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)

>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:
>Adds Addendum by Key Witness Dismissed by Starr
>By Cathy Leahy
>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
>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.

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