Time: Thu Aug 07 10:37:09 1997
	by primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id KAA27197;
	Thu, 7 Aug 1997 10:35:45 -0700 (MST)
	by usr10.primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id KAA16660;
	Thu, 7 Aug 1997 10:30:21 -0700 (MST)
Date: Thu, 07 Aug 1997 10:29:19 -0700
To: (Recipient list suppressed)
From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar]
Subject: SLS: ABA pushes for limits on Independent Counsel
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

Dear America,

I am beginning to re-evaluate my position
on Kenneth Starr.  He was once a federal judge,
and the evidence now available to us is that
all federal judges are accepting kick-backs,
in large volumes.  Perhaps we should begin
by demanding discovery of the financial 
disclosure statements which are required of
all federal judges, past and present. 
That would give us some political leverage
against Starr, for kneeling before the NWO.

See the Ethics in Government Act of 1978
for authority: P.L. 95-521, 92 Stat. 1824, 1851.
This Act is reproduced on page 1125 et seq. of West's
"Federal Judicial Procedure and Rules," 1996 edition.
See 5 U.S.C. 101(f)(11), referring to sec. 109(10):
"judicial officer" means ... the judges of the 
United States courts of appeals, United States 
district courts ... and any court created by
Act of Congress, the judges of which are entitled 
to hold office during good behavior ....

/s/ Paul Mitchell

At 01:00 PM 8/7/97 -0400, you wrote:
>Not that what the ABA thinks should matter one way or the other. But we've
>never yet had an Idenpendent Counsel who was truly as Independent as it
>seems. Nor is our current one doing much of anything but spending money,
>stonewalling, and hiding all the dirt under the carpet.
>>At the American Bar Association's annual national meeting under way in
>>San Francisco, Miami lawyer Neal Sonnett and other members are pushing
>>for limits on which political offices can be investigated by the
>>Independent Counsel and for what reasons, as well as eliminating the
>>requirement for a final report.
>>I wonder if Mr. Sonnett is a Friend of Bill
>>Fair use:
>>> American Bar Association votes on proposals to rein in
>>> independent counsel
>>> Copyright  1997 Nando.net
>>> Copyright  1997 The Christian Science Monitor
>>>   ABA declines to take stand on doctor-assisted suicide
>>> WASHINGTON (August 6, 1997 4:15 p.m. EDT) -- When he writes the final
>chapter on one of the most expensive investigations of its
>>> kind in American history, Kenneth Starr may also be closing the book on
>the office of the independent counsel as it exists today.
>>> As the lawyer-helmsman of the three-year, $30 million dollar Whitewater
>probe (with no end in sight), Starr has won only a handful of
>>> relatively minor convictions. So far, he has yet to move against either
>of the principals in his case: the president and the first lady.
>>> Meanwhile, critics are increasingly calling Starr a runaway prosecutor.
>The length and sprawl of the Whitewater probe, which has
>>> expanded far beyond its original mandate to investigate a failed Arkansas
>land deal, may be strengthening resolve across the political
>>> spectrum to amend or abolish the independent counsel statute when it
>comes up for renewal in 1999.
>>> "Counsels have run roughshod over the years," says Miami lawyer Neal
>>> Sonnett and other members of the American Bar Association want to clip
>the counsel's wings. At the ABA's annual national meeting under
>>> way in San Francisco, they are pushing reform proposals that, if
>approved, will be used to lobby Washington to curb the powers of the
>>> independent counsel. They could vote as early as Aug. 6.
>>> The recommendations would put new limits on which political offices can
>be investigated and for what reasons, and eliminate the current
>>> requirement for a final report.
>>> "If you took a poll you'd find a lot of people who are at least cognizant
>that some kind of limitations are needed to make sure the IC doesn't
>>> become a runaway train," says Sonnet, describing Starr as a "poster boy"
>for reform.
>>> The independent counsel statute came in the wake of Watergate to bolster
>public confidence in the ability of the government to impartially
>>> investigate itself - particularly the highest levels of the executive
>branch, including the president. It has always been controversial.
>>> Even Starr argued against reauthorization in the Reagan years.
>>> While Starr's investigation has the highest profile, there are two other
>investigations of the Clinton administration under way. Donald Smaltze
>>> has been investigating former Agriculture Secretary Mike Espy since 1994.
>In 1995, David Barrett was appointed to investigate Henry
>>> Cisneros, then-secretary of the Department of Housing and Urban
>>> According to the General Accounting Office, those investigations in the
>past two years alone have cost more than $36 million. By
>>> eliminating the need for a final report, the ABA believes investigations
>would be shorter, less expensive, and less intrusive, since
>>> investigators would be less preoccupied with publicly proving their
>investigations are balanced.
>>> As with many past independent-counsel investigations, Starr's
>three-year-old probe quickly mushroomed beyond its original mandate to
>>> examine the Clintons' Whitewater land deal in Arkansas. The
>investigation's offshoots include the death of Vincent Foster, the FBI files
>>> flap, and the firing of the White House Travel Office employees.
>>> Most recently, Starr came under fire for questioning witnesses in
>Arkansas about the nature of Bill Clinton's relationships with more than a
>>> dozen women.
>>> A fellow Republican in the Reagan Justice Department, Terry Eastland,
>says there is no need for the independent counsel.
>>> "So much of this is tinkering around the edges and I think we'll continue
>to have problems or objections to the statute," says Mr. Eastland,
>>> who predicted in a book on the subject eight years ago that the statute
>would not be overturned until Republicans had control of Congress
>>> and a Democrat occupied the White House.
>>> Iran-contra prosecutor Lawrence Walsh, who spent seven years and more
>than $40 million examining wrongdoing in the Reagan and Bush
>>> White Houses, says the office is necessary but should be limited.
>>> "The real problem is to define the triggering standard" Walsh says. He
>thinks appointing a counsel "should be related only to misuse of
>>> government or unlawful use of government power in a matter of public
>>> By SKIP THURMAN, The Christian Science Monitor
>To subscribe or unsubscribe, email
>majordomo@majordomo.pobox.com with the message:
>  subscribe ignition-point
>         or
> unsubscribe ignition-point
>  http://ic.net/~celano/ip/

Paul Andrew Mitchell                 : Counselor at Law, federal witness
B.A., Political Science, UCLA;  M.S., Public Administration, U.C. Irvine

tel:     (520) 320-1514: machine; fax: (520) 320-1256: 24-hour/day-night
email:   [address in tool bar]       : using Eudora Pro 3.0.3 on 586 CPU
website: http://www.supremelaw.com   : visit the Supreme Law Library now
ship to: c/o 2509 N. Campbell, #1776 : this is free speech,  at its best
             Tucson, Arizona state   : state zone,  not the federal zone
             Postal Zone 85719/tdc   : USPS delays first class  w/o this

As agents of the Most High, we came here to establish justice.  We shall
not leave, until our mission is accomplished and justice reigns eternal.
[This text formatted on-screen in Courier 11, non-proportional spacing.]


Return to Table of Contents for

Supreme Law School:   E-mail