Vince Foster and Ron Brown conspiracies

[BeAChooser]

Does anyone know how many (if any) juries have been charged with perjury after jury nullification has taken place?

No idea how many. But here are a couple of relevant articles.

http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/zenger/nullification.html

Judicial acceptance of nullification began to wane, however, in the late 1800s.* In 1895, in United States v Sparf, the U. S. Supreme Court voted 7 to 2 to uphold the conviction in a case in which the trial judge refused the defense attorney's request to let the jury know of their nullification power.

Courts recently have been reluctant to encourage jury nullification, and in fact have taken several steps to prevent it.* In most jurisdictions, judges instruct jurors that it is their duty to apply the law as it is given to them, whether they agree with the law or not.* Only in a handful of states are jurors told that they have the power to judge both the facts and the law of the case.* Most judges also will prohibit attorneys from using their closing arguments to directly appeal to jurors to nullify the law.

Recently, several courts have indicated that judges also have the right, when it is brought to their attention by other jurors, to remove (prior to a verdict, of course) from juries any juror who makes clear his or her intention to vote to nullify the law.*

http://ndsn.org/DEC96/KRIHO.html

Colorado Contempt Case Highlights Attack on "Jury Nullification" Power

... snip ...

December 1996

... snip ....

Laura Kriho, a Colorado University researcher, was charged with contempt of court after a May trial in which she was a dissenting juror in a 11-1 vote to find 19-year-old Michelle Brannon, guilty of possession of methamphetamine (State of Colorado v. Brannon). During deliberation, Kriho, who had looked up the possible penalty for the defendant on the Internet, discussed the sentencing implications of a guilty verdict with fellow jurors, and argued that drug cases were best handled by the community and the family, not the courts. One frustrated juror wrote a note to Gilpin County District Court Judge Kenneth Barnhill informing him that a juror had made comments and asking a juror could be replaced, but Barnhill had already dismissed alternate jurors. Judge Barnhill declared a mistrial without an inquiry and dismissed the jury.

Two months after the trial, Barnhill charged Kriho with contempt of court for disregarding his instructions not to discuss Brannon's potential punishment during deliberation. Kriho was also charged with perjury for failing to inform the court during jury selection about her long-held views against drug laws and a 1984 conviction for LSD possession when Kriho was 19, which prosecutors discovered during an investigation of Kriho's background after the mistrial. Deputy District Attorney Jim Stanley accused Kriho of obstructing justice with "widespread deception" about her agenda, revolving around her "firm belief that the drug laws in this country are wrong, and a jury has the right to change them." Stanley called Kriho's behavior "a threat to the foundation of the judicial system that cannot be tolerated."

http://www.americanfreepress.net/html/juror_nullifies_judge.html

Carol Asher, 66, is a former educator and a good Christian. She works as a volunteer assistant to retired Phoenix, Ariz., police officer Jack McLamb and his civil liberties-oriented organization, Police and Military Against the New World Order.

... snip ...

Serving on a jury that was hearing the case of a young man charged in an illegal drug case, she stated that she could not vote to convict because she answered to a higher power than the judge, District Judge John Bradbury.

Three other jurors also voted against a conviction, but they were less forward about their beliefs, and they got off scot-free. Ms. Asher, however, was charged with perjury, a felony.

In Idaho, a law requires jurors to sign, under penalty of perjury, that they will decide a case based on the facts and law as determined solely by the judge. What this accomplishes is to render a jury impotent.

 

[Matthew Best]

I wonder if there are any other crimes on the books where the authorities know that the crime has been committed, and know the names of the perpetrators, but which they have never once bothered to prosecute.

 

[BeAChooser]

I wonder if there are any other crimes on the books where the authorities know that the crime has been committed, and know the names of the perpetrators, but which they have never once bothered to prosecute.

Why don't you start a thread to explore that, Matthew? This one's about Brown and Foster. You have anything you want to add on that topic?

 

[JoeEllison]

I wonder if there are any other crimes on the books where the authorities know that the crime has been committed, and know the names of the perpetrators, but which they have never once bothered to prosecute.

More importantly, how many times has the government spent years and tens of millions of dollars investigating someone, based on deep partisanship, and STILL found that they didn't commit a single crime, and that there was no cause to suspect there were any crimes committed?

Anyone who honestly believes that after the government's complete inability to find evidence of any real crimes, Clinton must still be guilty of something? Those people are mentally ill. There's no other explanation that makes as much sense.

 

[BeAChooser]

and STILL found that they didn't commit a single crime, and that there was no cause to suspect there were any crimes committed? Anyone who honestly believes that after the government's complete inability to find evidence of any real crimes

With statements like that you make debate with you too easy. Because that's not AT ALL accurate. The investigations (of Whitewater, Filegate, Chinagate, CampaignFinanceGate, Emailgate, etc) did indeed find evidence that crimes were committed. Those who ran the investigations, however, only said that they didn't find "sufficient" evidence to charge "a Clinton" and certain others.

And you continue overlook the fact that Clinton controlled the FBI and DOJ (Reno) at the time. Maybe that's the reason they didn't find "sufficient" evidence. If you want to see cause to suspect a crime was committed and proof that the DOJ was corrupt, you need only look at the fact that even though tens of millions of dollars in illegal campaign contributions were confirmed, and hundreds of people took the 5th amendment or fled the country to avoid questioning, the DOJ didn't pursue even ONE allegation against a caucasian member of Clinton's administration or the DNC. And those who they did pursue were all given sweetheart plea agreements and slaps on the wrist. The proof that the DOJ was corrupt is that in investigating the questions surrounding Brown's death, Reno didn't even interview the whistleblowing military photographer and pathologists.

The IOC was also controlled. It completely ignored certain allegations even though they were relevant to the overall question being addressed. It botched investigation after investigation. In the Foster matter, for instance, they had to send in a second special prosecutor to review the suspicious work of the first, and that second did such a poor job that his top investigator quit claiming a coverup. The judges supervising the work ordered the government to attach an addendum to the IOC's report that in fact implicates the IOC and FBI in harassing witnesses, tampering with evidence and ignoring or covering up certain facts. In Filegate, Starr told the public that all the illegally obtained FBI files had been returned. Yet, years later Ray (who took over from Starr) admitted that the files were still in the Whitehouse. And prior to that, no one at the FBI, DOJ or IOC ever disputed the claim of Starr that all the illegally obtained FBI files had been returned. They were all in on it.

In any case, I am confident that readers of this thread can see that you STILL don't want to address the facts that have been noted in this thread about the Brown and Foster investigations. That you are now trying the only means available to keep folks from looking deeper ... throwing out desperate adhominems about my "mental" health. Well you go right ahead and try that tactic, Joe. It won't work. You'll only end up proving your own "deep partisanship".

 

[JoeEllison]

See what I mean? $40 million dollars, a hostile independent council and Congress, and no evidence of any wrongdoing by the Clintons. In fact, the evidence was pretty clearly in favor of the Clintons being victims in the Whitewater scam.

That's reality. They didn't kill anyone, they didn't cover anything up, nothing that you believe happened actually did happen. Sorry, chum.

The problem with conspiracy nutters is that there is nothing that can convince you out of the conspiracy. A lack of evidence means the cover-up was perfect. Any claim that is rejected is "proof" that the rejected claim must really be true. You could claim that Clinton is a three-toed alien sloth, and your claims would be just as well-supported by the facts.

 

[BeAChooser]

a hostile independent council

Again what makes you think Starr (or Fiske) was hostile?

He was the #2 name on a list of possible candidates PROVIDED BY THE CLINTONS. You think they didn't control the #2 name? If you think that, than you are supremely naive.

Starr blew several investigations. More information was discovered about Filegate by a small group of lawyers called Judicial Watch whose only power was to take depositions in civil cases than Starr found with all the resources of the IOC, DOJ and FBI at his disposal. And why did Kenneth Starr publically announce that the FBI files in the Filegate matter had been returned to the FBI when it turned out years later they were still sitting in the Whitehouse? Do you have an answer consistent with your assertion that Starr was "hostile"?

The Foster case is another good example of Starr (and Fiske) blowing an investigation. Like I asked in an earlier post, do you know who Patrick Knowlton is? The three judges who supervised Ken Starr forced Starr to include a twenty page addendum to his report on Foster that was largely made up of Patrick Knowlton's testimony on the harassment he endured for suggesting there was evidence the investigators overlooked. This addendum is the first time in US history that an independent counsel had criminal activity by his own staff attached to his report.

Fiske and Starr both failed to tell the three judge panel and the public about an FBI memo to the Director of the FBI written two days after the death stating that the shot was fired into Foster's mouth without leaving an exit wound, which directly contradicts Starr, Fiske and the official autopsy report (which all concluded there was an exit wound in the back of the head). Can you explain that, if Fiske and Starr were honest and "hostile"?

And when Miquel Rodriguez (Starr's top investigator) got hold of the original photograph of the wound, he had the Smithsonian institution blow it up. The blowups show a dime-sized wound on the right side of Foster’s neck about half way between the chin and the ear. A wound never mentioned by Fiske or Starr or in the official autopsy report. Can you explain that if Fiske and Starr were honest?

As noted earlier, Rodriguez quit in disgust, saying that the IOC was deliberately obstructing an honest investigation and that the investigation was a cover up. That was the opinion of Starr's lead investigator. Yet Starr simply rubberstamped Fiske's findings. Can you explain that, if Starr was truly hostile as you claim?

The original report by Dr. Donald Haut, the only doctor to visit the crime scene, lists the cause of death as a "self-inflicted gunshot wound mouth to neck." Yet according to the official report, Foster blew a 1 by 1¼ inch hole in the upper part of his skull. "There is no other trauma identified that would suggest a circumstance other than suicide," concluded Fiske’s panel of pathologists. Dr. Haut’s report was not included in the documents released by the government. It was discovered in June 1997 at the National Archives by Patrick Knowlton. Starr showed no interest. Can you explain that if Fiske and Starr were even remotely honest?

Four of the rescue workers testified in secret before the Whitewater grand jury that they saw trauma to the side of Foster’s head or neck. This information was submitted to Kenneth Starr in a memorandum from Miquel Rodriguez summing up the proceedings of the Whitewater grand jury. Yet Starr did nothing with it. Can you explain that if Starr was an honest Independent Counsel?

At the FairFax County Morgue, the doctor on duty was Julian Orenstein. In his FBI statement it says he lifted the body in order "to locate and observe the exit wound on the decedent's head." Notice that it doesn't actually say he saw the exit wound ... but you might think he did reading that. But he didn't. Contacted later, he admitted "I never saw one directly." And a copy of the handwritten notes of the FBI interviews, which Christopher Ruddy obtained via a FOIA lawsuit against the Office of the Independent Counsel does not mention Orenstein trying to locate an exit wound. Apparently, that was added to his statement after the fact. Can you explain that if Fiske and Starr were hostile and honest?

Can you explain why the Foster report, blessed by two *supposedly* independent counsels, shows the FBI tampered with evidence ... changing a statement by Lisa Foster that her husband was "fighting" a "prescription" for sleeping pills into the words "fighting depression"? How can you claim either Fiske, Starr or the FBI was honest or "hostile" to Clinton given that FACT?

Starr even blew the Monica investigation, Joe. He had Clinton trapped into likely lying under oath ... but instead told him about the dress. And a case could be made that the only reason Monica's dress (cocaine and all) even came to light is they needed something to take the public's and press' attention off the Brown allegations which were starting to get noticed.

No, Joe ... your claim that the IOC was hostile is proven false by facts like these ... facts which I imagine you will continue to just ignore.

and Congress,

The trial in Congress was a sham and everyone knows it. Read up on what Schippers had to say about that.

and no evidence of any wrongdoing by the Clintons.

If you regurgitate that enough times, do you think it will be true? Or are you just proving what a deeply partisan poster you are?

The problem with conspiracy nutters is that there is nothing that can convince you out of the conspiracy.

Your problem is an inability to actually debate the evidence that's presented. So you try this lame tactic. But isn't working, Joe. You are merely helping me illustrate my point about those defending the Clintons from charges of criminal activity.

 

[JoeEllison]

LOL, I should know better than to argue with someone's paranoid delusions.

 

[BeAChooser]

LOL, I should know better than to argue with someone's paranoid delusions.

Bye bye, Joe. Figured you wouldn't last very long before you ran.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

DEAD HORSE: If you stop flogging me, I've won the argument!

 

[JoeEllison]

DEAD HORSE: If you stop flogging me, I've won the argument!

LOL, that's about the size of it, isn't it? If you present a fundamentally insane position, and people refuse to get caught up in the lunacy, you can consider it a victory? Glancing over this thread, it is obvious that BAC has no grasp of reality at all. The comments that Democrats are somehow a great evil, and at the same time all of the right-wing Republicans are their allies in the conspiracy? I think that pretty much destroys BAC's position, even before getting into the other stupidities he presents as "facts".

 

[BeAChooser]

LOL, that's about the size of it, isn't it? If you present a fundamentally insane position, and people refuse to get caught up in the lunacy, you can consider it a victory? Glancing over this thread, it is obvious that BAC has no grasp of reality at all. The comments that Democrats are somehow a great evil, and at the same time all of the right-wing Republicans are their allies in the conspiracy? I think that pretty much destroys BAC's position, even before getting into the other stupidities he presents as "facts".

Your problem, Joe, is an inability to actually debate the evidence that's presented. So you try this lame tactic. But it isn't working. You are merely helping me illustrate my point about those defending the Clintons from charges of criminal activity.

As to the role of Republicans in this, I suggest you read David Schipper's book "Sell Out". You do know who he is, don't you? But I know you haven't and won't read it, so let me offer this (if not to educate you, then at least those watching your antics on this thread):

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1571/is_1_17/ai_72273372

 

[JoeEllison]

Your problem, Joe, is an inability to actually debate the evidence that's presented.

Since we know that evidence has nothing to do with the paranoid delusions of a conspiracy nutter, debating evidence is a waste of time. The only interest I have is in exploring the specifics of the mental defect that causes people to reject reality in favor of fringe insanity.

 

[BeAChooser]

Since we know that evidence has nothing to do with the paranoid delusions of a conspiracy nutter, debating evidence is a waste of time. The only interest I have is in exploring the specifics of the mental defect that causes people to reject reality in favor of fringe insanity.

Your problem, Joe, is an inability to actually debate the evidence that's presented. So you try this lame tactic. But it isn't working. You are merely helping me illustrate my point about those defending the Clintons from charges of criminal activity.

By the way, are you also claiming that the military photographer and military pathologists who blew the whistle are insane?

 

[JoeEllison]

Your problem, Joe, is an inability to actually debate the evidence that's presented. So you try this lame tactic. But it isn't working. You are merely helping me illustrate my point about those defending the Clintons from charges of criminal activity.

By the way, are you also claiming that the military photographer and military pathologists who blew the whistle are insane?

Are you literally cutting and pasting your own posts? Weird... I'll make a note of it.

How big do you think this conspiracy is, that it somehow covers the entire government, the entire media, both political parties, and only you and your fellow fringe types are clean? It must include tens or hundreds of thousands of people, none of who are willing to reveal their place in the giant conspiracy. There's no way that you, some random guy on the Internet, could be wrong about Bill Clinton... no, there must be a worldwide conspiracy to support Clinton, even going so far as to impeach him, block most of his legislation, and put Bush in the White House to reverse his policies just to keep the conspiracy secret.

 

[BeAChooser]

How big do you think this conspiracy is ... snip ... keep the conspiracy secret.

Your problem, Joe, is an inability to actually debate the evidence that's presented. That's why you don't even try. Once again, thanks for helping me illustrate my point about those defending the Clintons from charges of criminal activity.

And since you brought up the topic of insanity, let me repeat my question. Are you also claiming that the military photographer and military pathologists who blew the whistle are insane? Yes or no? Don't hide from the question like you have all the other facts. Answer it, Joe.

 

[JoeEllison]

Your problem, Joe, is an inability to actually debate the evidence that's presented. That's why you don't even try. Once again, thanks for helping me illustrate my point about those defending the Clintons from charges of criminal activity.

And since you brought up the topic of insanity, let me repeat my question. Are you also claiming that the military photographer and military pathologists who blew the whistle are insane? Yes or no? Don't hide from the question like you have all the other facts. Answer it, Joe.

Here's the thing: if YOU have access to these hypothetical "military photographer and military pathologists" then so did everyone else. So, what you are claiming is that the entire legitimate legal and media communities had access to these people, rejected them, and must therefore be part of this enormous conspiracy of tens or hundreds of thousands of people who covered up for Clinton. Despite the gigantic numbers of people willing to join the Bill Clinton Conspiracy, Clinton needed to break the law instead of just relying on those hundreds of thousands of people.

You realize how enormously retarded your position appears from a common-sense perspective, right? I'm not "in the bag" for Clinton, I just think your claims are effing stupid.

 

[BeAChooser]

Here's the thing: if YOU have access to these hypothetical "military photographer and military pathologists" then so did everyone else.

These aren't hypothetical people. They've been mentioned in article after article and in court documents. They've been interviewed on radio and you even watch them on video. I posted such a video earlier. So why do you even use the word "hypothetical" at this point, Joe? Are you having trouble dealing with the facts?

And by the way, you didn't answer my question. Do you consider them insane? Your obvious effort to avoid answering the question isn't helping your cause. It's only helping me prove what I've been saying about you and those who defend the Clintons.

 

[JoeEllison]

These aren't hypothetical people. They've been mentioned in article after article and in court documents. They've been interviewed on radio and you even watch them on video. I posted such a video earlier. So why do you even use the word "hypothetical" at this point, Joe? Are you having trouble dealing with the facts?

And by the way, you didn't answer my question. Do you consider them insane? Your obvious effort to avoid answering the question isn't helping your cause. It's only helping me prove what I've been saying about you and those who defend the Clintons.

Certainly, no mainstream source considers them credible. Are you claiming that all the mainstream sources are part of the Clinton Conspiracy?

And, frankly, you come off as stupid every time you say that everyone is "defending the Clintons" by not buying into the ridiculous and idiotic theories you present. The Clintons have lots of enemies, but only the retarded ones feel like they have to go to the extreme of unfounded conspiracy theories.

 

[BeAChooser]

Certainly, no mainstream source considers them credible.

It's not a matter of credibility, Joe. The mainstream simply ignored them. That these concerns were voiced by a military photographer and military pathologists is not in question. That the pathologist who initially ruled the cause of death as blunt force trauma LIED is not in question. He himself now admits that he was wrong and there should have been an autopsy. Why are you having sooooo much trouble dealing with the facts, Joe? Could it be the same sort of bias that the mainstream media showed where the Clintons were concerned?

And, frankly, you come off as stupid every time you say that everyone is "defending the Clintons"

Everyone isn't "defending the Clintons". BUT YOU CLEARLY ARE. Although not by actually refuting any of the facts that have been offered. Just by throwing out lame adhominems and pointing vague fingers to suggest someone else debunked the accusations earlier.

Most people are complete unaware of the facts in the death of Ron Brown because the mainstream media didn't report those facts. I posted that thread on the National Geographics and Discovery Channel documentaries as an example why the public is still in the dark. And I notice you stuck your head in the ground on that thread too.

by not buying into the ridiculous and idiotic theories you present. The Clintons have lots of enemies, but only the retarded ones feel like they have to go to the extreme of unfounded conspiracy theories.

Joe, keep up with personal attacks and I'll report you to the moderators. For now, those attacks just show the weakness of your position. Your problem is an inability to actually debate the evidence that's presented. You can't dispute it with source of your own so you throw out adhominems. You need to work on that if you want to impress anyone with your *intelligence*, Joe.