How To Get a New Investigation

[Tim Gratz]

One of my ideas (too early to implement yet) is to write a letter (presumably coming from a member) to every member of your state's Democrat State Committee. If a member of that committee expresses interest, that member can then help with the political organization in that state.

If we are not there yet, it would be another potentially worthwhile idea to have a resolution passed at your Democratic State Convention (probably held next summer) encouraging a new investigation. In order to accomplish that, you will need to know a delegate to the convention. Better yet, become active in your county organization and you may very well be able to become a delegate yourself.

[Thomas H. Purvis]

http://www.stevewolens.com/html/steve_s_biography.shtml

Tim;

In the event that this is what you refer to, I eagerly await your climbing out onto this limb and joining me.

Provided of course that you bring a sack full of "fact", as opposed to the same old rehashed BS.

[William Kelly]

One of my ideas (too early to implement yet) is to write a letter (presumably coming from a member) to every member of your state's Democrat State Committee. If a member of that committee expresses interest, that member can then help with the political organization in that state.

If we are not there yet, it would be another potentially worthwhile idea to have a resolution passed at your Democratic State Convention (probably held next summer) encouraging a new investigation. In order to accomplish that, you will need to know a delegate to the convention. Better yet, become active in your county organization and you may very well be able to become a delegate yourself.

Tim,

Why would you want a new official government investigation, when we can now, with the release of additional documents and with the sworn testimony of new witnesses, solve the crime without asking anybody to take an interest in something they've already shown no inclination to do?

I'm tired of asking politicians to do the right thing. They won't do it.

We don't need no badges.

Just release the records like the law says.

BK

[Tim Gratz]

BK wrote:

Why would you want a new official government investigation, when we can now, with the release of additional documents and with the sworn testimony of new witnesses, solve the crime without asking anybody to take an interest in something they've already shown no inclination to do?

I don't know why we have to keep going over this, Bill. How pray tell do you take sworn testimony of witnesses without a new investigation?

[William Kelly]

BK wrote:

Why would you want a new official government investigation, when we can now, with the release of additional documents and with the sworn testimony of new witnesses, solve the crime without asking anybody to take an interest in something they've already shown no inclination to do?

I don't know why we have to keep going over this, Bill. How pray tell do you take sworn testimony of witnesses without a new investigation?

Congressional hearings take sworn testimony.

Preliminary hearings in civil cases take sworn testimony.

Depositions take sworn testimony.

You don't need anybody's permission to take sworn testimony.

Why ask for something that you can't get and don't really want because if there is an official investigation, and grand jury, then everything is done in secret and records are withheld.

All I want is Congressional oversight hearings on the JFK Act and all good things will flow from that.

BK

[Myra Bronstein]

BK wrote:

Why would you want a new official government investigation, when we can now, with the release of additional documents and with the sworn testimony of new witnesses, solve the crime without asking anybody to take an interest in something they've already shown no inclination to do?

I don't know why we have to keep going over this, Bill. How pray tell do you take sworn testimony of witnesses without a new investigation?

Congressional hearings take sworn testimony.

Preliminary hearings in civil cases take sworn testimony.

Depositions take sworn testimony.

You don't need anybody's permission to take sworn testimony.

Why ask for something that you can't get and don't really want because if there is an official investigation, and grand jury, then everything is done in secret and records are withheld.

All I want is Congressional oversight hearings on the JFK Act and all good things will flow from that.

BK

I agree BK.

Congressional oversight hearings on the JFK Act is an achievable goal, and a request so modest that there is no reasonable way for them to refuse. We're just asking for congress to enforce and obey an existing law.

When we get our act together with the newspaper ad I think that should be our stated goal.

And urge people to write their congress reps.

By contrast, it's unlikely we could get another investigation.

And if we did it would be a cover up like the other two.

At this point they have to cover up their previous cover ups.

It's a house of cards.

[Tim Gratz]

Bill wrote:

Congressional hearings take sworn testimony.

Preliminary hearings in civil cases take sworn testimony.

Depositions take sworn testimony.

You don't need anybody's permission to take sworn testimony.

Bill I am afraid you do not understand the legal process.

First you state congressional hearings take testimony. Well, indeed they can, but they need to be related to the subject of the inquiry. An inquiry into compliabce with the JFK Records Act does not give carte blanche to call witnesses about the case. Moreover, the testimony can only be taken by the committee members or their staff members. Do you want to rely on that?

Yes there can be depositions in a civil case. But enforcing an out of state deposition can be difficult. And the witness has a right to object to the deposition. A discovery deposition must be limited to the subject of the suit. So who are you going to sue anyway to, say, get the deposition of Carl Jenkins? Moreover, if you tried to subpoena the deposition of someone the CIA was trying to protect, I guarantee you would have the legal fight of your life.

"Depositions take sworn testimony." That sentence makes no sense whatsover. By definition, a deposition IS sworn testimony. All you just said is "Depositions take depositions", an illogical sentence.

"You don't need anybody's permission to take sworn testimony." Totally false. A court can prevent or stop a deposition at any time, so you DO need court permission to take a deposition.

Moreover, there is no way a party in a civil proceeding can grant immunity to a witness to compel testimony. I do not believe that even a judge in a civil proceeding can grant criminal immunity.

With all due respect, you don't know what you are talking about in this area. Dawn or her husband can correct me if I am wrong in any regard here.

What is needed is an official investigation, conducted by a person or committee but not a congressional committee.

[William Kelly]

BK wrote:

Why would you want a new official government investigation, when we can now, with the release of additional documents and with the sworn testimony of new witnesses, solve the crime without asking anybody to take an interest in something they've already shown no inclination to do?

I don't know why we have to keep going over this, Bill. How pray tell do you take sworn testimony of witnesses without a new investigation?

Congressional hearings take sworn testimony.

Preliminary hearings in civil cases take sworn testimony.

Depositions take sworn testimony.

You don't need anybody's permission to take sworn testimony.

Why ask for something that you can't get and don't really want because if there is an official investigation, and grand jury, then everything is done in secret and records are withheld.

All I want is Congressional oversight hearings on the JFK Act and all good things will flow from that.

BK

I agree BK.

Congressional oversight hearings on the JFK Act is an achievable goal, and a request so modest that there is no reasonable way for them to refuse. We're just asking for congress to enforce and obey an existing law.

When we get our act together with the newspaper ad I think that should be our stated goal.

And urge people to write their congress reps.

By contrast, it's unlikely we could get another investigation.

And if we did it would be a cover up like the other two.

At this point they have to cover up their previous cover ups.

It's a house of cards.

Thank you Myra,

It's not like I haven't put any thought into this

and am talking off the top of my head,

like Tim is.

Is that hiku?

BK

[Tim Gratz]

Bill wrote:

It's not like I haven't put any thought into this

and am talking off the top of my head,

like Tim is.

Bill, I obtained a law degree with honors and successfully argued two cases to the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, one against a top rated Milwaukee law firm and one against Kirkland & Ellis.

One of my Seventh Circuit cases is cited as setting a legal standard for one of the elements of a civil RICO action.

And I took and defended probably 100 depositions and the enforcement of document production.

I suggest that it is you who is "talking off the top of your head".

Edited September 7, 2007 by Tim Gratz

[William Kelly]

Bill wrote:

It's not like I haven't put any thought into this

and am talking off the top of my head,

like Tim is.

Bill, I obtained a law degree with honors and successfully argued two cases to the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, one against a top rated Milwaukee law firm and one against Kirkland & Ellis.

One of my Seventh Circuit cases is cited as setting a legal standard for one of the elements of a civil RICO action.

And I took and defended probably 100 depositions and the enforcement of document production.

I suggest that it is you who is "talking off the top of your head".

Then you should know what you are doing - fracturing short, achievable and worthwhile goals into dozens of wild possibilities that will never happen.

With such legal feathers you could take any one of a dozen outstanding JFK issues and make something of it, rather than posting your opinion on every thread that comes down the pike.

Why not just ask your local DA if there's still an open investigation into the murder of Roselli or any of the Cubans?

BK

[Tim Gratz]

Bill wrote:

Then you should know what you are doing - fracturing short, achievable and worthwhile goals into dozens of wild possibilities that will never happen.

Bill I do not know why we are having this argument.

You have no basis for suggesting your goal of a hearing by a committee on enforcement of the JFK Records Act is "achievable", certainly not without significant public pressure.

I have never suggested "dozens of wild possibilities". I want an official investigated, either by a special prosecutor or some sort of "truth commission" with the legally-mandated authority to grant immunity. I have a plan to accomplish that. It may or may not work, but I believe it may be our last chance to "solve" the case. But we won't accomplish that if we are disunited.

You also wrote:

Why not just ask your local DA if there's still an open investigation into the murder of Roselli or any of the Cubans?

Here again is demonstration of your lack of knowledge. The Monroe County DA has nothing to do with the investigation of the Rosselli murder. In point of fact I did make an attempt to determine that information about two years ago and just two days ago I attempted to contact one of the Dade County officers who had been investigating the Rosselli murder. But why did you think the DA (called State's Attorney down here) would have anything to do with a murder that occurred in Dade County?

Speaking of the Rosselli case, I think a witness to be deposed and who might even have knowledge of the JFK case is Sam Cagnina, one of Trafficante's goons But he is sure not going to be deposed by a congresional committee investigating the JFK Records Act.

[Tim Gratz]

Myra wrote:

By contrast, it's unlikely we could get another investigation.

And if we did it would be a cover up like the other two.

At this point they have to cover up their previous cover ups.

It's a house of cards.

Myra, we have a chance for another investigation if we pull together--and work as hard as we have ever worked on anything!.

Do you really think it would be a cover-up if, for instance, Richard D. Mahoney headed the investigation?

See my post on "Candidates For Special Prosecutor"

Edited September 7, 2007 by Tim Gratz

[Tim Gratz]

Peter wrote:

I'm sadly of the belief it would take a MASSIVE public movement as that which

ccurred in the

former communist countries and I don't see it easily happening in the USA...but we must try!

Peter you are right in the two points you made in that sentence:

1. It will take a massive public movement.

AND

2. We must try!

As you know, my first step in getting the public support for a new investigation is creating that public movement. That can be done in two ways: 1) an advertisement and/or documentary; and 2) basic grass roots politcal organization.

I want to revert to what I learned from the William Wilberforce story. I suggest it should be the model for what we want to happen here. When he started he was greatly outnumbered. And he had to fight the moneyed business establishment, many members of which had a lot of money at stake. But Wilberforce refused to give up and he ultimately got the majority of parliament on his side. We can use the "Wilberforce model" for what we need to accomplish here.

In my opinion, any member who is not willing to "try" does not REALLY want to solve the case.

[Mark Stapleton]

Bill, I obtained a law degree with honors and successfully argued two cases to the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, one against a top rated Milwaukee law firm and one against Kirkland & Ellis.

One of my Seventh Circuit cases is cited as setting a legal standard for one of the elements of a civil RICO action.

And I took and defended probably 100 depositions and the enforcement of document production.

A hotshot, self-promoting lawyer. How could we lose?

[Tim Gratz]

Mark, I apologize to all if I sounded "self-promoting", which I did.

But I think a recitation of my education and my experience is important so members can determine that I know whereof I speak in responding to Bill Kelly's ridiculous assertion that "you don't need anyone's permission to take a deposition". (Sorry, Bill, no offense intended but it is a ridiculous assertion.)

And it may be considered "self-promoting", but I think that it is clear that you are not putting anywhere near the time and thought into how to solve the case as I am. We might not be able to put together the finances for an ad, or the political support for a new investigation, but it sure won't be for lack of trying! I am doing so because I think it would be a service to my country to bring some closure to the case.

So, if you do not have anything substantive to ad to the thread, please don't bother. But if you have ideas for how to generate public support for the case, I'd certainly appreciate your sharing them.

Edited September 7, 2007 by Tim Gratz