tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5454535989576644455.post8649082708569981172..comments2023-10-25T12:02:18.172-04:00Comments on CasablancaPA: HEDGING ITS BETSUgartehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03569197600238141135noreply@blogger.comBlogger58125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5454535989576644455.post-48827560997731130702010-03-07T19:40:11.421-05:002010-03-07T19:40:11.421-05:00It will be interesting to see what the defense wit...It will be interesting to see what the defense witness legislators do when put on the stand. The suspense is killing me. I hope it lasts.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5454535989576644455.post-938987626071511742010-03-06T23:38:42.500-05:002010-03-06T23:38:42.500-05:00SALVATION COMING TEAM CASA, HERE IS A SALUTE TO YO...SALVATION COMING TEAM CASA, HERE IS A SALUTE TO YOUR STAMINA, STRENGTH, AND COURAGE IN THE FACE CHARGES THAT SHOULD NEVER HAVE BROUGHT, EXCEPT FOR THE WANTON AND CARELESS BLIND AMBITIONS OF TOM CORBETT & HIS CAMPAIGN STAFFERS! <br /><br />Well I heard there was a secret chord <br /><br />That David played, and it pleased the Lord <br /><br />But you don't really care for music, do ya? <br /><br />Well it goes like this <br /><br />The fourth, the fifth <br /><br />The minor fall and the major lift <br /><br />The baffled king composing Hallelujah <br /><br /> <br />Well Your faith was strong but you needed proof <br /><br />You saw her bathing on the roof <br /><br />Her beauty and the moonlight overthrew you <br /><br />She tied you to her kitchen chair <br /><br />And she broke your throne and she cut your hair <br /><br />And from your lips she drew the Hallelujah <br /><br /><br />Well baby I've been here before<br /><br />I've seen this room and I've walked this floor<br /><br />I used to live alone before I knew ya <br /><br />I've seen your flag on the marble arch<br /><br />Love is not a victory march <br /><br />It's a cold and it's a broken Hallelujah <br /><br /><br />Well there was a time when you let me know<br /><br />What's really going on below<br /><br />But now you never show that to me do you?<br /><br />And remember when I moved in you?<br /><br />And the holy dove was moving too<br /><br />And every breath we drew was Hallelujah<br /><br /><br />Well maybe there's a God above<br /><br />But all I've ever learned from love<br /><br />Was how to shoot somebody who'd OUT DREW YA<br /><br />And it's not a cry that you hear at night<br /><br />It's not somebody who's seen in the light<br /><br />It's a cold and it's a broken Hallelujah<br /><br />Hallelujah<br /><br />Hallelujah <br /><br />Hallelujah <br /><br />HallelujahAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5454535989576644455.post-90148253809488864702010-03-06T23:31:02.243-05:002010-03-06T23:31:02.243-05:00Dan Raynak, Veon's attorney, said there was &q...Dan Raynak, Veon's attorney, said there was "no credible evidence" linking Veon to a conspiracy to use state tax dollars for political campaigns.<br /><br />"If it's garbage in, it should be garbage out now," Raynak told Lewis.<br /><br />"We believe we've proven the case and wish it would have been shorter. We wish it had been less contentious, and we wish it had been more civil," said Chief Deputy Attorney General Frank Fina, who charged yesterday that Veon's defense team deliberately dragged out the case.<br /><br />The state Attorney General's Office ended its presentation after calling 29 witnesses. <br /><br />Most commonwealth witnesses were cross-examined by four defense lawyers because of the multiple defendants in the case.<br /><br />"We covered two witnesses in two weeks. If we had covered two witnesses in one week, we may have called more witnesses," Fina said.<br /><br />"What they didn't like was us cross-examining their witnesses and showing their true colors," Raynak said. <br /><br />Cott's lawyer, Bryan Walk, predicted his client would be acquitted.<br /><br />Lewis yesterday ruled against motions by defense lawyers to dismiss the charges. <br /><br />He didn't rule on a motion to toss out subpoenas for current House Democratic lawmakers. <br /><br />Raynak said he believes all of those subpoenaed will testify.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5454535989576644455.post-50575527919756137212010-03-06T10:59:44.749-05:002010-03-06T10:59:44.749-05:00Anonymous said...Its clear the investigators never...Anonymous said...Its clear the investigators never "investigated" anything... they listened to the campaign staff and the lawyers who thought they found a crime and then searched for the criminals...<br />March 5, 2010 11:24 PM<br /><br />This was clear on how the Agents testified at Trial, they were unprepared, could not proof their work because it was based on lying witnesses prepared by the OAG Prosecutors, and the Cross-Examination showed how poorly the Grand Jury was conducted by the OAG Prosecutors.<br /><br />When you have pig in slop investigation, then have campaign staffers influence whom will be indicted, and AG Corbett running for Governor, you end up with a travesty of a trial as seen the last 4 weeks.<br /><br />What is worse they have ruined good people's lives for their own personal gain, and wastwed more Tax dollars than they ever will prove against the Defendants, and they could care less about it.<br /><br />Shame on AG Corbett and his Campaign Staffers!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5454535989576644455.post-7688066956257344012010-03-05T23:24:57.779-05:002010-03-05T23:24:57.779-05:00Its clear the investigators never "investigat...Its clear the investigators never "investigated" anything... they listened to the campaign staff and the lawyers who thought they found a crime and then searched for the criminals...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5454535989576644455.post-63001358763808834972010-03-05T23:05:54.502-05:002010-03-05T23:05:54.502-05:00LONG LIVE DISCOLONG LIVE DISCOAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5454535989576644455.post-34330722945715369072010-03-05T15:48:47.788-05:002010-03-05T15:48:47.788-05:00Based on what I heard from the AG Office Investiga...Based on what I heard from the AG Office Investigators, they did a worse job than the AG's Immunity Witnesses and Guilty Pleaders.<br /><br />I guess it only goes to show when AG Agent Investigators tried to lie about their mistakes, they had a tougher time, knowing they could be caught in lies.<br /><br />You have to wonder why the AG Prosecutors put their own Agent Investigators on last for their cases against the Defendants, now you need wonder no more, they never had a case.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5454535989576644455.post-17647961039917196912010-03-05T15:02:33.481-05:002010-03-05T15:02:33.481-05:00In any criminal case, prosecutors are required by ...In any criminal case, prosecutors are required by law to alert the other side to relevant problems with officers or witnesses, so that the accused can get fair treatment by being able to challenge their accusers' credibility.<br /><br />Those prosecutors have built the list themselves to spotlight the haphazard way prosecutors learn about officers whose credibility on the witness stand can be attacked.<br /><br />To be fair, all too often, from the prosecutors' point of view, they find out about problems just before trial, or during trial or plea-bargaining, and they feel blindsided, unable to shore up weaknesses in their cases.<br /><br />In many instances, prosecutors find out about problems with an agent, witness, or fellow prosecutor at the last minute from a defense lawyer. <br /><br />Many go on with the case anyway in fear of losing it.<br /><br />This is the worst way for prosecutors to find these things out, because it destroys the prosecutor's case and is a waste of law enforcement resources, few want to admit too.<br /><br />Most Defense Attorney's Bar Association have been advocating it for years, and would hope that it would find out from a department independently, but they've prosecutors never do it.<br /><br />We need more Offices of Professional Accountability to oversee Prosecutors, internal investigations and their behavior is producing witnesses later caught lying under oath, as guided by wayward Prosecutors and Investigators. <br /><br />Nonetheless, this is good for the Prosecutors too, and especially society.<br /><br />Some Prosecutors that took it upon themselves to launch a review into dozens of cases of their investigators, witnesses and fellow prosecutors actually saw the blessing in dismissing wrongful cases before they came to trial.<br /><br />They saved the Offices money and embarrassments of wrongful convictions or worse dismissals based on faulty evidence, secured by their own employees.<br /><br />The prosecutions of 30 other criminal cases were found in jeopardy, and they avoided a scandal of them.<br /><br />Now some Police Associations and Prosecutors become upset at Citizen-Review Boards and the Brady Listings.<br /><br />They blast back, calling the allegations false and suggesting politics were at play. Imagine that, Law Enforcement crying about POLITICS?<br /><br />Yet, when Citizen-Review Boards reviews the investigations, and Prosecutors Offices have audits including the not just the Chief's role but ambitious political Prosecutors, a higher rate of convictions occur, more than dismissal.<br /><br />The bigger problem is the qualifications of the Review Boards can become controversial, it is important to have honest and well-educated people on these Boards assisted by Attorneys.<br /><br />Often the Attorney Generals Prosecutors will be reviewed and their work ends up being monitors to assure society justice equally for all citizens.<br /><br />Pennsylvania needs to be diligently keeping track of Prosecutors Cass overturn on Appeal, OAG Investigators, and Police Officers with credibility problems.<br /><br />It is not just a proposal but also the Law of the Landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision Brady v. Maryland. <br /><br />The 1963 ruling states a prosecutor is obliged to provide the accused with any evidence that might help his or her defense, including information that could be used to challenge the credibility of police officers or other witnesses.<br /><br />If that information is not handed over, cases could be dismissed, allowing suspects to go free. <br /><br />The lawyers could face discipline by the State Bar Association.<br /><br />Moreover, the law presumes that if one attorney in a prosecutor's office knows of a credibility issue with a law-enforcement officer, then the entire office is on notice.<br /><br />The next time that officer's name comes up in a case, the prosecutor is obligated to turn information over if it is relevant. <br /><br />There is no excuse, even if some in the office do not know about it.<br /><br />Prosecutors not in compliance with Brady are in violation of their ethics and subject to discipline at the very least.<br /><br />Looks like Mr. Soops may be added to the Brady Lists, IF THE PAOAG HAS ONE?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5454535989576644455.post-11283164157759760062010-03-05T14:10:25.726-05:002010-03-05T14:10:25.726-05:00Anonymous 2:00 PM.... You Posted:
The so-called B...Anonymous 2:00 PM.... You Posted:<br /><br />The so-called Brady List comes from a 1963 Supreme Court ruling that requires prosecutors to tell defense attorneys about any police officers who may have credibility issues on the witness stand.<br /><br />Some prosecuting agencies use the list sparingly. <br /><br />For example, the King County Prosecutor's Office in Washington had just 11 officers on its Brady List as of mid-2007, according to a report in the Seattle Times.<br /><br />In Maricopa County, however, prosecutors had placed 328 officers on the list as of May 2007. <br /><br />How Pennsylvania Investigators, Police Officers, and Agents are on this list in Pennsylvania?<br /><br />Does AG Corbett have such a list in compliance with the Supreme Court Ruling? If not, why not?<br /><br />I never heard of such a listing in Pennsylvania, can anyone research it, Thanks.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5454535989576644455.post-3156027989990204342010-03-05T14:00:32.148-05:002010-03-05T14:00:32.148-05:00Here is how Arizona handled TestiLYING as you put ...Here is how Arizona handled TestiLYING as you put it, they created a Brady List, after a Blue Ribbon Panel picked to investigate Pennsylvania Prosecutors, they can create a lists for prosecutors that have credibility issues too, not just police, agents, and investigators.<br /><br />County attorney may put Lovejoy on Brady List<br />Nick R. Martin, Tribune<br />October 26, 2008 - 6:19PM <br /><br />Two months after failing to convict him in a criminal trial, the Valley's top prosecutor is considering placing a Chandler police sergeant on a list of discredited cops.<br /><br />Chandler police Sgt. Tom Lovejoy was acquitted of an animal cruelty charge in August when a judge ruled that the death of his police dog was an accident, not a crime.<br /><br />Now, the Maricopa County Attorney's Office, which lost the case, is considering whether to place Lovejoy on what's known as the Brady List, a compilation of Valley police officers who are said to have credibility issues.<br /><br />The list, in effect, is a blacklist of sorts for local law enforcement, kept by prosecutors who may need to disclose issues with a witness' credibility at trial.<br />"I would say, unequivocally, that this was not in response to the not-guilty verdict," Scerbo said.<br /><br />Lovejoy was charged in 2007 with misdemeanor animal cruelty after leaving his dog, Bandit, in the back of a police vehicle for nearly 13 hours that August, killing him.<br /><br />Prior to his trial in San Tan Justice Court, Lovejoy and his lawyer spent a year locked in a sometimes ugly battle with the county attorney's office, trying to get the charge dropped.<br /><br />The letter, dated June3, 2008, asked for "any and all information ... relevant to an integrity issue involving Sergeant Lovejoy as the subject of the investigation."<br /><br />The letter was sent about two weeks after the Tribune reported that the sergeant was one of eight officers disciplined earlier in the year following an internal police department investigation.<br /><br />With it, the department included a letter from its legal adviser, Michael McNeff, saying that the city believed the case "does not involve possible Brady Material."<br /><br />Still, just six days later, the office sent a letter to Lovejoy saying he was being considered for the list.<br /><br />The so-called Brady List comes from a 1963 Supreme Court ruling that requires prosecutors to tell defense attorneys about any police officers who may have credibility issues on the witness stand.<br /><br />Some prosecuting agencies use the list sparingly. <br /><br />For example, the King County Prosecutor's Office in Washington had just 11 officers on its Brady List as of mid-2007, according to a report in the Seattle Times.<br /><br />In Maricopa County, however, prosecutors had placed 328 officers on the list as of May 2007. <br /><br />However, he added that he isn't too worried about the consequences.<br /><br />Being on the list can mean that a defense attorney may get to tear apart the officer's credibility on the witness stand, but it doesn't change his day-to-day police work, he said.<br /><br />"The Brady List to me is nothing," Lovejoy said. "It doesn't affect an officer's ability to do his job."<br /><br />Scerbo said he did not known when, if ever, the county attorney's office would decide whether or not to put Lovejoy on the list, but he called the process a "very routine matter."<br /><br />http://www.eastvalleytribune.com/story/128991Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5454535989576644455.post-78254682516138998652010-03-05T13:33:08.602-05:002010-03-05T13:33:08.602-05:00I feel for OAG Agent Soop, it is not easy having y...I feel for OAG Agent Soop, it is not easy having your investigative work reviewed in court and being embarrassed by its shoddy work of mistakes.<br /><br />The larger problem of "TestiLYING" is perjury and other forms of in-court deception by the prosecution’s witnesses and agents. <br /><br />This puts prosecutor's point-of-view under question and then what are the prosecutor's legal and ethical duties and obligations? <br />Once the evidence presented has been discounted on cross-examination, should the prosecutors withdraw it, knowing it is no longer justice to use such destroyed evidence due to their own agents?<br /><br />These questions, and others, are important to ask, discuss, and answer because a judicial "system" that is supposed to adjudicate guilt and innocence yet permits lies, no matter how small or infrequent, is no system at all. <br /><br />Under our adversarial system of justice, competing, zealous advocates argue their causes before neutral jurors and impartial arbiters are implicit in such a system are the belief that those zealous advocates should fight fairly. <br /><br />Using lies does not promote justice; it distorts justice.<br /><br />The problem of this kind of TestiLYING is immeasurable, problem impervious to quantitative measurement, and thus should not be allowed before a jury.<br /><br />The term "TestiLYING" was actually coined by police officers in New York City that after being caught in lies, admitted often testify to fabricating evidence. <br /><br />They testified that they often used the term among themselves to usually refer to perjury committed by fellow police officers, detectives and agents of various law enforcement agencies, in the belief to persuade them that what they were doing was morally acceptable.<br /><br />Even some prosecutors admitted "TestiLYING" has also been used to describe other forms of in-court deception and is an amorphous problem, not easily understood or fixed, but a real one in our criminal justice system. <br /><br />The problem with defining "TestiLYING" is that it is a new term to describe a concept that is not easily definable or understandable. <br /><br />When prosecutors permit witnesses, agents and officers to be deceptive in court, the rationale goes, he is "not quite lying" but "not quite testifying truthfully and completely" either. <br /><br />They say, TestiLYING is seen as a middle ground between pure honesty and pure dishonesty. <br /><br />It is because they rationalize they can tread ethically within this middle ground because they feel that they have society's best interests at heart: the conviction of the guilty. <br /><br />Still, this alleged "ethical middle ground" is perhaps the best evidence of the ethical problems with TestiLYING. <br /><br />It is an invented word in part to avoid acknowledging that TestiLYING involving committing perjury and other illegal acts. <br /><br />The fact that they do not call their actions perjury or deception or some other term with clearly unethical implications evinces their belief that TestiLYING, in whatever form, illegal or legal, is somehow justified. <br /><br />If they believed their actions were clearly wrong, there would be no need to create a new word. Lying, perjury, and deceit all characterize deception negatively. <br /><br />Yet, prosecutors helping witnesses and agents TestiLYING is seen as morally acceptable, however, because it is deception used against someone (the defendant) who is himself morally blameworthy. <br /><br />They feel, TestiLYING is viewed as a small moral compromise that can prevent a larger moral wrong, the non-conviction of a guilty defendant. <br /><br />So, Agent Soop is not just a victim of his own work product, but a victim of the AG Campaign Staff, trying to prove something he cannot verify accurately since it was, is, and for a Campaign Plan, not a sense of seeking true justice.<br /><br />I will explain more, later!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5454535989576644455.post-83215480464297381982010-03-05T12:42:58.103-05:002010-03-05T12:42:58.103-05:00MORE ON OOPS THE AG AGENT SOOP BEING CAUGHT IN SOM...MORE ON OOPS THE AG AGENT SOOP BEING CAUGHT IN SOME MISTAKES OF HIS OWN INVESTIGATION, AND ADMITTING IT UNDER OATH.....<br /><br />Raynak has no more questions. Next: Bill Fetterhoff, attorney for defendant Steve Keefer. <br /><br />Fetterhoff has questions regarding caucus purchase of millions of e-mail addresses used to send campaign e-mails.<br /><br />Email: Buxton authorizes Manzo to pay invoice for email list.<br /><br />The list was to be sent directly to Buxton, according to the invoice. <br /><br />Fetterhoff is asking Soop about the chart he created listing people who participated in Nader petition challenge. <br /><br />The names on that chart were culled from data collected by staffer Eric Webb, who testified previously in this case. <br /><br />Webb list indicated which people worked on campaigns, not where they worked on them. <br /><br />Fetterhoff points out that 1 witness had said Keefer was in Hbg on days Soop recorded him as being in Beaver Falls. <br /><br />The dates in question are at the beginning of August 04.<br /><br />Fetterhoff is asking about another group of dates when Keefer traveled to Beaver.<br /><br />Fetterhoff asks Soop if he is aware that Keefer was tentatively assigned to work at a legislative event while there.<br /><br />Fetterhoff points out the event was a Saturday, so Keefer would have been entitled to a comp day for working it.<br /><br />The event was a children's fair.<br /><br />LUNCH BREAK, AND NO SOUP FOR SOOPS!<br /><br />OOPS, SOOP IN THE SOUP OF CROSS-EXAMINATION...THE OAG CREATING THAT CHART AND PLACING IT INTO EVIDENCE MAY HAVE BEEN THE BIGGEST MISTAKE SO FAR IN THE MANY MISTAKES THE OAG PROSECUTORS HAVE MADE AT TRIAL.<br /><br />CANNOT WAIT UNTIL AFTER LUNCH AND THE PROSECUTORS TELL "OOPS SOOP" WHAT TO SAY ON CROSS IN AFTERNOON...ANY BET IT CHANGES, IMAO!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5454535989576644455.post-32832406155144146612010-03-05T12:31:06.878-05:002010-03-05T12:31:06.878-05:00When Attorney General Investigators "often ma...When Attorney General Investigators "often make false arrests, tamper with evidence and commit perjury on the witness stand," according to a draft report of the Mollen Commission, the panel investigating law enforcement corruption, is not news anymore. <br /><br />Prosecutors, defense counsels and judges routinely observe police witnesses testify to information that would test the credulity of a 7-year-old. <br /><br />Yet it is very rare for a judge to reject police testimony as false.<br /><br />Moreover, despite remarks you quote from prosecutors that they have prosecuted police officers for perjury, it cannot be established and one has neither seen nor heard of such a case in over 16 years. <br /><br />It is far more frequent when the perjury just cannot be ignored for a prosecutor to offer a previously unavailable plea bargain or quietly let a case be dismissed on procedural grounds.<br /><br />For defense lawyers, it is heartening to read that those on the Mollen Commission reached the same conclusion about the veracity of many Police Officers, Attorney General Investigators, and Prosecutors that have been reached long ago. <br /><br />The legislature needs to force law enforcement agencies to impose a few more checks on the activities of its more "creative" investigators, if they choose to identify them instead of ignoring and protecting them for their own ambitions. <br /><br />Nevertheless, for all the talk of policing law enforcement, we might be better served to question the motives of judges and prosecutors whose tacit approval of lying officers gives them license unabated by law. <br /><br />It is those responsible for administering justice who can do the most to insure that law enforcement agencies perform their testimonial functions honestly. <br />When the judges and prosecutors are unwilling or unable to do that, it should surprise no one that perjury by law enforcement agents is common and wrong.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5454535989576644455.post-6903348101940881942010-03-05T12:14:51.662-05:002010-03-05T12:14:51.662-05:00OOPS....FOR AG INVESTIGATOR AGENT SOOP TESTIMONY F...OOPS....FOR AG INVESTIGATOR AGENT SOOP TESTIMONY FALLS INTO THE SOUP AND STOOPS TO STUPID,,,,,, <br /><br />NOW FOLLOW THE BOUNCING AG CHART CREATED BY, OF, AND FOR AG TESTIMONY BY AG AGENTS, COMPLIMENTS OF PPG TWITTER:<br /> <br />AG Soop: "This is state goverment. There are 3,000 employees. ... If leave is not in the system then it does not exist.<br /><br />Judge shuts Soop down after Raynak complains he is editorializing.<br /><br />Getting contentious here. Raynak: "I'll make it simple for you sir." Soop: "You don't have to make it simple for me, sir." <br /><br />Prosecutor Fina objects. Judge says Raynak questions are appropriate & Soop needs to answer. <br /><br />Raynak is focused right now on which agents Soop talked to when he compiled chart about Romanelli petition challenge. <br /><br />Raynak suggests that agents have been in court "sitting around on state time doing absolutely nothing." Judge cuts him off.<br /><br />Judge wants to know if the chart was based on testimony in this trial. Soop says no. He worked in it thruout investigation.<br /><br />Raynak points out he made mistake on chart. He should not have included name of Janet MacNeil (nee Nero) on chart. <br /><br />Soop says he made a mistake. Raynak: "You do not proof your work very well, do you?" Soop: "I proof my work." <br /><br />TSK, TSK, TSK, ONCE AGAIN HAD THE AG PROSECUTORS ALLOWED GRAND JURY EXCULPATORY EVIDENCE FOR THE DEFENDANTS INSTEAD OF CREATING AG CHARTS WITH ERRORS, THEN AG AGENTS SOOP WOULD NOT LOOK SO SO STUPID?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5454535989576644455.post-61187483992650240892010-03-05T12:00:15.781-05:002010-03-05T12:00:15.781-05:00For Anonymous March 5, 2010 11:26 AM, a little rem...For Anonymous March 5, 2010 11:26 AM, a little reminder of Political Blowbacks:<br /><br />Bush Ignores Blowback For Libby Case Pardon:<br /><br />by Scott Ott for ScrappleFace<br />(2007-06-06) <br /><br />Just a day after former Vice Presidential aide I. Lewis ‘Scooter’ Libby was sentenced to 30 months in prison for lying to federal investigators in the CIA leak case, President George Bush ignored potentially-devastating political consequences today by issuing a full pardon to Richard Armitage, the unindicted former Deputy Secretary of State who actually leaked Valerie Plame’s name to the media.<br /><br />Mr. Bush also pardoned columnist Bob Novak, who published the former CIA agent’s name and then withheld the identity of the leaker from prosecutors, along with Washington Post reporter Bob Woodward, who also knew Mr. Armitage leaked but failed to disclose the fact. The president said he’s still considering whether to pardon prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald, who also concealed Mr. Armitage’s name while continuing to question Mr. Libby.<br /><br />White House sources say pardons could also be on tap for former Ambassador Joe Wilson, Ms. Plame’s husband, and the former spy herself. <br /><br />Although they also have not been charged, an unnamed source said, “The president is a bold man, who may not wait for the courts to render judgment before he dispenses mercy.”<br /><br />Mr. Armitage, Mr. Novak, Mr. Woodward, Mr. Fitzgerald, Ms. Plame and Mr. Wilson remain at large.<br /><br />http://www.scrappleface.com/?p=2611Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5454535989576644455.post-37979746752747930622010-03-05T11:32:04.387-05:002010-03-05T11:32:04.387-05:00One thing we hope all the Twitters start to post o...One thing we hope all the Twitters start to post on during the trial. <br /><br />It is not that some Jurors are writing down information and taking notes, but it is more important when they writing down information.<br /><br />If such jurors are writing more during Cross-Examination then it is clear they are listening to the Defense.<br /><br />If it is when the OAG Prosecutors are presenting their case, then it depends on how many are actually writing down such information.<br /><br />It would be nice to se some Twitter telling us WHEN the Jurors are writing down the trial testimony.<br /><br />Tracie has done that but we would like to see more of it.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5454535989576644455.post-1052503443992611722010-03-05T11:26:59.647-05:002010-03-05T11:26:59.647-05:00Anonymous said...
Hey...I know...maybe Mike can le...Anonymous said...<br />Hey...I know...maybe Mike can lead the pay raise effort in Cell Block D...Brett can coordinate the campaign!<br /><br />March 4, 2010 1:23 PM<br /><br />I doubt they will end up where alleged Senator Jane Orie and Senator Ward may end up.<br /><br />The Zappala Grand Jury is almost finish, and their Computer Disc Traces, are something one cannot take back after staffers giving testimony before a Recorded Grand Jury along with Video Taping of working on Campaigns, results in convictions based on real evidence, not made up twisted testimony.<br /><br />Zappala did it right, unlike AG Corbett attempts to find crimes by a Runaway Grand Jury directed by his Staff, that was not recorded and built on convicted liars testimony that has been destroyed on Cross-Examination.<br /><br />Political Blowbacks are not good for anyone.<br /><br />This is what happens when one contrives Prosecutions for political gain. <br /><br />There are always unintended consequences that are suffered by innocent people due to the uncontrolled aggressor law enforcement agency. <br /><br />The staffers suffering from such tactics, the Political Blowback typically manifests itself as “random” acts of political persecution without a discernible direct cause, because such non-crimes were ill defined by a sordid Attorney General bent on higher office.<br /><br />Elliot Spitzer experienced it in spades, so did District Attorney Nifong in his persecution of the Duke University false rape charges.<br /><br />When the Attorney General misdirects his focus on the public whose name the law enforcement say they are acting upon to protect.<br /><br />Only to find later that the agency acted, thinking the public will remain ignorant of the effected secret political attacks on their political opponents will never become known in time.<br /><br />A counter reaction happens such as a Political Blowback that provoked such political revenge or a counter-attack against them, revealing their wayward purpose.<br /><br />Specifically, Political Blowback denotes the resultant, wrongful consequences of poorly conducted Grand Jury hearings, reported as news fact, by and for media purposes, for a campaign goal over a true sense of justice and ignoring to investigate his own Political Party.<br /><br />When AG Corbett in a deliberate and intentional act decided to hide his responsibility via media manipulation, it will blowback on him, not protect him. <br /><br />Generally, Political Blowback loosely denotes every consequence of every aspect of a secret political strategy operation, thus, it is synonymous with consequences of attacks on political opponents making them victims. <br /><br />In turn, the other Political Party seeks revenge and justice using the exact same AG Corbett accusations against his own political party that thinks, the their own responsible political leaders are invulnerable.<br /><br />In the end, they wish they never brought such false charges since the blowbacks captures their own political operations, staffers, and lawmakers, as defined by their own misdeeds.<br /><br />I remember when so-called mighty moral Republican Congressional and Senatorial Leadership went after President Clinton for his sexual deeds on Federal Time, then all of a sudden, Republican after Republican had to admit their own Affairs and resign from Leadership positions. <br /><br />It was a sad view of MADS, Mutual Assured Destruction Self-Created.<br /><br />I do not look forward to seeing more Political Blowbacks to unfold before this election year is over!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5454535989576644455.post-71711693085946279032010-03-05T10:46:49.134-05:002010-03-05T10:46:49.134-05:00Anonymous said...Having read this sordid thread, I...Anonymous said...Having read this sordid thread, I don't see what you could possibly construe as him saying he kept things from the OAG.<br />If you're referring to the head in the sand line, you're torturing the English language. Any reader not bent on laughably distorting his comments would know what he's saying is that he didn't know enough to provide the OAG with useful grand jury or trial testimony. March 4, 2010 3:36 PM<br /><br />What is laughable is your own excuse making for Jason and then claiming someone distorted Jason's words?<br /><br />Jason's used his own words to catch himself, no one posted them for him but him, he apologized, admitted he made mistakes in his judgments, and in his own words bragged about how he side-step the OAG and was clever enough to used them to avoid any testimony.<br /><br />So much for your attacks on Casa and spin on Jason, you now look like a clown, and it is due to your posts, not anyone else!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5454535989576644455.post-40583933284978359042010-03-05T10:15:39.037-05:002010-03-05T10:15:39.037-05:00Anonymous said...But hey, keep doing what you do b...Anonymous said...But hey, keep doing what you do best--attack, attack, attack...because that's obviously gotten you a lot further than him. Oh wait...March 4, 2010 3:36 PM<br /><br />Are you talking about AG Corbett's Prosecutors conduct or Corbett's Campaign, they have been on the attack for over 3 years now?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5454535989576644455.post-31462204800923706172010-03-05T10:13:18.874-05:002010-03-05T10:13:18.874-05:00Raynak wants to know where the evidence is that th...Raynak wants to know where the evidence is that these people did no legislative work.<br /><br />Once again, the Defense is right on challenging the AG Office on how they ignored exculpatory evidence before the Grand Jury.<br /><br />The AG Office often said in all of their Presentments that no legislative work was conducted, or that staffers never worked on legislative work, the tried to bolster their charges with testimony by their state paid witnesses and guilty pleaders when they presented their case.<br /><br />Yet, on Cross-Examination, every one of the state witnesses and guilty pleaders had to recant their previous testimony, and admit, legislative work was conducted or they did not know and the words "Never," "No Work," were false as presented by the AG Office after all.<br /><br />This is what happens when you try to make a case where there is none, and the AG Office has to rely on state paid liars and convicted felons to make their case while ignoring the exculpatory evidence they refused to admit at the Grand Jury Hearings.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5454535989576644455.post-38975403246529503132010-03-04T15:49:09.831-05:002010-03-04T15:49:09.831-05:00Pray tell, "Anonymous," how on earth wou...Pray tell, "Anonymous," how on earth would you know whether your fellow poster has gotten further in life than the esteemed Mr. Lawrence?<br /><br />And it the esteemed Mr. Lawrence didn't know enough to provide any useful information to the OAG, what is the foundation for his assertions here on this forum?<br /><br />Dear Mr. Lawrence, how can we miss you if you won't go away? LOLLOLLOLAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5454535989576644455.post-57487808492420553022010-03-04T15:36:59.826-05:002010-03-04T15:36:59.826-05:00"You bet you are confused, you say in some po..."You bet you are confused, you say in some posts "you are honest and forthcoming", and in others, you admit you kept things from the Prosecutors in your OAG interviews."<br /><br />Having read this sordid thread, I don't see what you could possibly construe as him saying he kept things from the OAG.<br /><br />If you're referring to the head in the sand line, you're torturing the English language. Any reader not bent on laughably distorting his comments would know what he's saying is that he didn't know enough to provide the OAG with useful grand jury or trial testimony.<br /><br />But hey, keep doing what you do best--attack, attack, attack...because that's obviously gotten you a lot further than him. Oh wait...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5454535989576644455.post-78997588103789047402010-03-04T13:23:24.324-05:002010-03-04T13:23:24.324-05:00Hey...I know...maybe Mike can lead the pay raise e...Hey...I know...maybe Mike can lead the pay raise effort in Cell Block D...Brett can coordinate the campaign!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5454535989576644455.post-21780378426570484512010-03-04T11:05:49.249-05:002010-03-04T11:05:49.249-05:00Anonymous (AKA Riponsitter) said...
So, I'm co...Anonymous (AKA Riponsitter) said...<br />So, I'm confused as to what I possibly could not have been forthcoming about on my law school application or have lied about since. I'd also cite my willingness to go on the record in the PG as an example of my character and fitness--I still care deeply that the citizens of PA that I served are served with honesty and integrity. But I'll leave it here--and go speculate as to the outcome of this elsewhere. It's way too echo chambery. I've posted how anyone can get in touch with me--if you want to come out of the shadows (but your lawyer is probably telling you, with good reason, that's a bad idea) and have an actual discussion, please do. March 3, 2010 4:35 PM<br /><br />You bet you are confused, you say in some posts "you are honest and forthcoming", and in others, you admit you kept things from the Prosecutors in your OAG interviews.<br /><br />You commit actionable torts against other people, and now you claim you are fit to practice law?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5454535989576644455.post-28488812354675586202010-03-04T10:58:12.906-05:002010-03-04T10:58:12.906-05:00Anonymous (AKA Jason Lawerence Riponsitter) said.....Anonymous (AKA Jason Lawerence Riponsitter) said...Second, I'm no longer a student, so I see no point in the excessive quoting of a code that is, the best I can tell, aimed at honesty on resumes/applications and in taking exams, submitting papers etc. and that only applies to current students.<br /><br />Third, I've been entirely forthcoming about these events with both my school while I was a student and my future employer. It's not the most fun in the world to have to go to a partner's office and explain why the individual listed as your direct supervisor was charged with multiple felony offenses that--in legal terms--would go to character and fitness...and that in her emphatic words, you had nothing to do with them. I also underwent an extensive interview with the OAG's office. I guess I kept my head buried in the sand too well to be of use to them. March 3, 2010 4:35 PM<br /><br />My on my, with your backtracking of what you posted, it is clear your fitness to practice law should be questioned?<br /><br />You have admitted to Business Reputation Defamation and your posting of trying to correct it in a backhanded apologies are proof of your guilt, not exoneration.<br /><br />You first posted how you were so high and mighty when it came to judging others other OAG Investigation, and now you say you took a dive during the OAG interview investigation, proving you have a dubious character, to say the least, and even in your own words, wow!<br /><br />Yep, you should post here you are the biggest Hypocrite Poster to appear here!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com