often used as cover for intelligence operatives, though this remains quite a murky point, as tradecraft suggests it should.
Today Wilson claims to be a business agent for “African mining companies.” But Niger’s mines are owned by a French consortium, which operates cheek-by-jowl with the Quai d’Orsay. Niger itself is a semi-colony of France. No uranium sales go on there without the full knowledge and consent of the French government. Valerie Plame was quoted in a CIA memo as saying that “my husband has good relations with both the PM [prime minister] and the former Minister of Mines (not to mention lots of French contacts)...” Lots of French contacts, indeed.
Wilson exploded into public view, and spent two years barnstorming around the country, giving outraged speeches to publicize the idea that he had found the smoking gun to prove Bush had lied. Moveon.org and their friends were happy to believe him.
Wilson was interviewed on PBS and NPR, and wrote a book, now thoroughly discredited, to push his anti-Bush agenda. In the process he told so many lies that he lost track of them himself. But that made no difference. The media and the Left leaped on the story like manna from heaven; or, possibly, like fine champagne from France.
Well, hypothetically just suppose for a moment that Wilson’s strings are being pulled by the French. What motivates the French government? They have been very clear about that.
Jacques Chirac and his close ally Dominique de Villepin have long proclaimed France to be the strategic enemy of American power. Paris openly yearns to lead the European Union to superpower status, in order to undermine American “hegemony,” and above all for the eternal grandeur of la belle France. De Villepin has written books vilifying the United States; he is an open French imperialist, who conceives of himself as a world-historic figure in the mold of his personal heroes Napoleon and Niccolo Machiavelli.
France’s short-term aim for the Niger forgery was to block US actions against Saddam Hussein, or at least to discredit America in the run-up to the Iraq war. The long-term strategic purpose was to drive a wedge between the US and Europe, so that the European Union – guided by France – could be persuaded to revolt against fifty years of US leadership of the West.
This strategy succeeded, but not completely. The American action in Iraq provoked massive public fury in Europe, whipped up by the government-owned media and the Left. It caused a rift in public opinion that continues today. Had Tony Blair not gone along with President Bush against Saddam, the EU might now be going on its separate way, aiming for world domination, just as de Villepin has fervently advocated. If the EU Constitution had been approved, as the media confidently predicted it would be, Jacques Chirac might now be running to be the first president of Europe.
For decades France has conducted major industrial espionage in the United States. Having Wilson as a source on Clinton’s National Security Council would be an obvious boon for that purpose. Had John Kerry won the 2004 election, Wilson might now be back in the White House, perhaps helping his good friends abroad. He was therefore a very good prospect for French intelligence to cultivate, especially given the lax security standards of the Clinton years. And if Wilson and Plame do succeed in bringing down George W. Bush, Chirac and de Villepin would be overjoyed.
French hatred of American power is the reason why France pressured Turkey (anxious to enter the EU) to block the US IV Infantry Division from crossing Iraq’s northern border to help knock over Saddam Hussein. Had the IV ID hit Saddam from the North while Tommy Franks attacked from the South, the current Iraqi insurrection might have been crushed even before it got started, the Baathist hardcore unable to flee north to the Sunni Triangle and entrench itself among the small percentage of Iraqis who benefited from Saddam’s rule. The original plan envisioned just such a pincer movement. We therefore owe many of our 2,000 soldiers’ deaths to deliberate and malicious French sabotage, with thanks to Dominique de Villepin and Jacques Chirac.
There is every reason to believe that France desperately wants this White House to be weakened or overthrown. They would be happy with Hillary Clinton or any other Democrat as president, because the Euro-socialist, non-interventionist base of that party is compatible with French policies and strategies. European emphasis on the United Nations as the forum for handling international conflicts plays to France’s strongest asset in world affairs, its veto-wielding Security Council seat, and its large number of Francophone former colonies, each with a vote in the General Assembly. A strong America wielding its mighty military force is de Villepin’s worst nightmare.
What about France and Wilson? While we do not know all the facts, there is no question that Joseph Wilson has acted precisely as we might expect from an agent provocateur. He worked fervently to undermine the Bush White House with plainly false accusations, putting the Niger forgery to very good use. Joe Wilson calls himself a business agent for unnamed “African mining companies.” We can reasonably guess that he made those contacts during his several postings in Francophone West Africa, possibly when he was Ambassador to Gabon, another former French colony, at the culmination of his State Department career.
Wilson claims credit for persuading Bill Clinton to make a heavily hyped trip to French Africa, tossing millions of US aid dollars to the local dictatorships, including, possibly, some of Wilson’s friends. So Wilson apparently works as a consultant for French-owned mining companies in Africa, which would allow him to be openly paid by those companies. None of this makes for a smoking gun, but it is certainly, at minimum, an interesting coincidence that a man with such extensive and intimate French connections should be conducting a ferocious nationwide crusade against the President of the United States, who also happens to be hated by the French government.
Was Wilson acting on his own in planting the Times Op-Ed? Were Valerie Plame and her friends at CIA pulling strings? Or was it other Democrats? There is plenty of evidence for CIA backing of Wilson and Plame, as many have previously noted. There may be nothing more to it than a failed CIA WMD intelligence group covering itself with a manufactured diversionary scandal.
But for someone with Wilson’s ego, simple flattery by the “sophisticated” French might be a powerful tool of manipulation. He has all the appearance of a wounded narcissist, someone who needs the attention of the world to make up for his inner deficiencies. When the Soviet KGB ran agents all over the Western world they rarely bothered to pay them. They were “idealists” whose vanity could be easily manipulated.
Is all that tangled enough for you? Keep in mind that the whole affair may be a classic disinformation campaign, run by the pros who make their living doing just that. Just as Watergate showed how Mark Felt learned how to make damaging leaks from J. Edgar Hoover, the modus operandi of the Plame-Wilson affair reflects professional intelligence methods.
For now, there are only questions, not answers. Maybe someone with the power to subpoena and compel testimony under oath ought to be investigating. Whoever is guiding Joseph C. Wilson IV seems to specialize in dangerous intrigue. We have not seen the end of them yet.
James Lewis is a frequent contributor. |
http://www.americanthinker.com/articles.php?article_id=4970
_________________
“I love the man that can smile in trouble, that can gather strength from distress, and grow brave by reflection. ‘Tis the business of little minds to shrink; but he whose heart is firm, and whose conscience approves his conduct, will pursue his principles unto death.” (Thomas Paine, 1776) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Schadow
Vice Admiral
Joined: 30 Sep 2004
Posts: 936
Location: Huntsville, Alabama
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 14, 2006 7:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| shawa wrote: | Here is the press release from their lawyer.(posted by a commenter at Strata Sphere)
I agree these two are idiots! I think this is a ploy to stay in the public eye until Val's book comes out. Prosecutor Fitzgerald's case against Libby appears to be crumbling and could be dismissed, so they hope to generate publicity for the book.
I certainly cannot see any basis for their lawsuit. Novak says his source for her name was Joe Wilson's listing in Who's Who.
| Quote: | (snipping and emphasis by Schadow) WASHINGTON, Jul 13, 2006 (BUSINESS WIRE) — Valerie Plame Wilson, Ambassador Joseph Wilson and their counsel, Christopher Wolf of Proskauer Rose LLP, will hold a news conference .....
<snip>
ADDITIONAL CONTACT FOR INTERVIEW FOLLOWING PRESS CONFERENCE:
Constitutional law scholar Erwin Chemerinsky, who is Of Counsel in the Wilson lawsuit, will be available for interviews following the news conference at (323) 931-8612 or by leaving a message at (919) 613-7173.
<snip>
|
|
I have no clue who Christopher Wolf is but the real counsel in this case will be Chemerinski, of Duke Law School, a radical leftie who has testified before Conyers' mock impeachment hearing against Bush, pleaded with Senate Judiciary to deny Alito's Supreme Court nomination, and who is a virulent opponent of Presidential powers.
Chermerinski is a rattlesnake and, possibly from under a rock, will guide and influence this trial. He wouldn't be involved in this if it were merely a laugher.
Schadow
_________________
Capt, 8th U.S. Army, Korea '53 - '54 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Anker-Klanker
Admiral
Joined: 04 Sep 2004
Posts: 1033
Location: Richardson, TX
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 14, 2006 8:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I can't see how they could possibly have a case at all, but I note that good ole MSM is all over it already, and will undoubtedly hype it further in the weeks ahead. To me, this is the very essence of pseudo-news. Consider:
I'll maintain there was never a case for prosecution for outing a covert CIA agent from the get-go. Never, ever. So why has it persisted all this time? Because the MSM, doing their duty for the BDS crowd, made a story out of nothing - they created a strawman, then pounded and pounded the drums until "everyone" was convinced that there was really something to it. (Actually, this is also how Cindy Sheehan was "created" initially, too, if you examine her emergence into the spotlight carefully.) It's pseudo-news at its best/worst.
MSM's smokescreen is helped immeasureably by the confusion in all the terminology involved in this. For example, I'm reasonably sure that the CIA "classifies" it's roster/telephone book since they don't want to provide a ready-made listing of all its employees. Heck, even big corporations do this. So Valerie Plame Wilson's name being listed as a CIA employee is undoubtedly "classified," which is a long, long, long shot from being "covert." But if you notice most of the press releases lately, including the text of the law suit, it only refers to her as a "classified" employee. Most people, reading this stuff, don't know enough to distinguish the difference, and since the Left howled so long about her being "covert", in most people's minds "classified" automatically translates to "covert." And that's just an example of the deliberate misrepresentation that MSM takes advantage of to spin the Hate-Bush agenda. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SBD
Admiral
Joined: 19 Aug 2004
Posts: 1022
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 15, 2006 12:12 am Post subject: |
|
|
The case will be dismissed as it falls under the CSRA!!
| Quote: |
Before WILKINSON, Chief Judge, and WILKINS and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Judge Wilkins wrote the opinion, in which Chief Judge Wilkinson and Judge Motz joined.
OPINIONBY: WILKINS
OPINION:
WILKINS, Circuit Judge:
Sheryl L. Hall appeals a district court order dismissing her claims under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388, 29 L. Ed. 2d 619, 91 S. Ct. 1999 (1971), and 42 U.S.C.A. § 1985(1) (West 1994), as being precluded [**2] by the Civil Service Reform Act (CSRA) of 1978, Pub. L. No. 95-454, 92 Stat. 1111 (codified as amended in scattered sections of 5 U.S.C.A.). Because the CSRA constitutes the exclusive remedy for claims arising out of federal employment, we affirm.
Hall maintains that the district court erred in dismissing her Fifth Amendment Bivens claim against Scott, Tayman, and Vaden as being precluded by the CSRA. We disagree.
A Bivens action is a judicially created damages remedy designed to vindicate violations of constitutional rights by federal actors. See Bivens, 403 U.S. at 395-97. In order for a Bivens remedy to be available, a court must determine that (1) Congress has not already provided an exclusive statutory remedy; (2) there are no "special factors counselling hesitation in the absence of affirmative action by Congress"; and (3) there is no "explicit congressional declaration" that money damages not be awarded. [**6] Id. at 396-97; see Schweiker v. Chilicky, 487 U.S. 412, 423, 101 L. Ed. 2d 370, 108 S. Ct. 2460 (1988). The "special factors" concept "includes an appropriate judicial deference to indications that congressional inaction has not been inadvertent." Schweiker, 487 U.S. at 423.
The CSRA "comprehensively overhauled the civil service system," creating a "framework for evaluating adverse personnel actions against [federal employees]." Lindahl v. Office of Pers. Mgmt., 470 U.S. 768, 773-74, 84 L. Ed. 2d 674, 105 S. Ct. 1620 (1985). "It prescribes in great detail the protections and remedies applicable to such action, including the availability of administrative and judicial review." United States v. Fausto, 484 U.S. 439, 443, 98 L. Ed. 2d 830, 108 S. Ct. 668 (1988). A primary purpose of enacting the CSRA was "to replace the haphazard arrangements for administrative and judicial review of personnel action" that existed [*205] prior to the CSRA. Id. at 444. When the CSRA was enacted, the perception was that the existing appeals process was so lengthy and complicated that federal supervisors were [**7] discouraged from taking legitimate adverse personnel actions. See id. at 445. Further, because multiple jurisdictions had concurrent jurisdiction over actions challenging personnel decisions, there was a wide variation in decisions regarding the same or similar matters. See id. Accordingly, the CSRA was designed to eliminate this problem as well.
The Supreme Court examined the availability of a Bivens action in a federal employment context in Bush v. Lucas, 462 U.S. 367, 76 L. Ed. 2d 648, 103 S. Ct. 2404 (1983). In Bush, the Supreme Court determined that federal employment constituted a "special factor" warranting refusal to recognize a First Amendment Bivens claim asserted by a federal employee. See Bush, 462 U.S. at 378-80; Zimbelman v. Savage, 228 F.3d 367, 370 (4th Cir. 2000). This court recently decided a similar case, the facts of which are closely analogous to the case at bar. In Zimbelman, two employees were fired from their jobs with the Air Force under suspicion of having committed various acts of misconduct, including theft and fraud. See Zimbelman, 228 F.3d at 369. [**8] The employees brought suit against their supervisors and the Air Force investigators who had conducted the investigation into their misconduct, asserting several constitutional claims, including one under Bivens for a violation of their Fifth Amendment right to preserve their reputations. See id. at 370. This court affirmed the dismissal of the Bivens claims, concluding that they "indisputably arose from a federal employment relationship."
Hall contends that the CSRA does not preclude her Bivens action because although the CSRA provides for administrative or judicial review of the action taken against her, her Bivens claim is not against her supervisor. Hall's argument is without merit, however. The salient fact here is that the wrongful acts Hall alleges were taken against her arose out of her federal employment relationship. Because they did arise out of her federal employment, Bush and Zimbelman dictate that Hall's claim is precluded. That the CSRA does not provide the remedy that she would prefer is of no moment. See Bush, 462 U.S. at 388-90 (refusing to allow a Bivens action even though "existing remedies [did] [**9] not provide complete relief"); Zimbelman, 228 F.3d at 370-71 (holding that plaintiffs were not released from the exclusive remedial framework of the CSRA when their claims arose from their federal employment even though the CSRA provided plaintiffs with no remedy); cf. Lombardi v. Small Bus. Admin., 889 F.2d 959, 961 (10th Cir. 1989) (holding that plaintiff's claims were precluded by CSRA because actions complained of arose from federal employment relationship even though many of the alleged violations occurred after the employment relationship was terminated); Gleason v. Malcom, 718 F.2d 1044, 1048 (11th Cir. 1983) (per curiam) (holding that claims by federal employee were barred under Bush even though one claim was against coworkers because "the purpose of denying a private cause of action to federal employees is to ensure that they do not bypass comprehensive and carefully balanced statutory and administrative remedies in order to seek direct judicial relief"). Accordingly, the district court correctly dismissed Hall's Bivens claim. |
SBD |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
docford
Lt.Jg.
Joined: 11 Aug 2004
Posts: 149
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 15, 2006 1:09 am Post subject: |
|
|
The case will fail, but not because it falls under the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978. That law deals with adverse employment actions against federal civil servants, and with representation by labor organizations. The controlling principle is sovereign immunity, and whether Rove and Cheney, assuming all the facts and allegations are true, were acting within the scope of their official capacity at the time the revelations were made. The courts, especially the DC Circuit and the 4th Circuit, have been very "official friendly" in their rulings in these cases.
_________________
Doc Ford
HMC (SW) USN |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Anker-Klanker
Admiral
Joined: 04 Sep 2004
Posts: 1033
Location: Richardson, TX
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 15, 2006 1:16 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | The courts, especially the DC Circuit and the 4th Circuit, have been very "official friendly" in their rulings in these cases. |
Which raises an interesting question. Just what court would a case like this be referred to, assuming that it isn't dismissed? It's only a civil suit, isn't it? Would this be the same kind of District of Columbia jury that acquitted Cynthia McKinney? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Schadow
Vice Admiral
Joined: 30 Sep 2004
Posts: 936
Location: Huntsville, Alabama
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 15, 2006 1:27 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Anker-Klanker wrote: | | ...... Would this be the same kind of District of Columbia jury that acquitted Cynthia McKinney? |
Good grief, Anker, you sure know how to ruin a fellow's evening. However, I think it was a DC grand jury that returned a 'no bill' on Mckinney. Any level of jury in DC would be a nightmare.
I'm trying to remember what level of jury dealt with Paula Jones vs. Clinton in Arkansas.
Schadow
_________________
Capt, 8th U.S. Army, Korea '53 - '54 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tom2
Seaman Recruit
Joined: 17 Jun 2006
Posts: 11
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 15, 2006 1:47 am Post subject: |
|
|
Yebbut this may not be their day. These crumbs have drawn a very interesting judge. I spotted this at Chronwatch where it was sourced at Captains Quarters. Essentially it cites Judge John D. Bates as perhaps the unluckiest characteristic possible for their case. harhar
_________________
'58 Airedale |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
docford
Lt.Jg.
Joined: 11 Aug 2004
Posts: 149
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
