Time: Mon Oct 13 12:34:20 1997
by primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id MAA15961;
Mon, 13 Oct 1997 12:31:50 -0700 (MST)
by usr01.primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id MAA16253;
Mon, 13 Oct 1997 12:28:45 -0700 (MST)
Date: Mon, 13 Oct 1997 12:27:58 -0700
To: (Recipient list suppressed)
From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar]
Subject: SLS: Court undermines starr's findings in foster case (fwd)
<snip>
>
>Subject: COURT UNDERMINES STARR'S FINDINGS IN FOSTER CASE
>
>I suggest this article be emailed to everyone you know
>(in the media and out) that you think would like to know
>the truth about the Starr Report and the Knowlton Insert.
>I would sugget a prime candidate be Steve Labaton of the
>NY Times, among others.
>
>Warm regards,
>Hugh S.
>
>Article is Pasted Below for your convenience:
>
>COURT UNDERMINES STARR'S FINDINGS IN FOSTER CASE
>Adds Addendum by Key Witness Dismissed by Starr
>
>By Cathy Leahy
>
>*Exclusive*
>
>Now that the court for which Whitewater Independent Counsel
>Kenneth W. Starr works has issued his long awaited report on the
>death of former White House Deputy Counsel Vincent W. Foster for
>public consumption, it becomes evident by their actions in the
>last three months that the three judges who appointed Kenneth
>Starr are very displeased with his work.
>
>In addition to the 114 pages that the dominant media is
>reporting, there are a few more. Some twenty more to be exact.
>These pages are the equivalent of a neutron bomb detonated over
>official Washington. In these pages, Starr's case to support his
>suicide-in-the park theory is ripped to shreds. Reed Irvine of
>Accuracy in Media recently wrote that Starr would have egg on his
>face if the judges decided to make these pages part of the report
>but Irvine was wrong. It is more like eggs benedict with
>hashbrowns.
>
>The author of the attachment is John Clarke who is the attorney
>for Ft. Marcy Park grand jury witness, Patrick Knowlton. Knowlton
>was harassed and intimidated, allegedly by government agents,
>when he had the audacity to state that the official version of
>his statements to the FBI about what he saw in the park the day
>Foster was found dead was a pack of lies. His subsequent lawsuit
>against the government for witness tampering notwithstanding,
>here is the dramatic sequence of events as they unfolded after
>Starr announced, on July 15, 1997, that he had filed his suicide
>report with the court:
>
> July 29 - Since under the statute "interested parties" may
> request to comment on the report, Clarke filed a request with
> the panel that is reviewing the Starr report, asking that in
> the interest of fairness and justice his client be allowed to
> comment on the report where his client is mentioned. He
> attached his 400 page case which contains 118 exhibits
> (mostly government documents) as evidence that Foster did not
> commit suicide in Ft. Marcy Park.
>
> August 7 - After reading the Clarke documentation--and one
> can assume they had also read the Starr report--the court
> issued a demand to Starr that he had 5 days (not the usual
> 10) to respond why Knowlton couldn't see those portions of
> the report.
>
> August 14 - Starr answered that Knowlton would be able to see
> those portions, but since Knowlton was not mentioned by name,
> he would not be considered an "interested party."
>
> August 20 (approximately) - Knowlton and Clarke were able to
> review the pertinent portions of the report.
>
> September 23 - Clarke filed a request that the court attach a
> 20 page filing which includes 13 footnotes and 9 pages
> covering 25 exhibits (all from government documents) and
> which contradicts the suicide theory and shows evidence of an
> FBI coverup. The court promptly ordered the attachment.
>
> September 26 - Starr filed a motion to exclude Clarke's
> attachment. Before Clarke even received a copy of the
> motion, the judges denied Starr's motion. They slapped Starr
> down. A stunning defeat for Starr.
>
> September 29 - Starr filed a 9 page motion to reconsider and
> the court slapped him down again.
>
> October 10 - Starr's report on Foster was issued by the court
> (even though they had the option of keeping it secret) with
> the Knowlton attachment against Starr's vigorous objection.
>
>"The judges had the discretion whether to include our evidence,"
>Clarke told the Washington Weekly in an exclusive interview. "It
>is clear that they read our evidence and weighed it against
>Starr's report and didn't find his argument convincing." The
>judges have no statutory power to fire Starr from this
>investigation, only the attorney general can do that. "So they
>used the only way they had vent to their anger. They forced Starr to
>append his own report with Knowlton's. They couldn't have done
>anything worse to Ken Starr's career. They took him to the
>woodshed and gave him a severe lashing. They must be fuming at
>this miscarriage of justice," Clarke said.
>
>It has been three days since this bombshell was dropped, and the
>press is still touting the official line while ignoring the real
>story. Clarke reports that the only contact he has had with the
>mainstream press is when NBC called him Friday afternoon to see
>if he would be available for comment. He has heard nothing since.
>
>"The report is full of changed testimony and manufactured
>evidence and they had the luxury of three years to do it," Clarke
>contends. In the case of Richard Arthur, the paramedic who
>adamantly insisted Foster had a neck wound at the jawline (which
>has since been supported by documentary evidence), Arthur was
>grilled over and over after his original testimony to the FBI
>until he finally admitted that he might possibly be wrong. "The
>Starr report is replete with instances such as this."
>
>Clarke discounts Starr's reliance on forensic pathologist Henry
>Lee who was instrumental in getting O. J. Simpson acquitted.
>"It's outrageous, but it is gratifying to know that the court saw
>through it," he said. Clarke said it is obvious that the panel
>was persuaded that the Starr report was a fraud.
>
>So now what? With the credibility of the Starr report in tatters,
>courtesy of a few brave souls and jurists who haven't been co-
>opted into the coverup, when will justice be served? "It's up to
>congress," replied Clarke. "Aside from our civil suit on the
>witness tampering, Congress is now the only entity that can see
>that justice is done. Congress must have full, open and complete
>public hearings on this subject immediately."
>
>
> Published in the Oct. 13, 1997 issue of The Washington Weekly
> Copyright 1997 The Washington Weekly (http://www.federal.com)
> Reposting permitted with this message intact
> The Washington Weekly is funded exclusively by Internet
> subscribers. If you are not already a subscriber, please
> consider supporting our continued work.
>
<snip>
===========================================================================
Paul Andrew Mitchell, Sui Juris : Counselor at Law, federal witness 01
B.A.: Political Science, UCLA; M.S.: Public Administration, U.C.Irvine 02
tel: (520) 320-1514: machine; fax: (520) 320-1256: 24-hour/day-night 03
email: [address in tool bar] : using Eudora Pro 3.0.3 on 586 CPU 04
website: http://supremelaw.com : visit the Supreme Law Library now 05
ship to: c/o 2509 N. Campbell, #1776 : this is free speech, at its best 06
Tucson, Arizona state : state zone, not the federal zone 07
Postal Zone 85719/tdc : USPS delays first class w/o this 08
_____________________________________: Law is authority in written words 09
As agents of the Most High, we came here to establish justice. We shall 10
not leave, until our mission is accomplished and justice reigns eternal. 11
======================================================================== 12
[This text formatted on-screen in Courier 11, non-proportional spacing.] 13
Return to Table of Contents for
Supreme Law School: E-mail