checkAd

    Darf man hier denn wirklich nicht mehr ueber Hinrichtungen diskutieren? - 500 Beiträge pro Seite

    eröffnet am 11.06.01 16:54:22 von
    neuester Beitrag 11.06.01 21:02:53 von
    Beiträge: 11
    ID: 418.972
    Aufrufe heute: 0
    Gesamt: 554
    Aktive User: 0


     Durchsuchen

    Begriffe und/oder Benutzer

     

    Top-Postings

     Ja Nein
      Avatar
      schrieb am 11.06.01 16:54:22
      Beitrag Nr. 1 ()
      Fast glaubt man, Hinrichtungen haetten nichts mit Boerse zu tun...

      Muessen hinrichtungen denn wirklich so heimlich sein wie die von Timothy Mc Veigh? warum veranstaltet man denn keinen gladiatorenkampf mit filmrechten fuer ein paar millionen dollar? waere damit allen nicht viel mehr gedient? stellt euch das vor: eine arena, vorne in der ehrenloge ein cowboystiefel und -hut tragender bush (der waer sicher da, bei der publicity), in der tribuene fahnenschwenkende Amerikaner (mit Coladosen und Fast-Food-Kartons). Manche Familien haben einen Kindergeburtstag in der Arena organisiert, um den Praesidenten zu sehen und vielleicht ins Fernsehen zu kommen. Ausserdem ist so ein Live-Kampf auch nicht ohne. Zumindest demonstriert er die wehrhafte Demokratie, sagen viele Amerikaner. Basta. Und dann sind da noch die Eisverkaeufer, die in den Raengen versuchen, Softeis zu verkaufen. In der Arena waere dann Timothy Mc Veigh beim Kampf gegen ein paar Wuergeschlangen. Man kann auch Feuerwerkskoerper kaufen und sie in die Arena werfen. Es koennte eben ein richtig grosses Fest sein, wenn eine demokratische Kulturnation zeigt, wie wehrhaft sie ist...

      Am Anfang verliest dann der Praesident die Schandtaten des Verurteilten. Buff, das ist schon ein ganz schoener Hammer. Dann erklaert er, dass ein Mensch mit solchen Schandtaten sein Recht auf sein Leben verspielt habe. Nach ein paar kraeftigen, aber kurz gehaltenen Saetzen, die der Prasident mit zusammengekniffenen Lippen extra tough vorgetragen hat, sagt er noch: "I love America, and god bless our glory America." Dem Publikum stehen vor Ruehrung ueber soviel Respekt und so edlen Worten ihres grossen Praesidenten die Traenen in den Augen. Sie verkneifen sich ihre Ruehrung mit ein paar Bissen in die Pizza und ein paar Schluecken aus der Coladose. Jemand fragt, ob es auch Pepsi gaebe.

      Ist denn so etwas wirklich so ausgeschlossen in Amiland, das vor nichts halt macht?
      Avatar
      schrieb am 11.06.01 16:58:48
      Beitrag Nr. 2 ()
      Sir Dieter, Du hast Gold in der Hose und die Sonne scheint Dir

      in den Kopf, von einem Ohr zum anderen.

      Wo kann man Dich kaufen?
      Avatar
      schrieb am 11.06.01 17:12:33
      Beitrag Nr. 3 ()
      ... bei einem anschliessenden Gespraech mit Intellektuellen wird der Praesident gefragt, ob ein Land, das die Menschen- und individuellen Freiheitsrechte nicht nur seiner Lieblings-, sondern aller Buerger achte, Todesurteile faellen duerfe. Man fragt ihn auch, mit welcher Begruendung man Gott auf der Seite Amerikas vermute, worauf der Praesident schlagfertig mit einnehmendem Laecheln erwidert: "Oh, because I am sure that god has a US flag on his desk." Das Publikum verfiel in toenendes Lachen, die Fragesteller wurden uebertoent. Der Praesident hat gewonnen. Frueher haette er das Publikum weniger schnell auf seine Seite ziehen koennen. Da haette er noch gesagt: "Because I am convinced that god stands for the good, just like America." Mit solchen Spruechen hatte er damals den Wahlkampf gewonnen, aber lockerer war er jetzt geworden. Ein aufrichtiger Christ, der seinen Glauben hinterfragt, war er aber offensichtlich geblieben. Und sein Rezept waren die einfachen Loesungen geblieben...
      Avatar
      schrieb am 11.06.01 17:14:46
      Beitrag Nr. 4 ()
      Die Hymne. Keine nationale Verantstaltung ohne die Hymne. Erst muß der Präsident sagen "I love America, and god bless our glory America", um danach die Hymne anzustimmen. Das gerührte Volk erhebt sich daraufhin von den Sitzen und stimmt mit ein.

      Nur so lassen sich die richtigen Quoten erziehlen. Ohne Hymne ist das alles halb so schön. Da käme nicht das richtige Feeling auf.
      Avatar
      schrieb am 11.06.01 17:18:25
      Beitrag Nr. 5 ()
      Danke, guter Beitrag. Ich habe natuerlich diese Hymne vergessen.

      Trading Spotlight

      Anzeige
      Rallye II. – Neuer Anstoß, News und was die Börsencommunity jetzt nicht verpassen will…mehr zur Aktie »
      Avatar
      schrieb am 11.06.01 17:44:49
      Beitrag Nr. 6 ()
      Ein paar Stunden, nach dem das Spektakel vorbei ist, sagt der Praesident, dass es sich bei der Urteilsvollstreckung nicht um Rache, sondern Gerechtigkeit fuer die Hinterbliebenen handele (`Not vengeance, but justice`). Vielleicht fuehlen die Angehoerigen sich dabei zunaechst erleichtert. Aber werden sie sagen: "Uns ist Gerechtigkeit widerfahren?" Welcher Gewaltakt macht einen anderen Gewaltakt gerecht? Kann man ein ungerechtes Verbrechen durch irgendeine Handlung gerecht machen? Opfer und Hinterbliebene von Opfern werden immer Opfer sein, ihnen ist Ungerechtigkeit geschehen. Kann ein Staat durch irgend eine Handlung Ungerechtigkeit in Gerechtigkeit verwandeln? Etwa durch gewalttaetige Methoden? Wenn ich durch vorsaetzliche und hinterhaeltige Handlung eines Verbrechers Opfer werde, ist es dann gerecht, dem taeter gewalt anzutun? Mildert die Gewalt vielleicht nur meine Hassgefuehle? Sind meine Hassgefuehle gerechtfertigt, und ist die Reduzierung meiner Hassgefuehle durch Gewalt am Schuldigen eine edle Tat, fuer die man sich moralisch verantworten kann? Oder ist Gewalt ausserhalb der Notwehr nur eine infantile Tat, die meine Erregung bekaempft und dabei gleichzeitig meine eigene Wuerde angreift. Was ist Gewalt gegen wehrlose?
      Avatar
      schrieb am 11.06.01 18:07:37
      Beitrag Nr. 7 ()
      "Don`t bullshit man", heisst jetzt die Zauberformel fuer die Polls. Hinter den Kulissen rufen sich die Berater zu, was der Praesident jetzt sagen soll. Der Praesident wiederholt, ein Mann, der 168 wehrlose Menschen hinterhaeltig und brutal in den Tod befoerdere, habe sein Recht auf Leben verspielt. Applaus aus dem Publikum. Vorne links sitzt Jack, Moebelverkaeufer aus Tennessee, nickend und sichtlich erleichtert. Wie ein Mensch entscheiden koenne, wann ein anderer sein Recht auf Leben verspielt habe, fragt einer aus der hinteren Reihe. Der Praesident antwortet: "Mc Veigh has taken this decision for 168 innocent people, and we have taken it for one murderer. Now I ask you on which side we find justice here." Spontan. Schlagfertig. Der Mann weiss wovon er redet. Applaus. Am Ende hat der Praesident in den Polls 5% mehr Anhaenger...
      Avatar
      schrieb am 11.06.01 18:27:41
      Beitrag Nr. 8 ()
      piep
      Avatar
      schrieb am 11.06.01 19:14:56
      Beitrag Nr. 9 ()
      v
      Avatar
      schrieb am 11.06.01 19:33:56
      Beitrag Nr. 10 ()
      haha, mein beitrag steht jetzt wieder ganz ganz oben.
      Avatar
      schrieb am 11.06.01 21:02:53
      Beitrag Nr. 11 ()
      Na, Dieter, Englisch scheinst Du ja zu können. Da dachte ich, ich könnte Dir `mal `ne story hier `reinstellen, die mir irgendwie passend zum thread erschien. Kommentare dazu habe ich keine.

      http://sightings.com/general10/mcveighfraud.htm

      McVeigh And `Fraud
      Upon The Court`
      By Sherman H. Skolnick
      skolnick@ameritech.net
      http://www.skolnicksreport.com
      6-3-1

      There is one term lawyers seldom study about or use.
      Perhaps reading about this will help you understand why.
      That phrase is "fraud upon the court".

      In Anglo-Saxon Law, lawyers are "officers of the court",
      pledged to uphold the court system. In the beginning of this
      nation, the lawyers and judges in the colonies, generally were
      Tories who supported the Crown, the Monarchy in England
      that sought to tax the colonists without representation.

      With the Declaration of INDEPENDENCE from England
      and the American Revolutionary War, among other things,
      the non-lawyer colonists rose up against the lawyers and
      lawyers acting as judges. To identify these enemies of the
      people, the colonists painted black the chimneys of lawyers
      and judges, many of whom fled to Canada.

      From the standpoint of lawyers and judges, the most
      troublesome "fraud upon the court" involves a corrupter or
      "bagman", working a malign if not corrupt influence on the
      judge or judges to procure an arbitrary ruling. In the whole
      history of jurisprudence in the United States, with just one
      rare exception of record, lawyers have NOT been the ones
      invoking, in court, the principle of "fraud upon the court" to
      challenge a court ruling by fingering the judge.

      Even to this day, lawyers generally by what they do and say
      in court, support the system, upholding whatever nowadays
      constitutes the "Crown". With that one exception of record,
      in the entire history of the United States, all the invoking in
      court of "fraud upon the court" as to corrupt judges has been
      done in the last four decades by me and my associates in our
      court reform, investigation, and research group, Citizen`s
      Committee to Clean Up the Courts, of which since 1963 I
      have been the founder/chairman.

      As a group, we early on by our work came to understand the
      general principles of judicial corruption endemic in America.
      Such as namely, oftentimes, the judges in the courthouse
      building own and operate a bank, together with their
      lawyers/cronies/corrupters. And, surprisingly, very often that
      selfsame bank is right across the alley or right across the
      street from the courthouse.

      Identified by others as the greatest bribery-of-judges scandal
      in American history, was caused by us in 1969.

      The State courthouse in Chicago at the time was called the
      Civic Center. It housed the Circuit Court of Cook County;
      and the next higher level in a three-tier state court system,
      the Appellate Court of Illinois, First District, being Cook
      County; and the Chicago offices of three of the seven
      Justices of Illinois` highest tribunal, the Illinois Supreme
      Court whose court building is in the state capitol.

      Through an intense investigation, we as non-lawyers but
      self-educated in law, and not wishing to be members of the
      bar, unearthed documents and details supporting the
      following:

      1. That across the street from the Civic Center was a small,
      CLOSELY HELD bank. Following the cynical tradition in
      America. it was called, naturally, the Civic Center Bank.

      2. From all the details, we understood it was a quiet money
      laundry for criminal purposes. We called it "the shuttle bus
      to Switzerland".

      3. It was founded by Illinois` chief tax collector, Theodore J.
      Isaacs, who had been Director of the Illinois Department of
      Revenue, interlocked with the highly corrupt Chicago District
      office of the Internal Revenue Service.

      4. Isaacs brought into his bank enterprise as fellow owners
      the Chief Bank Examiner; Otto Kerner, Jr., Governor of
      Illinois and later, made a federal appeals court judge;
      together with thirty state and federal judges and nine
      name-brand Chicago-area gangsters.

      5. To assure himself that the pressfakers would censor any
      negative stories about the criminal operation, Isaacs also
      brought in as fellow owners the head of Field Enterprises
      that at that time owned the Chicago Sun-Times and the
      Chicago Daily News; and the political editor of the Chicago
      Tribune; and a further assortment of City Hall and media
      bigshots.

      Because of his previous activities, Isaacs was convicted of
      state criminal offenses. His appeal was pending in the Illinois
      Supreme Court. Being a man that understands the American
      judicial system, he did a natural thing. Just two weeks before
      the oral argument and presentation of his appeal, he brought
      into the bank, as fellow owners, most of the judges of the
      Illinois Supreme Court.

      The high court judges did a natural thing. As banker-judges
      they understood the judicial system such as it is. They
      overturned the conviction of their fellow bank-owner Isaacs.
      [As we have pointed out on our website, the court system is
      riddled in key places with Banker-Judges. They do not
      disqualify themselves when their bank is in their court.
      Guess who wins in their crooked court?]

      Our policy is and has always been: when we are convinced
      that certain judges are corrupt, we file and present, to their
      face, an extra-ordinary court petition, accusing the judge or
      judges openly that certain court judgments were procured by
      a malign if not corrupt influence on the judges. We do not
      engage in secret poison pen letters, or mere rumors, or
      tactics of disguise and evasion. Direct confrontation is our
      motto and my job, as chairman, founder, and spokesman of
      our group since 1963. It is a hazard and jeopardy required
      by a court system which does not cure itself by the internal
      operation of the Bench and the Bar.

      Designating ourselves as amici curiae, "friends of the court",
      I and an associate of mine, by an extra-ordinary motion, filed
      in the criminal case of People of the State of Illinois versus
      Theodore J. Isaacs, directly confronted the state high court
      judges with their own crimes in their purported temple of
      justice. Angry at our audacity, they ordered and supervised a
      Chicago judge to grill me. Under threat of jail, I was ordered
      by the accused high court judges to divulge all our methods
      of investigation of them. They evidently figured, that since I
      am a paraplegic from polio in a wheelchair since childhood,
      that I am a weakling and will fold up and disappear. I
      refused to divulge our methods to the accused judges and
      their hang-man.

      Dealing with me as if I were a desperate and dangerous bank
      robber, they had four state troopers haul me to prison in an
      armored truck. After two weeks of the resulting public
      commotions, I was vindicated. The high court Chief Justice
      and an Associate Justice were ordered removed from the
      bench. A third accused high court justice promptly bugged
      out; he died under fire. A fourth high court justice and the
      remaining Associate Justices somehow escaped. As an
      institution of stone sitting on a hill, the state high court fell
      into the dark pit of infamy. It was a beautiful but temporary
      moment in history.

      Thereafter, in the federal court system, likewise designating
      myself as a "friend of the court", I filed an extra-ordinary
      court petition. I accused Chicago Federal Appeals Judge Otto
      Kerner, Jr., a pal of Isaacs, of specific bribery. After having
      been Illinois Governor, Kerner had been appointed to the
      U.S. Court of Appeals, 7th Circuit, Chicago.

      Judge Kerner arranged with the Chief Judge of the U.S.
      District Court in Chicago to try to jail me for "contempt of
      court". When that did not stop me, Kerner held a press
      conference, trying to smear me as a "liar".

      Like a gangster making too much noise, when a pillar of the
      Government Establishment does not do his dirty work
      quietly, the Establishment throws him away. He serves no
      further purpose. No "sensible" bagman or fellow banker will
      corrupt him. Kerner was prosecuted and jailed on my
      charges and died an ex-convict. He became the highest level
      sitting federal judge in American history to be jailed for
      bribery. [Isaacs was sent to jail as well on federal charges.]

      The preceding are just two examples of our work as a group
      over the last four decades.

      In the Timothy McVeigh murder case, the chief defense
      counsel, Stephen Jones, prior to the start of the trial, brought
      an extra-ordinary petition in the next higher court, U.S.
      Court of Appeals, 10th Circuit, Denver. In the 185-page
      document, Jones sought to compel trial Judge Richard
      Matsch to be required to force the American CIA and other
      espionage agencies to divulge the details of Iraqi involvement
      in the Oklahoma City bombing. In his court papers, called
      Petition for Mandamus AGAINST JUDGE MATSCH,
      Jones referred to secret portions of the court records as well
      as other evidence showing the CIA cover up; that the CIA
      and other espionage agencies had prior knowledge of the
      bombing. And that there were others involved.

      [At the close of the Persian Gulf War, 1991, then President
      George Herbert Walker Bush arranged to quietly bring into
      the United States, some four thousand Iraqi military officers,
      supposed defectors, many from Iraqi intelligence units, with
      their families. Some two thousand of these live in Oklahoma
      City or right nearby. Bush was in a position to know that
      some of them were double agents. The FBI has concealed
      that they have closed circuit video showing an Iraqi military
      officer supervising the bombings; multiple devices were
      used, some around or strapped to the pillars of the Alfred P.
      Murrah Building.]

      Using U.S. domestic dissidents, as patsies and surrogates,
      apparently insulated from knowing about the Iraqi link, Iraq
      thus got revenge upon the United States by the worst, so far,
      terrorist attack on U.S. soil. Iraq and others consider the
      Oklahoma bombings justified. Some have contended that at
      the close of the Persian Gulf War, the U.S. committed war
      crimes in that our military was ordered to shoot in the back
      some 150 thousand Iraqi soldiers, mostly conscripts,
      proceeding under a white flag of surrender. With bulldozers,
      the U.S. military buried many of them, still alive, in mass
      graves in the desert. The only even remotely similar event
      was late in World War Two, at the "Battle of the Bulge",
      when German troops slaughtered some 86 U.S. soldiers
      proceeding under a white flag of surrender. Can 86 soldiers
      be compared to 150 thousand?

      In the only case of its kind of record in U.S. history, is
      outlined, step by step, the procedure that is to be used in
      unearthing whether a court judgment or verdict has been
      procured by a malign if not corrupt influence on a judge,
      constituting a "fraud upon the court". That case, invoked by
      us in the Illinois Supreme Court mess and the Kerner matter,
      is Root Refining Co. versus Universal Oil Products Co. In
      law libraries it is Volume 169 Federal Reporter Second
      Series, starting at page 514. Legal researchers cite it as 169
      F.2d 514 (3rd Circuit, 1948). This rare case provides that:

      (A) A court, regardless of its level in the court system
      whether trial court or reviewing court, has inherent power
      and original jurisdiction, at any time (even years and years
      later) to inquire whether its judgments and decrees had been
      procured by a "fraud upon the court", poisoning up the
      temple of justice. That is, by some happening not known at
      the time of judgment and not previously in the court record
      but becoming known at a later date.

      (B) This inherent power is particularly so when the
      judgments and decrees had been obtained by a malign if not
      corrupt influence on one or more Judges of the court.

      (C) To supervise the investigation, and to assure the public
      that there will not be a cover up, the Chief Justice of the
      United States has to designate judges from faraway to
      specifically sit in the district of the inquiry. Such faraway
      judges should appoint a Master, that is, a court-appointed
      taker-of-evidence, to quiz witnesses, to compile evidence
      and documents, and to submit a report to the special panel of
      faraway judges. And that the special panel consider the
      same.

      (D) Without exception, every possible witness, document,
      and means is to be used, using court process,to compel the
      appearance of witnesses and production of documents,in
      order to be able to effectively unearth the "fraud upon the
      court".

      (E) The circumstances of the accused judges and how they
      went about entering the challenged and tainted judgments
      and decrees are to be examined and scrutinized, or whether
      others unlawfully and secretly entered such judgments and
      decrees for or on behalf of such judges. [One of the
      examined judges in the Root case, was an elderly senile
      judge. Court orders were secretly entered by corrupters in
      his name without his apparent knowledge.] The
      circumstances have to be examined to determine if
      corrupters worked a malign if not corrupt influence on the
      accused judge or judges.

      (F) To assist in the inquiry, there is to be permitted
      outsiders, not themselves directly involved in the judgments
      or decrees; that is, as amicus curiae, "friends of the court".

      (G) The special panel of faraway judges has to determine
      whether the court judgments, orders, and decrees, shown to
      be tainted by having been procured by malign influence and
      corruption, are to now be purged from the court records.

      (H) The special panel has to consider whether the now
      identified perpetrators of the "fraud upon the court", are to
      hereafter be barred from the courthouse and not allowed to
      be further heard.

      In the claim of "fraud upon the court", the defense attorneys
      in the McVeigh case have not focussed on the tainted role of
      the judges which should be considered. Those in the
      McVeigh case who should be questioned under oath by a
      panel of faraway judges, designated by the Chief Justice of
      the United States to especially sit in Denver to consider the
      extra-ordinary situation should include the following:

      * Denver Federal District Judge Richard Matsch who
      apparently had been told certain matters are to be covered
      up because of "national security", that is, the Iraqi
      connection. Also, Judge Matsch has reportedly been
      terrorized and intimidated by the reported murder of his
      daughter who fell or was pushed into a volcano in Hawaii.
      Judge Matsch refused to compel the American CIA and
      other espionage agencies to produce records, which by other
      factual data they are known to have, showing prior U.S.
      government knowledge of the Murrah Building Bombings.
      The Judge should have compelled the American CIA to
      divulge their records as to Andreas Strassmeier, connected to
      German Counter-Intelligence, and supervised by a secret
      CIA unit in the Justice Department. Strassmeier reportedly
      was a go-between for Iraqis and the American domestic
      dissidents as surrogates and patsies. And remember our prior
      stories about German Counter-Intelligence having advance
      knowledge of the murder of Clinton White House Deputy
      Counsel Vincent W. Foster, Jr. German big business
      supplied weapons to Iraq.

      * Oklahoma City U.S. District Judge Wayne Alley who was
      given, by federal officials, advance warning of a bombing to
      be at the Murrah Building on April 19, 1995. Judge Alley
      purposely did not come to his office that day. His office is
      close by the Murrah Building. Judge Alley admitted his prior
      knowledge in an interview in the newspaper the Oregonian,
      in his original home state of Oregon. Those who forewarned
      him should be compelled to be identified.

      * Former President George Herbert Walker Bush, to testify
      under oath, subject to penalty for perjury about (a) how he
      arranged to bring into the U.S. the 4 thousand Iraqi military
      defectors, some of whom were known to Bush as being
      double-agents. And the inter-face arrangement between Bush
      and President Clinton as to the housing, payment, and work
      provided for the defectors some two thousand of whom live
      in Oklahoma City or right nearby. (b)The Elder Bush and his
      son George W. Bush should be questioned under oath about
      the private business partnership of the Elder Bush with Iraqi
      strongman Saddam Hussein for the decade of the 1980s; to
      cover up the bank records of the same, a federal suit was
      brought in Chicago 1990-91, at the hearing of which the only
      journalist was Skolnick.

      * Judges on the U.S. Court of Appeals, 10th Circuit,
      Denver, who were told in private that they should not
      compel Judge Matsch to force out the records of the CIA
      and other espionage agencies, because of so-called "national
      security", being a link to Iraq. They were also terrorized and
      intimidated by the reported murder of Matsch`s daughter.

      * William Rockefeller Clinton should be forced to testify
      under sworn oath, subject to penalty for perjury, about his
      interface with the Elder Bush and George W. Bush, as to the
      Iraqi defectors, some of them known double-agents, brought
      into the U.S., with some two thousand of them in Oklahoma
      City or right nearby. Clinton should be grilled as to why he
      had a U.S. Secret Service agent, Alan Whitcher, re-assigned
      to the Murrah Building where he died in the bombings. As
      known to Clinton, the agent had lots of knowledge about
      Clinton`s treason with the Red Chinese Secret Police. With
      Clinton`s prior knowledge of the bombings, Clinton thus
      arranged to snuff out the Secret Service agent. Showing fake
      remorse, Clinton as President attended a post-bombings
      memorial for the agent.

      * FBI agents and officials current and former, should be
      questioned under sworn oath, subject to penalty for perjury,
      about the close circuit video FBI has showing an Iraqi
      military officer supervising the multiple bombings of the
      Murrah Building, as well as FBI knowledge of the
      Strassmeier matters.

      A free lance journalist interviewing Timothy McVeigh in
      prison wanted to ask him a question without being
      overheard. So the journalist wrote down the letters CIA on a
      piece of paper, and with a questioning look on the
      journalist`s face and holding up the paper for McVeigh to see
      while the journalist pointed to McVeigh for an answer,
      McVeigh nodded his head, YES.

      * Past and present relevant Directors of Central Intelligence
      as to some of the matters here mentioned.

      * Past and present members of Counter-Intelligence of
      Saudi, a U.S. ally, as to the Iraqi connection and U.S.
      intelligence prior knowledge of the Murrah Building
      bombings.

      The defense attorneys for Timothy McVeigh and their
      bringing up the matter of "fraud upon the court"; nowhere do
      they seem ready or willing to bring up any matters of the
      judges operating in the McVeigh matter under a malign if not
      corrupt influence, constituting the strongest showing of a
      "fraud upon the court". At the minimum, bringing up some
      of the matters mentioned here would constitute strong
      grounds for a new trial and/or changing the death penalty for
      McVeigh. Like attorneys throughout the history of American
      courts, the McVeigh attorneys are not inclined to finger
      judges, even if rightfully necessary. In plain lingo, the
      lawyers are too chicken or they simply go along with
      supporting the "Crown", regardless of the truth. More
      coming.

      Stay tuned.



      ==============================

      Since 1958, Mr. Skolnick is a court reformer and since
      1963,
      Founder/Chairman, Citizen`s Committee to Clean Up the
      Courts. Since
      1991, a regular panelist and since 1995, Moderator/Producer
      of
      "Broadsides", a one-hour weekly public access Cable TV
      Program,
      cablecast within Chicago to upwards of 400,000 viewers
      each Monday
      evening, 9 p.m., Channel 21 Cable TV.

      For a heavy packet of our printed stories, send $5.00 [U.S.
      funds] plus a stamped, self-addressed BUSINESS size
      envelope [#10 envelope, 4-1/8 x 9-1/2] WITH THREE
      STAMPS ON IT, to

      Citizen`s Committee to Clean Up the Courts
      Sherman H. Skolnick, Chairman
      9800 So. Oglesby Ave.
      Chicago IL 60617-4870.
      Office, 8 a.m. to midnight, most 7 days:
      (773) 375-5741.

      PLEASE do not bombard this
      listed phone number with JUST ROUTINE calls.
      For updates of our work on a regular not expensive phone
      call:
      (773) 731-1100.
      WEBSITE: http://www.skolnicksreport.com
      E-MAIL: skolnick@ameritech.net





      MainPag


      Beitrag zu dieser Diskussion schreiben


      Zu dieser Diskussion können keine Beiträge mehr verfasst werden, da der letzte Beitrag vor mehr als zwei Jahren verfasst wurde und die Diskussion daraufhin archiviert wurde.
      Bitte wenden Sie sich an feedback@wallstreet-online.de und erfragen Sie die Reaktivierung der Diskussion oder starten Sie
      hier
      eine neue Diskussion.
      Darf man hier denn wirklich nicht mehr ueber Hinrichtungen diskutieren?