Time: Thu Aug 07 19:35:01 1997
	by primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id TAA13182;
	Thu, 7 Aug 1997 19:07:26 -0700 (MST)
Date: Thu, 7 Aug 1997 22:06:46 -0400
Originator: heritage-l@gate.net
From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar]
To: pmitch@primenet.com
Subject: SLS: ABA pushes for limits on Independent Counsel

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=20
disclosure statements which are required of
all federal judges, past and present.=20
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=20
United States courts of appeals, United States=20
district courts ... and any court created by
Act of Congress, the judges of which are entitled=20
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 =A9 1997 Nando.net
>>> Copyright =A9 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=
>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=
>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=
>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=
>>> 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=
>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