Time: Fri Dec 12 17:22:43 1997
To:
From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar]
Subject: SLS: Brown And Coverups ... (fwd)
Cc:
Bcc: sls
References:
<snip>
>
> RON BROWN REDUX
> Was A Bullet Hole Found In His Head?
>
>By Edward Zehr
>
>
>Here we go again folks. After spending virtually the entire year
>muckraking, I was about to do a piece on global warming when
>Chris Ruddy weighed in with an expose of yet another bungled
>investigation.
>
>Ruddy's story is about the April 3, 1996, crash of an Air Force
>jet carrying Commerce Secretary Ron Brown and 34 others,
>including 14 business executives on a trade mission to Croatia,
>as it approached Dubrovnik airport. Brown and the others were
>killed in the crash. The Air Force issued a massive 22-volume
>report in June of the same year that "confirmed" their initial
>surmise that the crash resulted from pilot error and faulty
>navigation equipment. Ruddy has never been one to bury his lead,
>so I will just quote the opening sentence in his article that
>appeared last Wednesday in the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review:
>
> "A circular hole in the skull of Commerce Secretary Ron Brown
> could have been a gunshot wound and certainly should have
> prompted an autopsy, according to an Air Force lieutenant
> colonel and forensic pathologist who investigated the jet
> crash in which Brown died."
>
>That, as Bill Buckley would say, is the gravamen of the
>complaint. Because the responsible authorities failed in their
>duty to conduct a thorough investigation and resolve the issue at
>the proper time, questions of a highly scandalous nature are now
>being raised, and it is altogether proper that they should be.
>
>
>Needless to say, the bloviated gasbags who represent themselves
>as a "free press" in this country will attempt to blame
>everything on the messenger who brings the bad news. In truth,
>the blame rests heavily on their own shoulders. For decades they
>have been able to suppress such information and get away with it,
>but now their power to manipulate the minds of the public is
>slipping away from them, due to recent advances in information
>technology, and they don't like it one little bit. On Thursday
>evening ABC "News" carried a TV special on the scandals of the
>Kennedy administration. Most of the scandals had been common
>knowledge for oh, the past twenty years or so, to anyone who had
>the initiative to question the conventional wisdom. This at a
>time when ABC was still feeding the public the obligatory pablum
>about Camelot and suppressing the scandalous truth about those
>Kennedy boys and Marilyn Monroe. The pony express was lightning-
>fast compared to our dauntless newshawks. Instead of dealing with
>the problem, they krex and whine like a bunch of "two-year-olds"
>(to use Peter Jennings' simile), spewing venom at those who
>undertake to do the job they refuse to do, whether out of
>arrogance, treachery, cowardice or plain stupidity.
>
>No doubt those who turn to the Internet to get the news that the
>newsies refuse to report will now be subjected to a fresh barrage
>of personal insults and puerile namecalling. To cut a long story
>short, why don't I just take a quick run through the litany of
>feeble vituperation that comprises the repertoire of the
>mainstream press? We are a bunch of "conspiracy theorists,"
>right? We are animated by the "paranoid tradition" of American
>politics as we work our way up the "right wing food-chain" of
>"conspiracy consciousness," is that correct? We are, in short, a
>bunch of "right wing-nuts," "crazies," "loonies," "nutballs,"
>"weirdos," "whackos," and "wigouts," n'est pas? Now that the
>infantilism of the mainstream media has been indulged, can we get
>on with the part of the program of interest to grown-ups?
>
>
>ITS LOOKS LIKE A BULLET HOLE
>
>Cybersnitch Matt Drudge heralded the article late Tuesday night
>with an announcement on his Web site that Ruddy was about to
>break a story that would "hit the internet harder than just about
>anything in its history."
>
>Well, that remains to be seen. Drudge is heir to a tradition
>(Walter Winchell, Jimmy Fiddler) that uses hyperbole as freely as
>most of us use salt and pepper. Nevertheless, the story clearly
>has caused quite a stir. By Thursday morning it was reverberating
>in the European press -- the London Telegraph carried a story
>that quoted an Air Force deputy medical examiner as saying, "Even
>if you safely assumed accidental plane crash, when you have got
>something that appears to be a homicide, that should bring
>everything to a screeching halt."
>
>It goes without saying that the American mainstream press have
>primly averted their gaze and pretended not to notice Ruddy's
>story. What else is new? The mere fact that the story has gained
>currency on the Net is enough to relegate it to the category of a
>non-event in their jaundiced eyes. How did the Boston Globe put
>it? "...the Internet realizes the anarchist's dream of an
>unmediated conversation between each and all."
>
>So don't be too hard on them -- they are only trying to save us
>from "anarchy." Of course, they were quick to add, "Government
>must not censor that conversation..." if only to demonstrate that
>they are truly on the side of the angels. But then there is no
>need for the government to censor anything. In the supreme
>hypocrisy of their guilty silence, the mainstream press take care
>of the censorship themselves.
>
>Drudge announced that Ruddy's piece would deal with a participant
>in the investigation of the late Secretary of Commerce, Ron
>Brown's plane crash in Croatia. The participant, Lt. Col. Steve
>Cogswell, is a doctor and deputy Armed Forces medical examiner
>with the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology, His discovery,
>according to Drudge was that "essentially... Brown had a .45 inch
>inwardly beveling circular hole in the top of head, which is...
>the description of a .45-caliber gunshot wound."
>
>That, at least, is Drudge's interpretation. Others have expressed
>doubt that a gunshot wound caused by a large caliber weapon would
>fit the description given by Cogswell, or by Air Force Col.
>William Gormley, described by Ruddy as "an assistant armed forces
>medical examiner with approximately 25 years' experience," who
>said that Brown's death "was caused by multiple blunt force
>injuries as a result of an aircraft mishap. The manner of death
>is accidental." It should be noted that Cogswell did not actually
>examine Brown's body, as did Gormley, but based his opinions on
>discussions he had with colleagues who had examined the body "and
>on reports, records, photographs and X-rays," according to Ruddy.
>
>Gormley admitted that the wound did seem disturbing at first
>glance, "A perfectly round, nearly round .5-inch hole makes one
>think, 'Tell me more about this gunshot wound,' right?"
>
>But he nevertheless maintained that Brown had probably been
>struck on the head by "a metal fastener or rivet," although he
>acknowledged that nothing had been found in the wreckage of the
>aircraft that would explain the wound.
>
>A half-inch rivet in the sheet-stringer structure of a passenger
>aircraft? A fastener that size might be found in a bridge girder
>or an oil rig, but not in the structure of an aircraft cabin,
>which is made of thin sheet metal.
>
>Still, the notion that the wound on the top of Brown's head was
>caused by a large caliber bullet presents certain problems. Ruddy
>wrote that Gormley did not believe that the wound could have been
>caused by a bullet because it had failed to penetrate the skull.
>
>Cogswell disagrees, however. After examining photographs of the
>wound, he maintained that brain matter could be seen, suggesting
>that the hole did penetrate the skull, and not just the upper
>layer, as suggested by Gormley. He also said that examination of
>into the head when the skull was penetrated by a "cylindrical
>object."
>
>This is not characteristic of a gunshot wound caused by a large
>caliber weapon, which would more likely scatter bone fragments
>inside the head. Also, Gormley observed a wide area of denuded
>scalp at the top of the skull where the wound was located, but
>made no mention of flash burns or powder residue which might be
>expected if a gun had been fired in close proximity to the head.
>Of course, the weapon might have been fired from a distance, but
>why then would there be "a wide area of denuded scalp at the top
>of the skull"?
>
>Perhaps the most puzzling detail is Cogswell's observation that
>the frontal head X-ray that shows the defect at the top of the
>head, also reveals "something perhaps more sinister." Within the
>left side of Brown's head, in the area behind his eye socket,
>"there are multiple small fragments of white flecks, which are
>metallic density on X-ray. That's what we might describe as a
>'lead snowstorm' from a high-velocity gunshot wound."
>
>The Pittsburgh Tribune-Review claims to have copies of
>photographs and X- rays that show the wound on Brown's head.
>Cogswell has said that at least one of the original X-rays has
>"disappeared," but Ruddy says that the Tribune-Review has
>obtained a photograph of it. About all one can really say of
>these descriptions of Brown's head wound is that they are
>inconsistent. Unfortunately, the responsible authorities did not
>see fit to conduct a post-mortem examination on Brown's body,
>although, as Cogswell observed, the presence of a circular hole
>in Brown's skull, that could have been a bullet hole, should have
>triggered an autopsy. Cogswell was not alone in noting the
>resemblance of the hole to a gunshot wound. Kathleen Janoski, a
>photographer with the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology (AFIP),
>was said by a source of Ruddy's to have taken a look at the head
>wound and exclaimed, "Wow! Look at the hole in Brown's head. It
>looks like a bullet hole."
>
>The possibility exists that Brown, and other potential survivors,
>were killed by being struck with blunt objects while lying on the
>ground after the crash. The London Telegraph article noted that
>Croatian soldiers were already at the scene when the US military
>arrived, "and there is evidence that the site had been looted."
>
>Ruddy noted that Cogswell and others at AFIP describe the mishap
>as a "relatively low-impact crash." Hugh Sprunt, a graduate of
>MIT and Stanford who is also a qualified pilot (though not
>current) wrote last year in an article for Media Bypass that the
>crash was survivable, contrary to the opinion of the Air Force
>Accident Investigation Board.
>
>Cogswell also mentioned that this was the first aircraft accident
>investigation in his experience in which the Air Force did not
>follow its usual two-step investigative process. The first step,
>known as a "safety board," which treats all crashes as though
>they were suspicious, was skipped. The possibility of foul play
>is considered in this first phase of the investigation.
>
>There is no way to resolve the differences without an autopsy.
>The authorities will not reopen the matter unless somebody lights
>a fire under them -- and who would do that? The press? They
>evidently do not perceive covering events that might prove
>embarrassing to the Clinton regime to be part of their agenda --
>at least, not if they can avoid it. The fact that nine out of ten
>Washington reporters are liberals who supported Clinton in 1992
>has nothing to do with it, of course. They are far too
>professional to allow their judgement to be colored by such
>paltry considerations as passionate ideological commitments.
>
>I don't doubt their professionalism. The only question in my mind
>is what the specialty of most mainstream editors truly is. I
>would guess that most of them practice a profession that is said
>to be far older than journalism. The thing that they need to
>understand is that they do not own the news. It belongs to all of
>us. The withholding of information from the public out of
>consideration for the cosmetic appearance of public figures
>favored by the press represents an arrogant betrayal of public
>trust.
>
>
>BROWN HAD BECOME A LIABILITY TO CLINTON
>
>What gives this story impact is the fact that Clinton's Commerce
>Secretary Ron Brown had become an embarrassment to the
>administration, and was said to be facing indictment for
>financial crimes. The indictment of such a high-ranking cabinet
>officer could have proven disastrous in an election year, and
>many believe that Brown's death is all that averted his
>indictment. Of course, this may represent nothing more than pure,
>blind luck on Clinton's part, but there have been other deaths of
>people closely connected to the Clinton administration, under
>circumstances that leave much to the imagination.
>
>For example, Barbara Wise, a 48-year-old Commerce Department
>employee whose bruised, nude body was found inside her locked
>office on November 30, (the Friday after Thanksgiving) of last
>year. It was explained that Wise had a drinking problem and often
>spent the night in her office. The bruises were explained as the
>result of recent cancer surgery. Maybe so, but some find it odd
>that anyone would be sleeping over at the office on the Friday
>after Thanksgiving. Larry Klayman of Judicial Watch recently
>pointed out that John Huang and Barbara Wise occupied the same
>suite of offices at the Commerce Department and that Ms. Wise may
>have had access to some of the documents that are known to have
>been shredded immediately following Ron Brown's death. Judicial
>Watch is conducting its own investigation into Wise's death.
>
>And then there was Admiral Boorda, who is said to have committed
>suicide out of chagrin after being accused of wearing
>unauthorized combat decorations. One of his accusers, retired
>Col. David Hackworth, who was a columnist for Newsweek at the
>time, was himself later accused of wearing unauthorized combat
>decorations. If so, it hardly seems likely that Hackworth did so
>deliberately, since he is said to be the most decorated American
>veteran still living. The problem would seem to be that the
>regulations governing the wearing of certain decorations are so
>ambiguous that it is easy to misinterpret them. All of which
>gives one pause to wonder if this is really a credible reason for
>an officer of such senior rank as Boorda to kill himself.
>
>Not long before Boorda's death former Navy secretary James Webb
>delivered a scathing address at the Naval Academy in which he
>faulted the Navy brass, and by implication Boorda, for failing to
>stand up for career officers who had been caught in the crossfire
>of sexual politics and political correctness. In particular he
>mentioned Stan Arthur, who had been ordered into early retirement
>because, as vice chief of naval operations, he had approved a
>report upholding a decision to wash out a female officer from
>flight school.
>
>There is evidence that Boorda had come to regret the mocking
>sobriquet, "little Mikey," that his acquiescence had earned him
>from contemptuous naval officers. Washington Times columnist John
>McCaslin told of a conversation that he says took place between
>Adm. Boorda and retired Adm. Bobby Ray Inman, a former Deputy
>Director of Central Intelligence, in which Boorda told of his
>differences with the White House and complained that they were
>not interested in the military. At that point, according to a
>witness, "Adm. Inman pointed his finger at Adm. Boorda and
>admonished him against resigning."
>
>Is it possible that resigning from the Clinton administration is
>not as straightforward a procedure as it may seem to be at first
>glance? Is that perhaps what Vince Foster had in mind when he is
>said to have become so "depressed" that he just cried and cried
>at dinner, although he seemed quite capable of planning family
>outings with his children at the same time? Wouldn't resignation
>have made just a bit more sense than committing suicide on the
>very day his sister, whom he had invited to visit himself and his
>family in Washington, was flying up from Little Rock?
>
>Ask yourself what each of these people had in common. Is it not
>just possible that, in every case, their deaths averted extreme
>embarrassment, or worse, to the Clinton administration and its
>leader, a sociopath who is said to have lain on the floor of his
>car, mortified and ashamed to show his face, after losing his bid
>for a second term as Governor of Arkansas?
>
>Then again, perhaps these deaths (with the exception of Foster's,
>the official version of which is just too phony to be believed by
>anyone but a congenital idiot or a mainstream journalist)
>occurred much as has been reported. How are we to know, if the
>official investigation is conducted in a superficial manner and
>the result is treated as a foregone conclusion in order to avoid
>embarrassment to the president? Who is going to tell us these
>things -- our craven, cowardly castrato press whose taste these
>days runs to licking the boots of the power elite? (Not that this
>is really such a recent trend, as witness their nauseating
>sycophancy toward the Kennedy family).
>
>Make no mistake about it, Ron Brown was in a whole heap of
>trouble, and not just nickel-and-dime stuff either. (What is it
>about Clinton that attracts him to such freebooters as Brown and
>James McDougal?) According to Brown's "business" partner, Nolanda
>Hill, Brown had made a deal with the government of Vietnam to use
>his influence to facilitate the normalization of relations with
>that country in return for $700,000 up front. Hill told ABC's
>Brian Ross, "He was considering it. He saw it as an opportunity
>to afford to be Commerce Secretary."
>
>When the story surfaced in the press, Brown denied it, but
>according to Hill, he lied. He was tipped off that the FBI were
>aware of what he was doing and quickly withdrew from negotiations
>with the Vietnamese government. FBI agents who had been working
>on the case told ABC News that they had suspected as much.
>Congressman Dan Burton (R-Ind) says that the FBI abandoned its
>investigation of Brown, citing "budget cuts" as the reason.
>
>But Nolanda Hill's most serious allegation against Brown is her
>charge "that two big Democratic contributors, Nora and Gene
>Lum... actually did pass money to Ron Brown when he was Secretary
>of Commerce," according to Brian Ross. They did this by hiring
>Brown's 28-year-old son Michael into a well paid job with their
>Oklahoma gas company, Dynamic Energy Resources. According to
>Hill, Michael then transferred much of the money to his father.
>Brown later maintained that his son was merely paying him back
>for his college tuition. When Hill suggested that Brown use
>another explanation since the story was not true, Brown replied,
>"Well, nobody can prove that."
>
>And then there was the strange business deal whereby a company
>owned by Nolanda Hill continued to pay a company owned by Brown
>$12,000 a month interest on a loan of $875,000, even as Hill's
>company was going bankrupt. Rep. Burton is about the only person
>who has been so awkward as to ask where Brown got the $875,000.
>According to Burton, the FBI confirmed that "there was an
>electronic transfer from the Government of Vietnam to this bank
>in Singapore, and here all of a sudden we have a mysterious
>$875,000 turning up that was invested into this corporation."
>
>All of this and more were explained in greater detail in my
>previous column, "Ron Brown's Booty." None of it has elicited
>much comment from the mainstream press -- and then they ask why
>nobody seems to care about the sleaze in the Clinton
>administration, as though the reason were some kind of deep, dark
>secret.
>
>As Nolanda Hill, who was left holding the bag when Brown died put
>it, "The press jump-started his sainthood when he died. And quite
>frankly, I resent the hell out of being left with the cleanup
>operation."
>
>
>THE RON BROWN EXPRESS
>
>Last summer The American Spectator charged that ninety minutes
>before the White House announced that Ron Brown's plane had
>disappeared, just after the Commerce Department had heard the
>news, two secretaries entered Brown's office, opened his safe and
>shredded some documents that he kept there. Two large cardboard
>file boxes, filled with documents, were also removed from his
>office. Sound familiar? The only difference is that Vince Foster
>was not under criminal investigation as was Ron Brown.
>
>When the New York Post reported that Newt Gingrich had mentioned
>the Spectator article at a closed meeting of Republican bigwigs,
>White House flack Michael McCurry immediately accused Gingrich of
>making "an outrageous suggestion." White House chief of staff
>Leon Panetta said it was "racist" as well. Interestingly, nobody
>from the administration actually went so far as to deny that the
>documents were removed or destroyed. The name of the game is
>Spinball. The White House press corps know the rules and play
>right along. When it comes to Clinton's White House spin their
>complacency (or is it complicity?) knows no bounds. These are the
>guys who staked out Reagan aide Richard Allen's house after a
>cheap gift watch was found in his office safe, remember?
>
>John Corry, writing in the August American Spectator mentioned
>the "Ron Brown defense," citing the response of the New York
>Times Washington bureau chief R.W. Apple, a panting, wheezing
>lump of profane corpulence who could pass for the reincarnation
>of Sidney Greenstreet, to a query from the London Spectator as to
>why the Times now seemed "reluctant to follow up leads which
>discredit the President."
>
>Apple replied, 'Who do you think broke the [bleepbleep] story in
>the first place?' adding, 'Do you want us to go round giving
>credibility to every piece of dirt thrown at the president like
>those [bleepbleeps] at the American Spectator?'
>
>Comparing Apple's comment to the defense Panetta used against
>Gingrich, Corry commented: "Apple could not deny anything
>reported in the Spectator; he just did not want it to be
>reported."
>
>But what was in those documents that provided the raw material
>for this particular batch of Clinton confetti? In mid-September
>U.S. District Judge Royce Lamberth ruled that the Commerce
>Department employees suspected of shredding the documents
>following Brown's death can be deposed by the public-interest
>group Judicial Watch.
>
>The group's chairman, Larry Klayman, has alleged that Brown sold
>seats on his various trade trips to executives who kicked in
>contributions of $100,000 or more to the Democratic Party.
>Judicial Watch was also given the authority to question Jude
>Kearney, the presidential confidant who is said to have overseen
>the task of awarding seats on the trade trips to well-heeled
>contributors.
>
>Kearney, who had been a Clinton aide in Arkansas, and is now a
>deputy assistant secretary of commerce, was quoted as saying in a
>Commerce Department memo, "As a political appointee, [Mr.
>Kearney] would push those that were politically connected" for
>places on what came to be known as the "Ron Brown Express"
>
>Although Kearney has since denied making the statement, other
>Commerce Department memos make abundantly clear the close
>correlation between political contributions made by corporate
>executives and flying express via Ron-air.
>
>Judge Lamberth also directed the Commerce Department to produce
>"any communications with the Democratic National Committee and/or
>White House which refer or relate to plaintiff's FOIA requests."
>Andy Thibault of the Washington Times wrote that Klayman has
>accused the Commerce Department of holding out on his FOIA
>request, citing reports that Brown's secretaries had shredded
>documents on the day of his death.
>
>Judge Lamberth brushed aside the efforts of Commerce Department
>lawyers to explain the department's failure to produce the
>records, saying, "The search was either inadequate or documents
>were destroyed. That's the only conclusion."
>
>It would seem that a score and more of those corporate execs who
>booked a flight on the Ron Brown Express got a bit more than they
>had bargained for -- a once-in-a-lifetime chance to ride that
>plane to glory. However, it appears that not all of their
>survivors are entirely satisfied with the service provided by
>Ron-air. Attorneys for more than half of the 35 people killed in
>the crash have filed suit against the Air Force for wrongful
>death. An Air Force spokesman told UPI last August that it will
>probably settle with many of the plaintiffs if they determine
>that it was a "valid claim."
>
>The Air Force's position would seem to be a shaky one. The
>accident investigation found that:
>
> "...command failures, pilot error and poorly designed airport
> approach procedures were responsible for the deadly accident.
> Investigators determined that the CT-43, the Air Force
> version of a Boeing 737, was almost 2 miles off course and
> that pilots trying to land during a violent thunderstorm
> brought the plane in too low and too fast."
>
>The UPI got it wrong, of course. There was no "violent
>thunderstorm." That bit of misinformation (disinformation?) has
>been repeatedly corrected on Internet, yet the mainstream media
>continue to repeat the error. The pilots had been making an
>instrument approach and the hilly terrain was obscured by cloud
>cover.
>
>What the Air Force actually did wrong was to have only one ADF
>(Automatic Direction Finder) receiver on board when the approach
>procedure called for two in order to conform to the relevant
>regulations. The rather antiquated navigational aids used at the
>Dubrovnik airport comprised two non directional beacons, one
>designated "CV", located 1.9 nautical miles from the Runway 12
>threshold, and the other, designated "KLP", located 11.8 nautical
>miles from the Runway 12 threshold.
>
>The Air Force Accident Investigation Board (AIB) report indicates
>that Brown's Air Force T-43 was using the KLP beacon at the time
>of the accident, which perhaps explains why the aircraft was so
>far off course. In order to conform to Air Force regulations it
>would have been necessary that two receivers be used, one tuned
>to the KLP beacon and the other tuned to the CV beacon. The
>latter beacon would have alerted the flight crew that they had
>missed the approach, allowing them to turn to the right, toward
>the Adriatic, in time to avoid the high terrain.
>
>Ruddy wrote that, "Questions about the ground beacons were never
>fully resolved." It seems that a few days after the crash, the
>person responsible for maintenance at Dubrovnik airport was found
>shot to death -- "an apparent suicide."
>
>The latest word, even as I write this, is that a gag order has
>been placed on Cogswell, and his home has been searched. The name
>of the game is Whack the Whistleblower. You can always tell when
>the bureaucracy is becoming rattled -- the benign "liberal" mask
>slips, ever so slightly, and the ugly, fascist countenance shows,
>just a bit. But don't worry -- they are only trying to save us
>from our own flawed nature. If we knew the terrible truth, we
>wouldn't be able to handle it, you see. Why, we might man the
>barricades, stop listening to Larry King, cancel our subscription
>to The Washington Post. (Of course, the wife would sure miss
>those supermarket coupons). Anything could happen -- free speech
>might even break out. (That would spell anarchy and the end of
>civilization as we know it).
>
>So, that's all there is to that -- or is it? Will ABC run another
>special 30 years from now, telling us what really happened? You
>know, just fill in a few of the missing details as they did last
>week with JFK -- such as the fact that he stole the 1960
>presidential election with a little help from the Mafia? Or that
>he shared a mistress with Chicago Mafia boss Sam Giancana, whom
>they also used as a courier to send messages back and forth? Or
>that JFK was a speed freak who took Dr. Feelgood along with him
>to Vienna to provide his daily fix while he met with Soviet
>leader Nikita Khrushchev? (That was just before he and Mr. K.
>nearly incinerated us all in a nuclear war). You know, a few
>little arcane tidbits of possible interest to buffs.
>
>So why didn't they tell us this already? Well, gosh -- I guess
>they didn't know about it until just the other day when they read
>Seymour Hersh's book. That's odd, I knew about all of those
>things 20 years ago, at least. Aren't they supposed to be the
>professionals?
>
>The bottom line would seem to be that if you know about such
>things too soon, that makes you a "conspiracy theorist." And if
>you find out what is going on 30 years or more after it ceases to
>matter, what does that make you? An historian -- or just a
>schnook?
>
>
> Published in the Dec. 8, 1997 issue of The Washington Weekly
> Copyright 1997 The Washington Weekly (http://www.federal.com)
> Reposting permitted with this message intact
>
<snip>
Return to Table of Contents for
Supreme Law School: E-mail