Notice: Forums will be shutdown by June 2019

To focus on better serving our members, we've decided to shut down the POF forums.

While regular posting is now disabled, you can continue to view all threads until the end of June 2019. Event Hosts can still create and promote events while we work on a new and improved event creation service for you.

Thank you!

Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
     
Show ALL Forums  > Current Events  > The exculpatory facts of the Carl Rove/CIA Agent matter      Home login  
 AUTHOR
 NittanyLion
Joined: 2/19/2005
Msg: 151
When all else fails, read the instructionsPage 7 of 14    (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14)
Put me on jeopardy right away!!! I could beat Ken Jennings!!! I know an answer (I mean a question) that he doesn't!!!


Answer: the only relation that Hallmark doesn't have a card for.

Question: What is a Dutch internet adopted sister, Alex?
 NittanyLion
Joined: 2/19/2005
Msg: 152
When all else fails, read the instructions
Posted: 7/25/2005 2:30:05 PM
I hope they nail his ass. How's that?
 BulldogMedic
Joined: 12/31/2004
Msg: 154
When all else fails, read the instructions
Posted: 7/25/2005 6:08:43 PM
Saritmiami: Karl rove is innocent of the crimes (because I say so), you research on him is utterly flawed, you're off-topic, if you whiny pinko liberals didn't have the guts to enlist in the military there's no point to listen to you now (believe me, the army would knock that sass out of you), if you hate America so much then LEAVE, your name should be saritaMUSLIMa, you smell.
 BulldogMedic
Joined: 12/31/2004
Msg: 155
When all else fails, read the instructions
Posted: 7/25/2005 8:19:14 PM
Oh Monty, you missed the not-so-subtle humor in my post. You should know better than that. I'm just giving my fans what they expect. Hell, they were even nice enough to write a "how to" list for me.
 LegalWizard
Joined: 5/2/2005
Msg: 156
UNOFFICIAL testimony presented by former CIA analyst
Posted: 7/25/2005 10:14:32 PM
Dear Beachcomberbenn,

As Ronald Reagan used to say, there you go again!

The so called "testimony" offered by a former CIA Analyst was not "testimony" at all, but a friendly conversation held unofficially between a claque of congressional Democrats who were outraged that the nomination of a new Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court shifted the news media spotlight away from Karl Rove for a moment, because these zealous partisans are simply out to try and keep Karl Rove's name in the press in a bad light THROUGH THE PLOY OF HOLDING UNOFFICIAL "HEARINGS" outside of the auspices of the Congress of the United States.

The "hearings" had all the trappings of a few guys and gals of the Hate George Bush Claque getting together for a party or social function that was dedicated to the proposition of holding a "rump" session and unofficially bashing Rove and Bush and I guess maybe even targeting Santa Clause and also the Tooth Fairy for not filing federal tax returns.

These so called "hearings" are private meetings held exclusively by the conniving opposition minority party outside of the legitmate committees of Congress as a staged opportunity to bash Rove, capture some headlines, and make nothing but propaganda instead of progress.

Sophisticated Americans know the difference between "testimony" and staged media stunts.

This tactic stinks to high heaven and is suspect at best and maybe even should be brought to the attention of the Congressional ethics committees for the sleazy tactic of "holding rump hearings" and impersonating the bona fide Congressional process without obtaining the sanction of the bona fide Congressional leadership.

So what did the lapdog FORMER Analyst have to share that was so earth shattering? Nothing much. Again, the phoney hearings produced much more heat than light.

Karl Rove should most definitely sue some of the wild-eyed detractors who are ranting that he is a traiter, that he "outed" Valerie Plame when the grand jury testimony states that it was the representatives of the news media who "outed" Valerie Plam to Karl Rove, who did not even know her name before the reporters told him about her.

The exculpatory evidence supporting Karl Rove's innocence of having committed any crime is so overwhelming, that only the most partisan fanatical adherents of the Anti Bush Claque and Hate America First Club even bother with contemplating what the zealous leftest Democrats are stretching the truth to say about Karl Rove, I would understand if Karl Rove asked the federal Grand Jury for a "NO True Bill" waiver from prosecution by reason of innocense and then systematically started filing Defamation of Character federal lawsuits against target defendants who are able to pay a substantial money judgment to Rove for publicly vilifing him as a "Traitor" and as a "Criminal" etc. ad nauseum. The standard supporting a public figure's right to sue for money judgments under defamation theory is the fact that malice can be deduced by the RECKLESS DISREGARD FOR TRUTH doctrine.

And the so called rump and phoney "hearings" with so-called "testimony" have all the legal force and effect of conducting junior high school parlor games.

I have discerned so much hatred eminating from the liberal leftists when reading the Forum postings that I intend to register to vote a host of new Republicans and make sure that they all vote against any nominee the Democratic cranks want to field in the next Presidential election.

Beachcomberbenn, please save me the necessity to correct the public record with the "rest of the story" about your pseudo official "testimony" that was staged.

People who are young and impressionable, and also adults who dont have the benefit of knowing the counter-ballancing truth my read your rants and actually start to give full faith and credit to the partisan attacks that are basically a "pound of smoke."

Hey, BullDogMedic, you are doing a great job. Kudos for holding the line and remaining in charge of the Truth-telling on these postings.

And ErikSFBay and GenJackRiper with the usual liberal posters are in a loosley arraigned confederation to all beat the drum together and do their "I hate Republicans" war dance on a continuum, but the political center is "on to ya" and more and more voters are voting straight Republican after hearing the strident Democratic screams that is basically hatred against the Republican majority Congress, White House and Electorate.

The Red States are where its at, politically, and any number of phony rump hearings where the bona fide Republican Chairmen of Congressional Committes are not present are just private and biased "hog calling contests" rather than being fair and balanced "Town Meetings."

 LegalWizard
Joined: 5/2/2005
Msg: 157
The exculpatory facts of the Carl Rove/CIA Agent matter
Posted: 7/25/2005 11:02:04 PM
Well friends, here is something to consider:

If Ambassador Joseph Wilson WAS NOT DISPATCHED TO NIGER to look into the bona fides of the "yellow cake" nuclear intelligence that the BRITISH Intelligence notified the CIA about, by Vice President Cheny, or any other authority OTHER THAN HIS WIFE, and if Ambassador Wilson made no governmental written report, and only grandstanded in the Press about debunking the "yellow cake" intelligence that was originally obtained by the CIA from British Intelligence, and if "Wilson's Wife, Valerie Plame went with Ambassador Wilson to Niger WITHOUT THE AUTHORITY OR CONSENT OF THE DIRECTOR OF CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE, isnt it fair to assume that the Niger trip by Ambassador Wilson and also CIA desk jockey pencil pusher Valerie Plame was in fact a private vendetta to make some news that was intended exclusively to embarrass the President (at the request of who, dare I say Democrats?) during a time of war?

If The CIA Director didnt authorize Valerie Plame to do the Niger Yellow Cake inquiry, and if Ambassador Wilson (a bona fide John Kerry financial contributor) didnt even file a written report, and simply started soap-boxing for the news media, isnt it fair to say that the intent of Joseph Wilson being dispatced to Niger under the auspices of his wife, was intent upon publicly embarrassing the British Intelligence, the CIA, and especially George W. Bush.

No matter what the libs say about America being "lied to" by George W. Bush with regard to the reason we went to war in Iraq, the truth is that capturing Saddam and doing an Iraqi regime change and protecting the Kurds, were all legitimate war goals on the part of the United States and that the whiners wouldnt be happy until we put Saddam back in as the Iraqi President and paid him reparations, apologising to the world and pointing out that now that Saddam was back in power, that the Kurds in the North of Iraq remain some very pretty handy human-rights-violation genocidal targets, again.

Iraq needed to be taken out real bad. Thats why I supported Operation Iraqi Freedom in the first place. And if we go into Syria or Iran to clean out those murderous rat's nests, I would also support those future wars too.

And if we ever get around to taking out Iran, Syria, or North Korea, we would be ridding the Planet Earth of some really noxious regimes. To oppose the taking out of these human rights violators is akin to the crowd chanting "Give us Barrabas" at the trial of Jesus.

And that's the way it is.

Fair and unbiased.

Saddam's Iraq was a regime run by murderous madmen.

The only countries on Iraq's borders that Saddam did not attack (yet) was Syria, Turkey, and Jordan. Otherwise, Iran, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, and Israel were all attacked by Iraq.
 NittanyLion
Joined: 2/19/2005
Msg: 158
The exculpatory facts of the Carl Rove/CIA Agent matter
Posted: 7/26/2005 3:22:29 AM
Uhh... yeah.
 LegalWizard
Joined: 5/2/2005
Msg: 159
The exculpatory facts of the Carl Rove/CIA Agent matter
Posted: 7/26/2005 7:17:35 AM
"Back to the topic, don't you think that Carl Rove has a lot of questions to answer, and should be brought before an inquiry of some kind?"


Well, here I am once more forced into the role of "Master of the Obvious" to set the record straight for the benefit of the impressionable who read things that are skewed and spun without any regard for truth or justice. So, here it is:

Karl Rove WAS brought before "an inquiry of some kind." He was a witness before a federal Grand Jury that has been the lawfully constituted arm of the federal criminal justice system empowered to bring criminal charges against ANYONE.

Guess what OCEAN LOVER? The "inquiry of some kind" has declined to affix any criminal blame to Karl Rove whatsoever.

Any other "inquiry of some kind" that you would desire can only be describe as a "political witch hunt" or politically motivated "Star Chamber" as a forum to vent HATRED on the part of the political opponents of the Bush Administration and those whose loyalties are not vested in the due process of law jurisprudence practices of the United States of America.

We have seen these kind of "trials" in literature before, where politically motivated mobs vent their collective spleen by screaming "Crucify Him" or "Give us Barabas" as a sibstitute for such values as innocent until proven quilty beyond a reasonable doubt, equal protection under the law or due process of law.

What the liberal Republican HATERS really want is to pillory Karl Rove, hang him, eviscerate him, draw and quarter him, and then chop off his head and then have the headsman hold it up high as the adoring crowd cheers loudly and then casts their eyes about looking for yet another victim in which to innitiate "an inquiry of some kind" with a view toward sating their bloodlust for the politics of personal distruction to affix its relentless stare upon.

And the more these extremists vent their HATRED and make wild accusations, the centrist electorate moves farther right of center to join the "red states" by tossing out the hatemongers and liberal social extremists through voting for Republicans.

We couldn't create a better climate to elect Republicans by paying political strategists or buying paid political announcements with a conservative spin; the shrill liberal voices are alienating the electorate all by themselves, by their HATEMONGER statements that fair-minded people in American voting booths abhore and recoil from.

Long live the Howard Dean, Hillary Clinton, Charles Schumer and their ilk, "more than useful idiots!" Every time they open their mouths another one hundred undecided voters join the Republican Party.

Karl Rove has been most throughly exculpated, de-criminalized, and had his innocence affirmed in this thread.

What remains is the bloodlust hateful spleen ventings of the unreasonable leftists who will stop at nothing, including shouts of "traitor" and also holding phony rump "hearings" as a media stunt to grap a cheap-shot headline.

Bile be Thy name.


"Wilson was sent by the CIA."


Well, I guess Ambassador Wilson receives his CIA orders from Wifey-Poo.

And then without filing any written reports, grandstands publicly as to the results of his hush-hush CIA assignment to investigate the Niger Yellow Cake lead by going public and making joint appearances and politically motivated pronouncements.

While the so-called Iraqi documents requesting Niger Yellow Cake have been shown not to be legitimate Saddam Iraqi documents, no one has satisfied my suspicion that the forged Iraqi documents were not transmitted to Niger by a Terrorist Organization attempting to secure Niger Yellow Cake by impersonating Saddam's Iraqi minions.

As if the Terrorists aren't trying to secure chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons of their own.

Wake up!

 HalftimeDad
Joined: 5/29/2005
Msg: 160
The exculpatory facts of the Carl Rove/CIA Agent matter
Posted: 7/26/2005 7:19:01 AM
Wiz has so completely bought into the Republican Cultural Revolution he's incapable of independent thought. Soon Rush and Sean will tell him it's okay to condemn treason and he will pretend he thought it was wrong all along.
 NittanyLion
Joined: 2/19/2005
Msg: 161
The exculpatory facts of the Carl Rove/CIA Agent matter
Posted: 7/26/2005 7:25:59 AM

What remains is the bloodlust hateful spleen ventings of the unreasonable leftists who will stop at nothing, including shouts of "traitor" and also holding phony rump "hearings" as a media stunt to grap a cheap-shot headline.
To follow up on halftimedad's comment, I do believe that a week or two ago, 'legal'wizard, you were perceverating about how if you were on a jury for a treason charge you would generally convict without even considering the facts, because it's such a horrific thing.

What I'm wondering, (and I can't wait to see what happens) is if, when Carl Rove is convicted, (if he is, of course) 'legal'wizard will be humble (?!) enough to acknowledge it, or if he will instead have to save try to face with more comments like:
What remains is the bloodlust hateful spleen ventings of the unreasonable leftists who will stop at nothing, including shouts of "traitor" and also holding phony rump "hearings" as a media stunt to grap a cheap-shot headline.
Only time will tell. In the meantime, isn't there some sort of briefcase handcuffed to your wrist that you have to go feel important with?

(sorry for the sarcasm, but your holier than thou attitude wearing thin.)
 NittanyLion
Joined: 2/19/2005
Msg: 162
The exculpatory facts of the Carl Rove/CIA Agent matter
Posted: 7/26/2005 7:40:15 AM
What happened? Airport security took the key to his briefcase, and his thesaurus was in there.


(I'm sorry. Last one. I promise.)
 LegalWizard
Joined: 5/2/2005
Msg: 163
The exculpatory facts of the Carl Rove/CIA Agent matter
Posted: 7/26/2005 4:43:09 PM

"PS did you ever get that Consular issue resolved with Mr. Orange? I noticed that you disappared from that thread after the thorough butt-spanking he dealt you."


Answer: I have not read Mr. Orange's remarks and am wondering what thread that was posted on. I have posted on more than one thread and would like to look at whatever thread Mr. Orange thinks his butt-spanking remarks are on, so that I can reply accordingly.
 NittanyLion
Joined: 2/19/2005
Msg: 164
The exculpatory facts of the Carl Rove/CIA Agent matter
Posted: 7/26/2005 4:46:25 PM
For your edification: New Federal ID Law, message #53. It's an interesting read.
 LegalWizard
Joined: 5/2/2005
Msg: 165
The exculpatory facts of the Carl Rove/CIA Agent matter
Posted: 7/26/2005 9:42:15 PM
(Since you wrongfully introduced into this thread, the matters on Consular Law and Practice as discussed in another thread, I am providing a copy here of my answers to Mr. Orange on the other thread.)

Suggestions in Opposition to Message #53 Posted by the Distinguished Mr. Orange

Prior to addressing the technical details contained within your posting, let me first state that as an officer and a gentleman possessing the special trust and confidence of the President of the United States of America as a military officer it would seem that you would find the approval of his superior officers, and also distinguish himself in any public setting, by offering the appropriate courtesies due to foreign Consular Officers.

The remarks made relating to His Lordship, the Baron Marcel, if made in a public setting and in the presence of such a dignitary, upon the complaint of either the Consulate or the Foreign Ministry of the sending State, to the United States Secretary of State, would most certainly bring upon yourself the unfavorable attention of your commanding officer and most likely as well, a reprimand to grace your permanent military record for “Conduct unbecoming an Officer.”

You are invited to verify any or all of the following facts, Mr. Orange:

Pursuant to the White House Office of Protocol, Foreign Consular Officers enter in a formal procession, immediately after military officers possessing the rank of a Colonel and are entitled to be afforded all of the courtesies incumbent with a Diplomat accredited to the Secretary of State of the United States of America.

The unkind, gratuitous, and scurrilous derision with which you, without provocation, extended to His Excellency, the late Baron Marcel Dingli Attard di’ Baroni Inguenez, Head of Consular Post representing the Republic of Malta to Missouri, U.S.A.; the 19th Baron of Ortigos, Hemsija, and Zapparia, the Hereditary Titular Nobiliary of the Governorship of Malta; Grand Master of the Maltese Gubernatorial Household Order of Knighthood originally founded as the Military Cincture of Sicily and commonly referred to as the ‘Torquati Aureate” of the “Golden Knights” of Malta, established by Count Roger I, Grand Count of Sicily and the Spanish Royal Governor of Malta under the Aragon Kings of Spain (1072-1101) and a member of the Princely Lippian Royal Household as the King of Arms and Principal Herald of His Serene Highness, Prince Friedrich Wilhelm Ernst Victor Alexander, the Furst zur Lippe, Special Envoy to the UN Office of Public Information representing a UNESCO NGO, particularly with regard to your ill mannered and below quoted remarks, if made directly to the dignitary’s face, which would most certainly be reported to the US Secretary of State through the Diplomatic channel, when brought to the attention of the Secretary of Defense, would very likely be cause for appropriate military disciplinary action coupled with your written apology.


“Baron Marcel huh? I was not aware that the inventor of the BIC pen was made a special envoy to the united nations”


Now we shall address the issues on their merits.

We deny your remarks alluding that I am “full of crap”
We admit your remarks confirming that you “just don’t know where to begin.”

We deny your assertion that “there is no listing of any manorial barony awarded to (or bought by) a "Baron Marcel" and confirm that the late Baron Marcel Dingli Attard di’ Baroni Inguenez, during his lifetime, was invested with certain Baronial titles of Nobility originally granted by the Crown of Spain and now considered as being “Other titles of the British Empire” in recognition of the acquisition of the Maltese archipelago from the French by the British in the year 1800, during the Napoleanic Wars.

We have no method to verify or refute your statement of “being a military lawyer, and having worked under the Directorate of International Law at SHAP in Belgium” but grant full faith and credit to your remarks and will afford you that particular status for the purpose of these Suggestions in Opposition to your posted remarks, therefore admitting the same.


”You outright identify your briefcase as being a consular pouch. Given that you are now considered the consular courier you would have been provided with more than a simple tag marking your briefcase as a consulare bag. You would also have been given an official document announcing your status as the courier, as well as the status of the vaunted Baron of Ballpoints. This document would have further been required to list the number of consular pouches (you only mention the one). Further, any items deemed as consular pouches/bags by the above document are permitted to only contain documents correspondence and articles that are meant wholly for official use.


And further, with regard to the Consular Pouch:


” I'm further confused in that you are considered to a consular courier as you were handling the bag yourself, yet the Consular Relations Act clearly states that the courier is not permitted to be nationals of the receiving nation of consular pouches. As you were traveling to New York, that would make the USA the receiving nation. Did you happen to obtain US citizenship after you quit working as consular courier?”


We assert that while some of your remarks are well founded, others are clearly not in conformity with the governing law. For instance, under the terms of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, (hereinafter “VCCR”) Article 35 states:


1.. The receiving state shall permit and protect freedom of communications on the part of the consular post for all official purposes. In communicating with the government, the diplomatic missions and other consular post may employ all appropriate means, including diplomatic or consular couriers, diplomats, or consular bags and messages in code or cipher. However, the consular post may install and use a wireless transmitter only with the consent of the receiving state.

2. The official correspondence of the consular post shall be inviolable. Office correspondence means all correspondence relating to the consular post and its functions.
3. The consular bag shall be neither opened nor detained. . .
4. The packages constituting the consular bag shall bear visible external marks of their character and may contain only official correspondence and documents OR ARTICLES INTENDED EXCLUSIVELY FOR OFFICIAL USE (emphasis added)

5. The consular courier shall be provided with an official document indicating his status and the number of packages constituting the consular bag. Except with the consent of the receiving state he shall be neither a national of the receiving state, nor, unless he is a national of the sending state, a permanent resident of the receiving state. In the performance of his functions he shall be protected by the receiving state. He shall enjoy personal inviolability and shall not be liable to any form of arrest or detention.

6. The sending state, its diplomatic missions and its consular posts MAY DESIGNATE COUNSULAR COURIERS AD HOC. In such cases the provisions of paragraph 5 of this article shall also apply except that the immunities therein mentioned shall cease to apply when such a courier has delivered to the consignee the consular bag in his charge.”


Hence, notwithstanding the assertions of Mr. Orange of “being a military lawyer, and having worked under the Directorate of International Law at SHAP in Belgium” and being particularly well versed in the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, ad nauseam, it appears that the provisions of Art. 35 Sec. 6 VCCR specifically provide for the appointment by consular posts to appoint Couriers Ad Hoc, who are not the full time diplomatic couriers employed by a foreign ministry of a foreign power. Hence, my accreditation with the Consulate of Malta was as Courier Ad Hoc with regard to my assignment to provide dignitary protection to the UN Special Envoy and Head of Consular Post, His Lordship, the Baron Marcel.

Please further note that the provisions of Art. 35 Sec. 4 VCCR specifically provide that a consular pouch may contain ARTICLES INTENDED EXCLUSIVELY FOR OFFICIAL USE, supra. Included in this contemplation is the articles utilized by myself in my officially capacity as a consular dignitary protection agent who at the time, as fully disclosed in my prior posting, I was not only on the security staff of the consulate, but was also duly deputized as a city police officer possessing the bona fide rank of a police colonel, by virtue of a written mutual aid compact between the city police department providing the bona fide police commissions to myself and the other consular security police dignitary protection agents and the Consulate of Malta.

Diplomatic Consular Officers require the protection of the receiving state. Hence, it was not my status as Chief of Consular Security that cloaked myself with authorization to carry concealed weapons, but in the alternative, it was my commission as a colonel of the city police department that satisfied the international law that the United States of America provide adequate protection with regard to consular premises and the person of a consular officer, his immediate family, and also the residence of a consular officer. While the Federal Protective Police patrol embassies and consulates in Washington, D.C. the United States government relies upon state and local police agencies to provide adequate protection to consular officers and consular premises that are located outside of the District of Columbia.

Even honorary consulates may become objects of protests or violence. In July,.1988, 25 members of the Kurdistan national Liberation Front occupied the honorary consulate of the Federal Republic of Germany in Basle, Switzerland, and took hostages. The Swiss riot police found it necessary to storm the consulate and free the hostages.

Recurring attacks on consular offices, residences, and even vehicles may be seen from the following statistics on Chile alone in a one year period from July 1986 to July 1987. Its consulates were attacked in the following cities:

a. Hamburg, 3 July 1986 – broken in by 35 people;
b. Munich, 11 Sept 1986 – paint thron on fascade of consular office;
c. Frankfurt, 11 Sept. 1986 – painting of political slogans at entrance;
d. Salta, Argentina, 11 Septemberr 1986- paint thrown on offices;
e. Cochabama, Bolivia (honary consulate) 11 june 1987 – detonation of explosive device at consular office and residence causing material damages;
f. Rio de Janeiro, 11 Sept 1986 - painting of political slogans at entrance;
g. Sao Paulo, 10 July 1987 – reception hall forced into and occupied by 12 Chileans and a photographer who unfurled Chilean flags and banners bearing anti-Government slogans;
h. Madrid, 17 July 1986, - offices occurpied by 17 young Spaniards belonging to Communist youth movement;
i. Barcelona, 7 July 1986, entrance hall forced into by 17 people shouting slogans;
j. Madrid, 9 Sept 1986, occupied by 30 people;
k. Barcelona, 9 Sept 1986, occupation attempted;
l. Madrid, 2 Apr 1987, occupied by force, painting;
m. Paris, 4 Sept 1986 – forced entry, posters, shouting slogans;
n. Paris, 23 Nov 1986 – private vehicle of Consul-General set on fire at 150 metres from Embassy;
o. Amsterdam (honorary consulate), 15 Sept 1986 – building attacked with paint bombs resulting in four broken windows;
p. Zurich, 26 Sept 1986 – building painted with slogans.

Attacks like these, as well as those directed at Diplomatic missions and personnel, have caused the General Assembly for several years to include in its agenda the item, “Consideration of effective measures to enhance the protection, security, and safety of diplomatic and consular missions and representatives”. The United Nations General Assembly Resolution 42/154 adopted 7 Dec 1987, in UN Doc a/res/42/154, 4 Mar. 1988, states in paragraph 6, “Recommends that States should co-operate closely through, inter alia, contacts between the diplomatic and consular missions and the receiving state, with regard to practical measures designed to enhance the protection, security, and safety of diplomatic and consular missions and representatives.”

To implement this United Nations General Assembly Resolution, the Maltese Consulate undertook to seek and obtain a written mutual aid compact resulting in the extension of bona fide police commissions with two of the same being extended at the rank of Colonel of Police, one police commission being extended at the rank of Lieutenant Colonel of Police, and one police commission being extended at the rank of Captain of Police, and one police commission being extended at the rank of Police Patrolman, with regard to the personnel who were Nationals of the United States and who were also identified by the Maltese Consulate as being duly constituted Consular Security Police Dignitary Protection Personnel. Furthermore, each of the Consular Security Police Dignitary Protection Personnel were also enrolled on the roster as Fire Rescue Emergency Responders and statutory state public safety officers under the auspices of a county-at-large Sec. 320.300 RSMO fire department, in order to facilitate a potential emergency response to a fire or bomb event occurring either at the consular premises or the residence of the consular officer, the sweeping of consular vehicles for bombs, and to authorize of the Consular Security Police Dignitary Protection Personnel who were also enrolled on the roster as Fire Rescue Emergency Responders and statutory state public safety officers, to equip their personally owned motor vehicles firefighter license plates and also with flashing or rotating blue lights and sirens.


”Boy, my paralegal at least knows how to do her research.”


While being in part on point, with respect to nationals of the receiving state not being eligible to be appointed consular couriers ON A PERMANENT BASIS by a foreign ministry or consular post, it appears that both a military lawyer and also his paralegal overlooked the companion measures relating to consular couriers ad hoc under Art 35 Sec. 6 VCCR.

Further, inasmuch as the Head of Consular Post for Malta was issued a photo identification card by the Chief of Police of the City of Kansas City, Missouri, identifying him as a member of the accredited Consular Corps, and ordering all police officers under his command to extend every reasonable courtesy, when this official police identification was proffered to the Kansas City Airport Police, in view of the above and foregoing, the status of the international law (Art 35, Paragraph 5, VCCR) relating to Consular Couriers Ad Hoc that “In the performance of his functions he shall be protected by the receiving state. He shall enjoy personal inviolability and shall not be liable to any form of arrest or detention” and further inasmuch as the Baron Marcel was a duly constituted Special Envoy to the United Nations Department of Public Information representing a UNESCO NGO and I was in possession of city police credentials, consular security credentials, state public safety officer fire protection status, a document on Maltese Consulate stationary identifying myself as a Consular Courier Ad Hoc and describing my briefcase as a Consular Pouch, and also credentials authorizing my participation in the September , 1998 UN Special Conference being conducted at the United Nations Compound in New York City, and we were ticketed passengers aboard a scheduled airliner bound nonstop from Kansas City to New York City, the Kansas City Airport Police very reasonably decided, as I mentioned in my first posting, that the Captain of the airliner should be simply advised that VIP’s in possession of Diplomatic and Consular Immunity were aboard his aircraft and for the airline to extend every courtesy to the Baron Marcel and to myself, accordingly.

Which gives rise, once more, to mention that Mr. Orange, being a military lawyer and an officer of the armed forces of the United States of America, having special trust and confidence of the President of the United States, would do very well to refrain from jumping gratuitously into matters that are obviously far over his head, such as personnel in possession of United Nations credentials, would be very well advised to save his derisive comments for the audience around his breakfast table regarding foreign consular officers and UN Special Envoys who was a bona fide British Lord, Hereditary Nobiliary Titular of the Governorship of Malta, and also a member of the Princely Lippian Royal Household, which for the record not only includes the Furst zur Lippe at Munich, but also includes Her Majesty, Beatrix, Queen of the Neatherlands, rather than engaging in conduct unbecoming an officer in a public setting as posting on an Internet Forum.

I have no problems with people with a skull full of mush being quasi-informed as to the facts on the merits of the issues, and saying that I, personally am (fill in whatever perjerative term here that you may desire) but quite frankly, it was foolish to bootstrap an attack made upon me, by reason that I am a political conservative, and then in a rash act of hate-transferrance, act in a manner that is reprehensible against the dignity of a consular diplomat duly accredited to the US Secretary of State whose status was also that of a member of the nobility of a friendly world power.

"What were you thinking, Boy?"

The kind of letters in your permanent military personnel file that emanate from outraged Maltese Foreign Ministers, Heads of Consular Posts, or even perhaps Buckinham Palace in verifying the status of Barons who are in fact in possession of “Other Titles of the British Empire” are not the kind of disciplinary documents to be sought after on the part of someone who is a middling ranking officer and military lawyer. Military commanding officers understand the diplomatic venue as being beyond the scope of their public condemnation, it would seem.

But I am not a vindictive man and have no intention of seeing you, Mr. Orange, from undue suffering due to your obvious error in judgment in hearing of many hoofbeats and thinking of horses instead of zebras, so except for this public admonition that non-swimmers should not leap bare-assed into the sea of matters beyond your competence and understanding, no matter how well your paralegal does legal research, it was absurd for you to derisively attack a nobleman’s dignity and verifiable status exactly as I have portrayed him to be, by engaging your tongue (in this case your computer typing fingers) before you carefully considered using your brain.

Mr. Orange, you may not like me personally, but your references to Bic and the Baron were not well taken and your assertions relative to the VCCR were almost on point.

However, you failed to read for comprehension my duel status as a city police officer authorized to carry concealed weapons with respect to your having jumped so publicly to an unsupportable conclusion.

As for my other detractors, I hope I didn’t use too many big words in this posting. And I expect for someone to immediately slam me, for general purposes, for being a conservative, for believing that Karl Rove is innocent until proven guilty, or for whatever grist in any of my Forum postings that has lit their fire with regard to hating Republicans.

It seems that having been publicly pilloried once more, I have gracefully extracted myself from the howling mad mob simply by applying a measure of truth, the quotation of governing laws, and by pointing out as "Master of the Obvious" that the seeds of all this verification were planted in my first posting and as you can imagine, a fish bit real hard on it.

We all know that in every trial, 50% of the lawyers always lose; this time, it was a military lawyer who took the losing hit.

Why is it so hard to simply believe?
 BulldogMedic
Joined: 12/31/2004
Msg: 166
The exculpatory facts of the Carl Rove/CIA Agent matter
Posted: 7/27/2005 12:34:20 AM
That's a lot of scrolling for only two posts.
 LegalWizard
Joined: 5/2/2005
Msg: 167
The exculpatory facts of the Carl Rove/CIA Agent matter
Posted: 7/27/2005 7:45:43 AM
"on a related note, nothing of what you said addresses the issues that have been brought up in this thread. I know that I personally have refuted just about every piece of "evidence" that you have offered up in Rove's defense."


Nothing has refuted the exculpatory facts that according to the Grand Jury testimony:

1. The news media "outed" Valerie Plame as a CIA employee to Karl Rove. He didnt know her name until the reporters told him of her CIA employment.

2. When Cooper asked Rove if Plame was with the CIA, Rove evasivly and vaguely replied "Something like that" which non-confirmatory non-denial remark is not a specific confirmation of anything and requires repoter Cooper to be required to leap to a personal conclusion as to the CIA employment of Valerie Plame based upon "facts not in evidence."

3. The "Wilson's wife" referral is also not an exact identification by name of a CIA covert operative.

4. At the time Valerie Plame's CIA employment was published, Ambassador Wilson admits that Valerie Plame was not working in a CIA covert capacity.

5. According to nationally broadcast talk radio programs, persons who worked with the Congressional committee that drafted the criminal statute making it a crime to identify a covert CIA Officer, Agent, or Informant, publicly stated that according to their expert opinions, Karl Rove did not violate the technical elements of the law.

6. The Justice Dept. has publicly stated that Karl Rove is not a target of the Grand Jury.

7. Ambassador Joe Wilson and Valerie Plame have both been flamboyant in their demeanor; the Ambassador making joint political appearances with political figures and Valerie Plame doing a Vanity Fair layout, reinforces the impression that they are "grandstanding" and are not remaining "mum" about CIA official business.

Essentially, given the totality of the circumstances, it is futile for a reasonable person not to conclude that there is sufficient exculpatory evidence to believe that no federal crime was committed on the part of Karl Rove.

Nothing that has been posted here, including the absurd statement that Rove should endure "some sort of inquiry" additionally after appearing before the Grand Jury that has carefully sifted the known facts in exess of two years now, makes me wonder "what kind of "witch hunt" or "Star Chamber" Karl Rove inquiry would satisfy the critics?

Having once more conclusively exculpated and de-criminalized Karl Rove, once more, as "Master of the Obvious" it appears to me what remains is political rhetoric that is basically partisan in nature. This circumstance of Karl Rove and the CIA Analyst oblique referral, not by name, in a non-confirmation and non-denial vague "Something like that" remark is what is referred to in a court of law, as being a situtation "for which there is no judicial relief." Certainly, there is also the element of an apparent lack of mens rea on the part of Karl Rove also to consider, which also hampers a criminal prosecution when it is incumbent to allege and prove the presence of "criminal intent."

No one has posted a single cogient thought that impeaches or scholarly refutes the FACTS as deduced from the known Grand Jury testimony or the circumstances that would lead a competent legal authority to make the deliberate decision not to proceed criminally against Karl Rove under the indentification of a covert CIA Officer, Agent, or Informant criminal statute.

Anything further, absent new evidence, is the further rehashing of what we usually refer to as "insufficient evidence" to convict a person who remains "innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt."
 LegalWizard
Joined: 5/2/2005
Msg: 169
The exculpatory facts of the Carl Rove/CIA Agent matter
Posted: 7/27/2005 11:57:47 AM
Aha, here is the crux of the matter indeed:


"Wilson said was,"My wife was not a clandestine officer the day that Bob Novak blew her identity." Rove defenders insist that this is evidence that Plame was in fact not 'undercover'. However, others claim that "In fact, Wilson merely emphasized that his wife's cover was blown at the moment when columnist Robert D. Novak revealed her identity in a July 2003 column.", from the article 'AP falsely reported Wilson "acknowledged his wife was no longer in an undercover job" when her identity was first publicly leaked' (http://mediamatters.org/items/200507150003)

This is one of those things that is open to interpretation, and some people will interpret it in a way that is most comforting to them. I don't know either way what Wilson meant by his statement; either seems possible"


As a matter of law, the legal mandate that "one is considered innocent unless proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt" precisely means that if a word, phrase, or act may be interpreted in more than one way, the finder of fact (Judge or Jury) is obligated by Constitutional mandate to adopt the interpretration that is VIEWED IN THE LIGHT THAT IS MOST FAVORABLE TO THE DEFENDANT, without any purpose of either evasion or mental reservation.

IN ANY CRIMINAL PROSECUTION, THE BURDEN OF PROOF LIES EXCLUSIVELY WITH THE PROSECUTOR. THE DEFENDANT IS NOT OBLIGATED TO ESTABLISH OR PROOVE INNOCENSE.


This maddening cornerstone of American jurisprudence includes giving the benefit of the doubt, WHICH IS REQUIRED BY LAW, even to Karl Rove.

I admit that Karl Rove has in the past been a political trickster and like a political Darth Vader, has embraced "the dark side of the force" by blowing the whistle on corrupt Democratic Texas state office holders (there were convictions, I do believe) and that he is adept at the strategy of stacking the deck and then pulling the rug out from beneath someone. But all political dirty tricks both acknowledged and also placed aside, Karl Rove has never crossed the line from political skullduggery to performing criminal acts.

With no prior pattern of criminal misconduct, Karl Rove remains an honest man who has never been convicted of anything whatsoever.

As for being publicly identified as not being a target of the Grand Jury, if the prosecutorial authorities were interested in him but had insufficient evidence, they would term him as a "person of interest" which has not occurred.
 LegalWizard
Joined: 5/2/2005
Msg: 171
The exculpatory facts of the Carl Rove/CIA Agent matter
Posted: 7/27/2005 4:47:47 PM
Wow! Beachcomberbenn,

The revelations from your insightful and well documented posting relating to how Bush, Cheny, Rice, Rove, and Powell conduct themselves have lead me to unequivocally state, for the record, and I mean it, that I will never vote for George W. Bush again (but I would vote for Jeb Bush or Newt Gingrich, if he ever runs for President).

But, let me also say that I wanted to do a regime change in Iraq ever since it was confirmed that the Terrorists that hijacked the Italian oceanliner, the Achilli Lauro, and murdered Otto Klinghoffer, an American Jew, and then tossed his body and his wheelchair into the Medeterranean Sea, were carrying Iraqi Diplomatic Passports, placing the smoking gun firmly in the hands of bona fide Iraqi agents and confirming Iraqi complicity with state-sponsored terrorism.

From the day that Otto Klinghoffer was executed at the hands of the Iraqi Diplomats, because the USA has an obligation under International law to defend its citizens abroad, and also because there is no "statute of limitations" with regard to murder or the reprisals for the murder of its citizen(s) that a sovereign nation is entitled to legitimately engage in, from my viewpoint, any further provocation or plausable rationale to deploy American military troops in Iraq was more than fine with me. When we finally did deploy US Troops, it was too little and too late for my personal satisfaction.

The President's rationale for going to war differs from my own, but the good news is that we finally destabilized the regime of the Iraqi Monster Saddam and have troops on the ground in Iraq.

My personal timetable for any military withdrawal from Iraq is to extend the occupation for as least as long as American troops were stationed in both Japan and Germany after World War II, which litmus test for a proper duration in which to deploy military troops in a defeated country seems reasonable to me.

No one has ever successfully given me any reasons why the USA should not have invaded Iraq after the murder of Otto Klinghoffer.

Further, notwithstanding the assertions to the contrary, weapons of mass destruction were recovered from Iraq, so it is a canard that Iraq did not possess Sarin Gas, which is a bona fide WMD.

This is a just war, in my viewpoint, and I support it accordingly; in like manner as the next one, whenever it may occur or where ever it may be, with the priviso that such military actions must be authorized by Congressional Resolution or by the invocation of a military alliance or mutual defense treaty upon the event that either the USA or one of our allies is suddenly and deliberately attacked by either a foreign power or international criminal cartel.
Because, once the US Congress authorizes the use of military force, my obligatory loyalty is placed with my country and to the success of the war effort.

If Dr. Laura Schlesinger is willing to send her son into the US Military, I am willing to support him in his efforts; I therefore personify that "Grateful Nation" who thanks military veterans for any material contribution they may have made on our country's behalf during all wars and police actions

Domestic protests and dissention during any time of war is not a legitimate expression of freedom of speech; otherwise Tokyo Rose would never have been convicted of Treason for making propaganda broadcasts that demoralized the troops and attempted to erode public support for the war effort on the home front. For instance, in my personal viewpoint, Sean Penn and also Jane Fonda share the same onus of adhering to the enemies of the United States.

While the logic for advancing military operations in Iraq may be suspect, no one can affirm that Saddam was a nice guy or that it was not in America's best interests to arrest him and cause a democratically elected government to emerge in Baghdad.
 NittanyLion
Joined: 2/19/2005
Msg: 174
The exculpatory facts of the Carl Rove/CIA Agent matter
Posted: 7/28/2005 3:33:21 AM

If Dr. Laura Schlesinger is willing to send her son into the US Military, I am willing to support him in his efforts
This just makes no sense. I would hope you would understand that men in the military volunteer themselves; their mommies don't "send" them. Also, were she NOT willing for her son to go into the military, would you then NOT be willing to support him in his efforts if he signed up anyway?


Domestic protests and dissention during any time of war is not a legitimate expression of freedom of speech
'legal'wizard, 'legal'wizard, 'legal'wizard. You're drifting farther and farther away from reality, my friend. For instance, in my personal viewpoint, Sean Penn and also Jane Fonda share the same onus of adhering to the enemies of the United States. Perfect example of how your personal viewpoints aren't within the bounds of our reality. Yikes.


While the logic for advancing military operations in Iraq may be suspect, no one can affirm that Saddam was a nice guy or that it was not in America's best interests to arrest him and cause a democratically elected government to emerge in Baghdad.
You put these two things together like they are somehow related... If we actually followed your reality, we'd have a scary world, indeed (although we wouldn't be allowed to think about it, I'm sure.)
Show ALL Forums  > Current Events  > The exculpatory facts of the Carl Rove/CIA Agent matter