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  
Joined: 2/19/2005
Msg: 174
The exculpatory facts of the Carl Rove/CIA Agent matterPage 9 of 14    (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14)

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.)
Joined: 10/2/2004
Msg: 176
The exculpatory facts of the Carl Rove/CIA Agent matter
Posted: 7/28/2005 11:27:05 AM
Since LegalWizard posted his comments from another forum here, I thought it only fair that someone do the same for the other member of the witty repartee that we have been witness to. The following is Mr.Orange's response to LegalWizard: (hope you don't mine my reposting your stuff Mr.Orange).

Someone has an easily bruised ego.

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.

Good thing I'm in the Canadian Armed Forces then (my paralegal would have done enough research to spot that).

Alright now, allow me to stick to the more salient points and brush aside the excessive bombast that is LegalWizard's main tactic (why use a sniper when you can cluster bomb and hope you hit something, non?).

Hence,[sic] 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.

So you do submit that you were assigned ad hoc as a Consular Courier as well as being employed in a security capacity such that you also held the role of "Consular Security Agent...also a duly deputized police officer (a colonel, no less) and Chief of Consular Security". Jack of all trades my friend.

Unfortunately, there seems to be a redundancy issue in that you were travelling with the honorary consul, the good Dr. Marcel, himself. Now, I cannot make any claims regarding the common practices of Maltese consulates, but your claim that the Maltese consulate took it upon themselves to employ a Missouri police officer (nationalized American citizen) as chief of consular security and as an ad hoc consular courier (given that they must have known in advance of the UN Special Conference and would have planned accordingly for the assignment of Consular Courier to a consular officer who was a Maltese national - had the dear departed Marcel really required someone to carry his consular papers for him) is highly dubious.

Allow me to take you by the hand and guide you through the proper exegesis of the VCCR rather than let you flounder in your feeble inerudite attempt at interpreting a legal document:

VCCR.35(6) is what is known as a logical necessity, and had it not been included in the VCCR it would have come under the definition of implied term by statute. It is in the best interests of the diplomatic community to ensure consular officers and/or couriers do not possess citizenship of the receiving state. This is primarily important for terms of national interests on the side of the sending state, but is also of import to the receiving state, as permitting the granting of foreign diplomatic privileges to a nationalized citizen by a foreign office, while said citizen remains on home soil, is a practice that is avoided by most nations. However, given paragraph (1) of article 35, a contingency clause (such as that stated in paragraph 6) is a logical necessity inasmuch as the freedom granted to official consular communication falls under the protection of the receiving state. The implication of such a clause is that the ad hoc appointment of a consular courier belonging to the receiving state is deemed necessary, only given the failure of all other options to satisfy the decreed proscription in regards to the citizenship of consular couriers as established in 35(5).
*incidentally, 35(7) also falls under the contingency clause label, particularly in regards to the terms laid out in 35(4) as they pertain only to the consular bag, and not the officer in question who remains inviolable under the depicted set of circumstances.

Further, as I mentioned certain matters of redundancy, I'm curious as to why the honorary consular head, his majesty of the very long name, would rely on a contingency clause appointing a non-national security agent as consulate courier for a diplomatic pouch that he should have been carrying himself. Your story is highly suspect.

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....

VCCR.35(4) states: 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. The use of the word articles is considered an allowance under this definition of permissible items. However, this allowance still has circumscribed definitions itself as it logically follows the governing heading of Article 35, which defines all subsequent subheadings and definitions to pertain to matters of communication only. Further to this, your assertion that "Included in this contemplation is the articles utilized by myself in my officially capacity as a consular dignitary protection agent" is so wrong that it may serve as the kairotic moment in which you demonstrate your complete lack of understanding of the
governing law

The consular bag is intended for and legally defined as an item that is used in matters of official consular communication. The legal use of consular pouches does not extend to security officers or consular couriers using said pouches as storage bins for their own personal items. As a consular courier and/or security officer, you have no legal permission to store any item of your own personal use (even if that use is considered to fall within the realm of your duties as a consular officer) within the consular pouch. Nor is the consular pouch permitted to carry any item that does not pertain to official communication. The word article that you jumped all over in your mad glee to prop up the failing verisimilitude of your story only pertains to articles intended or instrumental in the purposes of consular communication as defined by the article heading under which its own definition is considered.

Had you actually gone to law school instead of playing pretend, you would have known that.

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.

Ah I see, now the claim is that you were authorized as a police officer to carry a concealed weapon not only aboard an airline but also (as that same privileged officer of the law) conceal that weapon within a consular pouch legally intended for the official communication of foreign diplomat. Right. Well, since you are now asserting your right as a duly deputized police officer to carry firearms on board an airplane, that actually falls under the Code of Federal Regulations, Title 49 Transportation, Section 1544, Subsection 219 (hereinafter referred to as 49CFR§1544.219).

Allow me to reproduce the points most cogent to pointing out the fallacies contained within your lies:
From 49CFR§1544.219

(3) The armed LEO must comply with the following notification requirements:
(i) All armed LEOs must notify the aircraft operator of the flight(s) on which he or she needs to have the weapon accessible at least 1 hour, or in an emergency as soon as practicable, before departure.
(ii) Identify himself or herself to the aircraft operator by presenting credentials that include a clear full-face picture, the signature of the armed LEO, and the signature of the authorizing official of the agency, service, or department or the official seal of the agency, service, or department. A badge, shield, or similar device may not be used, or accepted, as the sole means of identification.
(iii) If the armed LEO is a State, county, or municipal law enforcement officer, he or she must present an original letter of authority, signed by an authorizing official from his or her employing agency, service or department, confirming the need to travel armed and detailing the itinerary of the travel while armed.
(iv) If the armed LEO is an escort for a foreign official then this paragraph (a)(3) may be satisfied by a State Department notification.
(4) The aircraft operator must do the following:
(i) Obtain information or documentation required in paragraphs (a)(3)(ii), (iii), and (iv) of this section.
(ii) Advise the armed LEO, before boarding, of the aircraft operator's procedures for carrying out this section.
(iii) Have the LEO confirm he/she has completed the training program “Law Enforcement Officers Flying Armed” as required by TSA, unless otherwise authorized by TSA.
(iv) Ensure that the identity of the armed LEO is known to the appropriate personnel who are responsible for security during the boarding of the aircraft.
(v) Notify the pilot in command and other appropriate crewmembers, of the location of each armed LEO aboard the aircraft. Notify any other armed LEO of the location of each armed LEO, including FAM's. Under circumstances described in the security program, the aircraft operator must not close the doors until the notification is complete.

(Where LEO refers to Law Enforcement Officer)

According yo your version of accounts, you failed to comply with (3)(i), (3)(ii), (3)(iii) or (iv) - whichever you choose. And the carrier in question failed to comply with (4)(i), (4)(ii), 4(iii), 4(iv), and 4(v). Your version of accounts has you telling everyone concerned that it is none of their business whether or not you are carrying a concealed weapon, whereafter they allow you to board anyway, obviously having been stunned into complete idiocy and neglect for proper legal procedures by the force of your charming personality.


(d) Location of weapon. (1) Any individual traveling aboard an aircraft while armed must at all times keep their weapon:
(i) Concealed and out of view, either on their person or in immediate reach, if the armed LEO is not in uniform.
(ii) On their person, if the armed LEO is in uniform.

Now assuming you were out of uniform, I guess one could consider the diplomatic pouch to be within immediate reach (ignoring the fact that would have had to unlock it first - I assume it was locked as it was handcuffed to your wrist - so you claim). Even so, it seems highly unlikely that a foreign diplomat would permit a non-national security officer to store his concealed weapon within the diplomatic pouch that is legally intended for communication purposes only, particularly if your duties were to protect said diplomat (which it appears would involve you having to unlock the briefcase in order to retrieve your firearm with which you intended to protect him with, if that is the case, then neither of you can be considered to be a great bastion of wisdom).

So we are back to the fact that:
a) Your behaviour and actions in this fairy tale violate any number of laws set out at both the federal and international level.
b) Had you actually been employed as a consular courier/chief of consular security/police officer holding the rank of colonel/sous chef you would have been aware of this and would not have made so damn many glaring violations of international and federal law.
c)Hon. Dr. Baron etc. would have been well aware of this given his position as consular head and would never have permitted any such thing to occur.

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.

Last I checked, there was only one lawyer here, the other was a meaningless paralegal with delusions of intellectual grandeur.
Joined: 2/19/2005
Msg: 177
Joined: 5/29/2005
Msg: 179
The exculpatory facts of the Carl Rove/CIA Agent matter
Posted: 7/28/2005 5:45:04 PM
They'll probably "find" proof that Rove is secretly a Democrat before they cut him loose.
Joined: 5/2/2005
Msg: 181
The exculpatory facts of the Carl Rove/CIA Agent matter
Posted: 7/28/2005 11:40:09 PM
"The United States also endorsed a 1995 interim peace deal which grants PLO members immunity for violent acts committed before September 1993, when the two sides signed a mutual recognition agreement."

After researching the history of the Arab/Israeli dispute I can only state that peace is very seldom negotiated between two parties that hate each other and still remain armed to the teeth.

However, peace may in fact be achieved through absolute military victory where there is a clear and convicing victor whose war goals is the unconditional surrender of their foes.

The USA and Israel have forgiven enough terrorist outrages and bought enough peace with foreign aid money, or with the transfer of land, to no avail, so it is high time that American policy revert to simply selecting a winner and helping that winner be decisively victorius.

It is said that the definition of a moderate Arab is one that only holds a grudge for 500 years.

Prior to the American invasion and occupation of Iraq, and the arrest of Saddam for capital crimes against humanity, Iraq was a clear and present danger to world peace. George Bush was right in his Iraqi war policy.

Only human ostriches continue to prattle that the USA found no Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq. We did. It did exist.

But lying liars will lie, lie, lie. And one of the biggest liars is the mainstream news media.
Joined: 5/2/2005
Msg: 182
The exculpatory facts of the Carl Rove/CIA Agent matter
Posted: 7/29/2005 7:10:57 AM
The mainstream press reported in the first Monday in November, 2004, that a suitcase full of Sarin Gas vials had been recovered in Iraq.

Sarin Gas is a WMD.

We have not discovered the "stockpile" where the motherload is, but the USA did discover a supply of Iraqi Sarin Gas which is a WMD.

But the claque doesnt count the Sarin WMD because that would admit that Iraq had a chemical warfare capability.

You know it, I know it, and the key words in the admission that we have not found STOCKPILES of WMD in Iraq does not equate to the falsehood that we found NO WMD in Irag.

Lying liars do lie, lie, lie, indeed.

And the assertion that NO STOCKPILES of WMD means NO WMD ever existed, is a lie, lie, lie.

As "Master of the Obvious" the overwhelming conclusion is that an Iraqi WMD presence is affirmed.

And Intelligence states that much of the stockpile may have been transferred with the aid of the Russians to Syria.

And thats a fact.
Joined: 5/29/2005
Msg: 183
The exculpatory facts of the Carl Rove/CIA Agent matter
Posted: 7/29/2005 10:34:10 AM
I remember when sarin gas was used in the Tokyo subway a few years ago by religious terrorists. A man I knew at the time was a long time veteran of the British Air Force and had an interesting take on it. He wasn't surprised that it had been used, but rather that it hadn't been used earlier. It seems that sarin gas is easier to make than crystal meth by a long shot. You or I could make sarin in our kitchen. If this is your proof of "Weapons Of Mass Destruction Program" it falls far short.
Joined: 5/29/2005
Msg: 184
The exculpatory facts of the Carl Rove/CIA Agent matter
Posted: 7/29/2005 10:58:12 AM
I don't know how to make sarin, but I do know someone who does. It is ridiculously easy apparently. Luckily it is also just about the most difficult nerve gas to use effectively. It's why it was used in the subway in Tokyo - you need to have an enclosed space and large quantities. While they used a coordinated attack and injured thousands, it only killed 12. While this is insignificant to those affected, it hardly makes it a "Weapon Of Mass Destruction."
Joined: 1/19/2005
Msg: 185
view profile
Joined: 2/19/2005
Msg: 186
The exculpatory facts of the Carl Rove/CIA Agent matter
Posted: 7/29/2005 3:05:55 PM
Unfortunately, we don't get involved unless there's something in it for us; we really can't pretend it's about the innocent civilians being killed.

Slightly off topic, but related... (I know, I'm starting from a TV show, but bear with me) Did anyone see that episode of Boston Legal where a man wanted to sue the United States (they were looking for a theory for a suit) for the US's lack of involvement in Sudan? Basically, the client's family was being tortured and killed... the theory that the firm eventually brought was parallel to good samaritan laws... you don't have to get involved to help someone, but once you do you have a certain duty to that person. Re: Sudan, the US doesn't HAVE to help, but it said it would, and therefore other countries took the word of the US and didn't do as much as they would have if the US had just said "thanks, but no thanks." Then, the US didn't do what we said we were going to do... consequently, the US didn't live up to its duty to at least try to stop the rape, torture, and murder of the client's family.

Putting aside the particular legal hurdles and the details of what our intervention in Sudan is or is not, it's an interesting perspective... came to mind with all of this talk of us "invading other countries" simply on the premise that hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians are being killed. It's just not our style, for better or for worse.
Joined: 5/29/2005
Msg: 187
The exculpatory facts of the Carl Rove/CIA Agent matter
Posted: 8/3/2005 11:04:34 AM
Just want to get this back on the list of threads that pop up. Love to see the conservatives try to justify the monstrous and inexcusable.
Joined: 5/2/2005
Msg: 188
The exculpatory facts of the Carl Rove/CIA Agent matter
Posted: 8/4/2005 12:33:04 PM
Having read the blogs and considered the content on the merits of the issues, the folowing findings and conclusions are hereby entered:

Findings of fact:

Good and sufficient exculpatory facts have been posted on this Forum to totally decriminalize Karl Rove who remains innocent until proven guilty.

The credibility of the Karl Rove antagonists has been shredded.

On the day that her name was disclosed in the newspapers, Valerie Plame did not serve in a covert capacity as a CIA employee.

Karl Rove is not a target of the federal Grand Jury, nor has he even so much as been identified as a "person of interest" by any law enforcement agency.

Conclusions of law:

That Karl Rove did not knowingly violate the public law criminalizing the disclosure of the identity of a covert CIA Officer, Agent, or Informant.

There is no clear and convincing "mens rea" giving rise to sufficent criminal intent to permit any criminal prosecution to go forward.

Order and Decree

It is hereby held that Karl Rove be and is finally exculpated from any and all criminal liability with respect to the disclosure of the identity of a covert CIA Officer, Agent, or Informant.

Hearing no objection, it is so Ordered.
Joined: 5/29/2005
Msg: 189
The exculpatory facts of the Carl Rove/CIA Agent matter
Posted: 8/4/2005 1:46:57 PM
^^ Love this stuff. Reminds me of the old Communist Party of Canada (marxist - Leninist) whose mantra was "unconditional support of the Soviet Union." Exactly the same sort of thought process and bs.
Joined: 5/29/2005
Msg: 190
The exculpatory facts of the Carl Rove/CIA Agent matter
Posted: 8/4/2005 5:24:09 PM
They're trying to throw a lot of disinformation around such as Vaerie Wilson wasn't a covert agent at the time - based on her husband saying that the day her identity was revealed she was no longer a covert agent (duh), and thoroughly disproved repeatedly - or that Rove got the information from a journalist. It's just smoke, he shopped the information around to 6 journalists before he found one that would jeopardize national security. This is a REAL crime, and no amount of obfuscation can muddy the clear truth here.
Joined: 5/2/2005
Msg: 191
The exculpatory facts of the Carl Rove/CIA Agent matter
Posted: 8/5/2005 2:41:15 PM
"this "Legalwizard" is stupid."

Well, actually Beetlejuice68, the truth is that I am just stupid enough to believe that a suspect is innocent until proven guilty.

And further since the Prosecutor has publicly stated that Karl Rove is not a target of the Grand Jury, it looks as if he will not even be indicted, let alone convicted.

No one in law enforcement has even referred to Karl Rove as a "person of interest" which is the step below the status of "target" in the criminal justice system.

And all of the exculpatory matters have created a "totality of the circumstances' situation where the only ones interested in Karl Rove being prosecuted are his political enemies. Everything I have read about Karl Rove is a traitor is basically conjecture and animosity based.

If Karl Rove were actuyally guilty of a felony, I believe that President Bush would have terminated his services as White House Deputy Chief of Staff.

But stupid LegalWizard must be a fool for thinking that someone who is not even a criminal suspect is actually innocent? Gee, if I only was one of President Bush's political enemies, or like Howard Dean, hated Republicans, I might be able to create a house of cards criminal case against Karl Rove by weaving together smoke and mirrors and a ton of hatred and resentment on the part of liberals for losing two Presidential elections and who knows, I might eventually gain enough liberal "intelligence" and loss of integrity to be willing to participate in a political witch hunt.

Joined: 2/19/2005
Msg: 192
The exculpatory facts of the Carl Rove/CIA Agent matter
Posted: 8/5/2005 3:33:30 PM
Just an observation: I don't think your understanding of "innocent until proven guilty" was what he was talking about.
Joined: 5/2/2005
Msg: 193
The exculpatory facts of the Carl Rove/CIA Agent matter
Posted: 8/5/2005 5:41:17 PM
This is the sum total of the so-called evidence against Karl Rove:

"There are stories circulating that Rove may have been . . . "

The rumor mill mentality and the propensity to leap to conclusions on the part of the Karl Rove antogonists is quite evident.

Don't you think that all this hate Karl Rove talk is merely substitute subject matter for the by now very lame laments that the US Supreme Court wrongfully installed George W. Bush as President after his brother and THAT WOMAN WHO WAS THE FLORIDA SECRETARY OF STATE pulled an electoral sleight of hand that nullified all the illegal votes cast by Democratic partisans who were rounding up Haitian blacks in Miami who were not even US Citizens and made sure that they voted on the butterfly ballot for . . . Buchannan, wasn't it?

Well, American Liberals and Canadian Copperheads alike, we're on to ya now; even the "Boobus Americanus" apolitical centerists are voting Republican now by the droves, having become wizened somewhat after seeing all the HATRED spewing forth from the extremists constituting the President's critics and detractors.
Joined: 5/2/2005
Msg: 194
The exculpatory facts of the Carl Rove/CIA Agent matter
Posted: 8/8/2005 12:24:42 AM
It appears other than innuendo and hoped for prosecution, there really isnt anything of substance in the public record yet with regard to Karl Rove that rises to the level of probable cause to warrant a criminal prosecution.

Those who disagree with George W. Bush and possess enmity for Karl Rove all scream for his scalp based upon insufficient evidence so far.

Those of us that require more substance prior to leveling felony charges are tagged by the anti-Bush claque as being brainwashed.

I have posted suffiecient exculpatory facts to sustain a legal conclusion of innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, much to the distress of those who would indict Karl Rove on sheer political animus alone.

Like the Justice Dept. I am personally looking for new evidence yet to come forth, which of course may never occur, before I can agree that there is probable cause that a crime has been committed and concluding that Karl Rove is the legally culpable person.
Joined: 2/19/2005
Msg: 195
The exculpatory facts of the Carl Rove/CIA Agent matter
Posted: 8/8/2005 3:40:51 AM

I have posted suffiecient exculpatory facts to sustain a legal conclusion of innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt
Yes. You have. Except for one thing. "Innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt" is not a "legal conclusion." Other than that, you're golden.
 Im listening
Joined: 7/17/2005
Msg: 196
The exculpatory facts of the Carl Rove/CIA Agent matter
Posted: 8/8/2005 5:21:09 AM

No seegar as this aspect is yet to be determind in a court of law and not by some wannabe

Mens Rea (the guilty mind or wrongful intention) differs from crime to crime.
The intention of a criminal committing a theft is different from that of a rapist.

To be criminally liable, a person must have intended to do wrong or have acted in a reckless and negligent manner knowing that his actions would cause the result complained of.

A terrorist, who puts a bomb on a plane and kills all the passengers, would have no defence by claiming that he did not intend to kill anyone, and he only intended to damage the plane. Such an act is so reckless, and the likelihood of death so foreseeable, that it is inferred that the criminal intention is present
Joined: 2/19/2005
Msg: 197
The exculpatory facts of the Carl Rove/CIA Agent matter
Posted: 8/8/2005 5:35:44 AM

Mens Rea (the guilty mind or wrongful intention) differs from crime to crime.
Yes. You've got to look at the specific elements of a crime to determine if there is even a mens rea element, and if so, what intent is specifically required to rise to the level of the particular crime.

As we've already seen, though, some of these posts are more about whipping out the legal dictionary, ignoring the definitions, and throwing in as many "words" as possible, seemingly to appear educated, but actually giving self away.
Show ALL Forums  > Current Events  > The exculpatory facts of the Carl Rove/CIA Agent matter