Jump to content

Wecht trial ends


Recommended Posts

Peter,

Apparently part of my perception about you was incorrect, and for that I surely am man enough to apologize.

I too have issues with both parties, and one of those issues is with those on the left bashing for the sake of bashing. Bashing the ridiculous for the sake of party gain.

Perhaps I placed you in a group I should not have.

Two things we agree on. Wecht and what is happening to him is pure poo, and it is time for a change in this country. Not a change in party politics, but a change in thinking in general. Our politicians have become so detached from the common working man, that they no longer can relate.

Part of that is due to the fact that politics is no longer service to the nation, it is a career. When Truman were President things were much different. If he had not written books about his presidency, he would have virtually been homeless after his term. Now the politicians sap this country, they sap the lobbyists, and are absolutely a disgrace.

I jabbed at you perhaps in reflex. Im tired Peter, tired of the the left constantly taking shots at Bush for the sake of the party.

Hillary going to the pentagon, and demanding to know when our troops will be brought home, how mortally stupid was that?? Talk about fueling the enemy, and she wants to be a President??? She can not even control her own home affairs.

Look Peter, I am probably as disgusted with the way things are, as you are. Im tired of folks bashing the US, and bashing the President.

I believe we both want the same things, I am just not sure we agree how to attain them, and isn't it always like that?

Just for the record, I am registered republican. However, should a Democrat come on scene that was worth the spit it takes to wet a postage stamp, I may well vote for them. I believe in who ever is best for the US. Sadly it has been some years since we have had anyone worth supporting.

Peace to you as well Peter,

Mike

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Boren

Other than the fact that Senator Boren is not a "socialists", it is doubtful that even John Simkin can find just a whole lot that is "wrong" about him.

Though I must admit that Senator Boren was often referred to as a "Republican in Democratic Clothing".

http://www.alettertoamerica.org/author.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 107
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Peter,

Apparently part of my perception about you was incorrect, and for that I surely am man enough to apologize.

I too have issues with both parties, and one of those issues is with those on the left bashing for the sake of bashing. Bashing the ridiculous for the sake of party gain.

Perhaps I placed you in a group I should not have.

Two things we agree on. Wecht and what is happening to him is pure poo, and it is time for a change in this country. Not a change in party politics, but a change in thinking in general. Our politicians have become so detached from the common working man, that they no longer can relate.

Part of that is due to the fact that politics is no longer service to the nation, it is a career. When Truman were President things were much different. If he had not written books about his presidency, he would have virtually been homeless after his term. Now the politicians sap this country, they sap the lobbyists, and are absolutely a disgrace.

I jabbed at you perhaps in reflex. Im tired Peter, tired of the the left constantly taking shots at Bush for the sake of the party.

Hillary going to the pentagon, and demanding to know when our troops will be brought home, how mortally stupid was that?? Talk about fueling the enemy, and she wants to be a President??? She can not even control her own home affairs.

Look Peter, I am probably as disgusted with the way things are, as you are. Im tired of folks bashing the US, and bashing the President.

I believe we both want the same things, I am just not sure we agree how to attain them, and isn't it always like that?

Just for the record, I am registered republican. However, should a Democrat come on scene that was worth the spit it takes to wet a postage stamp, I may well vote for them. I believe in who ever is best for the US. Sadly it has been some years since we have had anyone worth supporting.

Peace to you as well Peter,

Mike

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Boren

Other than the fact that Senator Boren is not a "socialists", it is doubtful that even John Simkin can find just a whole lot that is "wrong" about him.

Though I must admit that Senator Boren was often referred to as a "Republican in Democratic Clothing".

http://www.alettertoamerica.org/author.html

**************************************************************

Let's face it, Purv. Today, what we have, and have had, especially since the late 60's and early 70's is:

1 party - 2 branches = the fascist New World Order of neocons and oligarchs ruling from the Chicago School of Economics on present day Wall Street.

Wall Street rules, and D.C. duels.

It ain't going to change without an outright revolution, but the American "sheeple" are too glued to their plasma screens, and Operation Mockingbird media shills, such as CNN, as well as, the standard commercial channels 2 through 13, to even give a damn about the truth. That's where the real dumbing-down of America has been allowed to proliferate. The fear-mongering propagandists have won.

There are too few of the enlightened minds around to make a damned bit of a difference, when you have to literally fight city hall, with so many odds against you. They're all playing two sides against the middle, and the 5 to 10 percentile at the top are the ones who are making out like bandits, at the expense of the 90 to 95 percentile at the bottom.

Good luck, because ours has just about run out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 months later...

Court: Wecht can be retried, but different judge must hear the case

Cyril Wecht may have to stand for a re-trial, at the prosecutions option, but with a new judge. The old judge, Schwab, was reported to arbitrarily keep the jury empaneled after they said they were deadlocked - and appeared to be pushing them unduly for a conviction.

from the ruling:

"We will direct that Judge Schwab be relieved of further duties on this case and that the Chief Judge of the District Court assign a new judge to handle any future matters in the case including any retrial."

Full story in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

The full opinion is at:

The Opinion of the 3rd Circuit

Wecht has gone through a lot.

Joel

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Court: Wecht can be retried, but different judge must hear the case

Cyril Wecht may have to stand for a re-trial, at the prosecutions option, but with a new judge. The old judge, Schwab, was reported to arbitrarily keep the jury empaneled after they said they were deadlocked - and appeared to be pushing them unduly for a conviction.

from the ruling:

"We will direct that Judge Schwab be relieved of further duties on this case and that the Chief Judge of the District Court assign a new judge to handle any future matters in the case including any retrial."

Full story in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

The full opinion is at:

The Opinion of the 3rd Circuit

Wecht has gone through a lot.

Joel

Power Center Ballroom

Duquesne University

Pittsburgh, PA

http://www.duq.edu/makingsense

Please join us for this follow-up to the Wecht Institute's historic 2003 conference on the JFK assassination. Learn more about the program and register at: http://www.duq.edu/makingsense

Having trouble reading this email? View it on our website.

©2008 Duquesne University. Unsubscribe: http://benwecht-forensics.cmail4.com/u/504841/61d61144t/ Ben Wecht

Program Administrator

The Cyril H. Wecht Institute of Forensic Science and Law

Duquesne University School of Law

Edward J. Hanley Hall

600 Forbes Avenue

Pittsburgh, PA 15282

P: (412) 396-1049

F: (412) 396-1331

E: wechtben@duq.edu

.AOLWebSuite .AOLPicturesFullSizeLink { height: 1px; width: 1px; overflow: hidden; } .AOLWebSuite a {color:blue; text-decoration: underline; cursor: pointer}

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

Is anyone going to this event besides Joe B. ? - BK

Power Center Ballroom

Duquesne University

Pittsburgh, PA

http://www.duq.edu/makingsense

Please join us for this follow-up to the Wecht Institute's historic 2003 conference on the JFK assassination. Learn more about the program and register at: http://www.duq.edu/makingsense

Having trouble reading this email? View it on our website.

©2008 Duquesne University. Unsubscribe: http://benwecht-forensics.cmail4.com/u/504841/61d61144t/ Ben Wecht

Program Administrator

The Cyril H. Wecht Institute of Forensic Science and Law

Duquesne University School of Law

Edward J. Hanley Hall

600 Forbes Avenue

Pittsburgh, PA 15282

P: (412) 396-1049

F: (412) 396-1331

E: wechtben@duq.edu

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So how was the Wecht JFK Assassination conference?

Did anyone attend?

Hi Chris,

Yea, I was there and just got home, Monday night EST, and will give you a full report as soon as I am able.

Peter Dale Scott said it he thought it was one of the best conferences ever, and in retrospect, it might have been.

They videotaped everything and Ben Wecht is getting permission from the presenters to make the tapes available soon.

Some of the presenters - PDS, Lisa Pease and others have already given copies of the text of their talks for posting at the conference web site, Mary Ferrell, and COPA, so keep an eye out at those sites.

I'll post a synopsis soon, and a more in depth report as soon as I can.

BK

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

Perhaps we need a new thread title... something like "The Neverending Trial of Cyril Wecht"

Erie-based judge to preside at Wecht retrial

Friday, October 31, 2008

By Paula Reed Ward, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

The retrial of former Allegheny County Coroner Dr. Cyril Wecht will be heard by U.S. District Judge Sean J. McLaughlin, who is based in Erie. The trial will be held in Pittsburgh.

Chief U.S. District Judge Donetta W. Ambrose made the assignment this afternoon.

U.S. District Judge Arthur J. Schwab was removed from the case by the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in September. The three-judge panel denied Dr. Wecht's motion to have the case against him dismissed but ordered that a new judge be appointed, saying that the process might benefit from having less rancor in the courtroom.

In May, both Dr. Wecht's attorneys and the government began working with former federal Circuit Judge Timothy K. Lewis in an attempt to reach a civil settlement in the case -- something very rare in the world of criminal justice.

However, this week, Mr. Lewis said those negotiations have broken down.

"It is my judgment that there will not be a resolution of this through mediation," he said. "It requires the commitment and shared interest of both sides, and we simply did not have that."

He would not get into the details of who wasn't committed to the process.

Without a civil settlement on the horizon, it is most likely that Dr. Wecht will proceed to a retrial on the 41 counts against him.

His first trial, which began in January, ended in a hung jury in April.

The lead prosecutor on the case, Stephen S. Stallings, has since left the U.S. attorney's office for private practice. He has been replaced by the chief of the criminal division, Leo M. Dillon.

More details in tomorrow's Pittsburgh Post-Gazette.

First published on October 31, 2008 at 1:14 pm

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Perhaps we need a new thread title... something like "The Neverending Trial of Cyril Wecht"

Erie-based judge to preside at Wecht retrial

Friday, October 31, 2008

By Paula Reed Ward, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

The retrial of former Allegheny County Coroner Dr. Cyril Wecht will be heard by U.S. District Judge Sean J. McLaughlin, who is based in Erie. The trial will be held in Pittsburgh.

Chief U.S. District Judge Donetta W. Ambrose made the assignment this afternoon.

U.S. District Judge Arthur J. Schwab was removed from the case by the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in September. The three-judge panel denied Dr. Wecht's motion to have the case against him dismissed but ordered that a new judge be appointed, saying that the process might benefit from having less rancor in the courtroom.

In May, both Dr. Wecht's attorneys and the government began working with former federal Circuit Judge Timothy K. Lewis in an attempt to reach a civil settlement in the case -- something very rare in the world of criminal justice.

However, this week, Mr. Lewis said those negotiations have broken down.

"It is my judgment that there will not be a resolution of this through mediation," he said. "It requires the commitment and shared interest of both sides, and we simply did not have that."

He would not get into the details of who wasn't committed to the process.

Without a civil settlement on the horizon, it is most likely that Dr. Wecht will proceed to a retrial on the 41 counts against him.

His first trial, which began in January, ended in a hung jury in April.

The lead prosecutor on the case, Stephen S. Stallings, has since left the U.S. attorney's office for private practice. He has been replaced by the chief of the criminal division, Leo M. Dillon.

More details in tomorrow's Pittsburgh Post-Gazette.

First published on October 31, 2008 at 1:14 pm

That this retrial is even happening is from my albeit, limited knowledge of jurisprudence, an outrage.

Can anyone explain why this retrial does not violate the spirit if not the letter, of the provision known as "double jeopardy?"

Edited by Robert Howard
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Perhaps we need a new thread title... something like "The Neverending Trial of Cyril Wecht"

Erie-based judge to preside at Wecht retrial

Friday, October 31, 2008

By Paula Reed Ward, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

The retrial of former Allegheny County Coroner Dr. Cyril Wecht will be heard by U.S. District Judge Sean J. McLaughlin, who is based in Erie. The trial will be held in Pittsburgh.

Chief U.S. District Judge Donetta W. Ambrose made the assignment this afternoon.

U.S. District Judge Arthur J. Schwab was removed from the case by the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in September. The three-judge panel denied Dr. Wecht's motion to have the case against him dismissed but ordered that a new judge be appointed, saying that the process might benefit from having less rancor in the courtroom.

In May, both Dr. Wecht's attorneys and the government began working with former federal Circuit Judge Timothy K. Lewis in an attempt to reach a civil settlement in the case -- something very rare in the world of criminal justice.

However, this week, Mr. Lewis said those negotiations have broken down.

"It is my judgment that there will not be a resolution of this through mediation," he said. "It requires the commitment and shared interest of both sides, and we simply did not have that."

He would not get into the details of who wasn't committed to the process.

Without a civil settlement on the horizon, it is most likely that Dr. Wecht will proceed to a retrial on the 41 counts against him.

His first trial, which began in January, ended in a hung jury in April.

The lead prosecutor on the case, Stephen S. Stallings, has since left the U.S. attorney's office for private practice. He has been replaced by the chief of the criminal division, Leo M. Dillon.

More details in tomorrow's Pittsburgh Post-Gazette.

First published on October 31, 2008 at 1:14 pm

That this retrial is even happening is from my albeit, limited knowledge of jurisprudence, an outrage.

Can anyone explain why this retrial does not violate the spirit if not the letter, of the provision known as "double jeopardy?"

Perhap's, if I cannot answer my own question, as a U.S. Citizen, I can exercise my freedom of speech to point out some very unseemingly aspects of the Cyril Wecht verdict and the proverbial next step.

In the newspaper article, in which the link is posted above, there are three passages that strike me.

1. The Third Circuit issued its 44-page opinion denying Dr. Wecht's motion to dismiss the case against him based on double jeopardy. But Judges D. Michael Fisher, D. Brooks Smith and Senior Judge Franklin S. Van Antwerpen agree unanimously to remove U.S. District Judge Arthur J. Schwab from the case.

2. In its opinion, the Third Circuit said that a retrial isn't required.

3. "[The] problem today is not so much the appearance of bias as it is the appearance of litigation at a combative tenor that likely will not abate were Judge Schwab to stay on the case," wrote Judge Fisher. "We therefore direct that a less invested adjudicator take over........."

My reaction to those comments is that I take an extremely dim view of the quote The "problem today is not so much the appearance of bias as it is the appearance of litigation at a combative tenor........"

While the Third Circuit Court Judges apparently used the terminology of bias, as bias on the part of Judge Arthur J Schwab, I would stipulate that the ruling that Cyril Wecht may be retried on some of the charges contained in the original case made against Dr. Wecht, may not be proof of bias against Dr. Wecht, but it certainly does nothing to dissuade the notion, that the continued prosecution of Dr. Wecht, bears all the hallmarks of a politically motivated witchhunt, which may reveal that said Judges are more concerned with obfuscating the idea of the retrying of Wecht, as being a withchunt; than exercising some authority and stating in effect, to the Prosecutors you gave it your best shot and you were handed a mistrial. Explain to us, what crime Dr. Wecht has committed that justifies spending millions of dollars, to get a second chance to obtain a conviction, on a charge or charges, that are miniscule in contrast to the money expended in the effort.

Edited by Robert Howard
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That this retrial is even happening is from my albeit, limited knowledge of jurisprudence, an outrage.

Can anyone explain why this retrial does not violate the spirit if not the letter, of the provision known as "double jeopardy?"

The answer lies in your question; your (and Peter’s) “knowledge of jurisprudence” is limited. There was a mistrial because the jury deadlocked, he was not acquitted. Generally retrials are only blocked when the mistrial is due to actions of the prosecutor as in the Watada case.

Retrial Following Mistrial.

The Double Jeopardy Clause allows retrial following a mistrial when, "taking all the circumstances into consideration, there is a manifest necessity for ... [declaring a mistrial], or the ends of public justice would otherwise be defeated." The Court has declined to articulate a precise definition of "manifest necessity." The circuits, however, have interpreted this standard to allow retrial if the mistrial is based on the trial judge's finding that the jury is deadlocked, biased, or unduly influenced. Courts have also found manifest necessity when the behavior of the defendant or her counsel triggered the mistrial.”

Double jeopardyGeorgetown Law Journal, Jun 1998 by Johnson, Emily Ann, Delmue, Jason A, Lazarus, Brian D [Note: The paragraph is footnoted but I edited out the numbers because they were distracting - Len]

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa38...806/ai_n8790670

Odd that Peter would cite a case where a soldier escaped conviction after refusing to obey a lawful order to deploy because he disagreed with the Iraq war as evidence that “Any semblance of justice is rare these days - in or out of the Courts - and that goes to the nth degree to those who have a different world-view than those who wield power”. Don’t get me wrong I think the war is wrong on just about every level,

Question for Robert and Peter. The were a few cases where Klan types murdered African Americans but were acquitted by the state courts and were later re-tried in Federal court on civil rights charges. Were those retrials not outrages, even if we all agree the defendants deserved to be punished?

As for Wecht my impression is that he in a certain sense guilty of several counts but that the violations are so petty ante that it begs the question why is the government making such an effort to convict him? It smacks of selective prosecution. But then again he seems to have refused a plea deal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can anyone explain why this retrial does not violate the spirit if not the letter, of the provision known as "double jeopardy?"

The answer lies in your question; your (and Peter’s) “knowledge of jurisprudence” is limited. There was a mistrial because the jury deadlocked, he was not acquitted. Generally retrials are only blocked when the mistrial is due to actions of the prosecutor as in the Watada case.

Obviously I was seeking someone's expertise that was greater than my own, so you're response in this case was welcome.

Question for Robert and Peter. The were a few cases where Klan types murdered African Americans but were acquitted by the state courts and were later re-tried in Federal court on civil rights charges. Were those retrials not outrages, even if we all agree the defendants deserved to be punished?

Yes, I agree.

As for Wecht my impression is that he in a certain sense guilty of several counts but that the violations are so petty ante that it begs the question why is the government making such an effort to convict him? It smacks of selective prosecution. But then again he seems to have refused a plea deal.

Which, is to a certain degree the point I was trying to make in the first place....

Edited by Robert Howard
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can anyone explain why this retrial does not violate the spirit if not the letter, of the provision known as "double jeopardy?"

The answer lies in your question; your (and Peter’s) “knowledge of jurisprudence” is limited. There was a mistrial because the jury deadlocked, he was not acquitted. Generally retrials are only blocked when the mistrial is due to actions of the prosecutor as in the Watada case.

Obviously I was seeking someone's expertise that was greater than my own, so you're response in this case was welcome.

Question for Robert and Peter. The were a few cases where Klan types murdered African Americans but were acquitted by the state courts and were later re-tried in Federal court on civil rights charges. Were those retrials not outrages, even if we all agree the defendants deserved to be punished?

Yes, I agree.

As for Wecht my impression is that he in a certain sense guilty of several counts but that the violations are so petty ante that it begs the question why is the government making such an effort to convict him? It smacks of selective prosecution. But then again he seems to have refused a plea deal.

Which, is to a certain degree the point I was trying to make in the first place....

Then we’re basically in agreement. Sorry for being a bit snide, I guess I can’t help myself sometimes. :plane

Based on my limited understanding of jurisprudence the judge was correct in granting the prosecutor’s request for a new trial, though I think the prosecutor should have let the matter drop. On the other hand Wecht should have admitted error and accepted a plea.

Since I was teenager I’ve felt a bit torn about the “civil rights violations” prosecutions on one hand I thought it was good the Feds tried to put racist murders who’s escaped justice behind bars but they seemed to be doing so by making an end run around the 5th amendment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When I was in Pittsburgh for the Wecht conference, the looming possible retrial was never mentioned, at least in my presence, during the conference. It was though, like the sword of Acamedes? - hanging there...Everyone exhibited complete support for him without unnecessarilly bringing up the subject.

But from what I gathered from locals, the cab driver, waitress, my former college roommate, who live in Pittsburgh, they think Cyril did things the way they used to do them, and no real harm done, though its now recognized that things are done a little more differently today.

It is rather hard to fathom why they continue to intimidate, and not hard to understand why Cyril will not accept a plea bargain and admit guilt when he is really innocent of any criminal intent. If he was such a bad guy, how did he fool so many people - including me?

Because he didn't fool anyone and is not guilty of using his office for criminal gain.

And it was honorable for the trustees of Duquesne to stand by him after his indictment, and his friends to stand by him.

From the mood of Pittsburgh, I predict that the consensus will win out and that after all the paperwork is run through the rinnger, they will put off and never hold another trial.

What will be interesting is to review this case a decade from now and see how it fits in with the political use of prosecutors by the Bush administration, though I doubt Cyril's work as a special expert witness in the JFK assassination had anything to do with it.

A congressional committee is also investigating this, so you know the new prosecutors, who have less an axe to grind, will be only inclined to proceed if they have new and convincing evidence, when in fact, the weight of the evidence after the last hung jury, is strongly in favor of Dr. Wecht.

BK

Edited by William Kelly
Link to comment
Share on other sites

When I was in Pittsburgh for the Wecht conference, the looming possible retrial was never mentioned, at least in my presence, during the conference. It was though, like the sword of Acamedes? - hanging there...Everyone exhibited complete support for him without unnecessarilly bringing up the subject.

But from what I gathered from locals, the cab driver, waitress, my former college roommate, who live in Pittsburgh, they think Cyril did things the way they used to do them, and no real harm done, though its now recognized that things are done a little more differently today.

It is rather hard to fathom why they continue to intimidate, and not hard to understand why Cyril will not accept a plea bargain and admit guilt when he is really innocent of any criminal intent. If he was such a bad guy, how did he fool so many people - including me?

Because he didn't fool anyone and is not guilty of using his office for criminal gain.

And it was honorable for the trustees of Duquesne to stand by him after his indictment, and his friends to stand by him.

From the mood of Pittsburgh, I predict that the consensus will win out and that after all the paperwork is run through the rinnger, they will put off and never hold another trial.

What will be interesting is to review this case a decade from now and see how it fits in with the political use of prosecutors by the Bush administration, though I doubt Cyril's work as a special expert witness in the JFK assassination had anything to do with it.

A congressional committee is also investigating this, so you know the new prosecutors, who have less an axe to grind, will be only inclined to proceed if they have new and convincing evidence, when in fact, the weight of the evidence after the last hung jury, is strongly in favor of Dr. Wecht.

BK

Then we’re basically in agreement. Sorry for being a bit snide, I guess I can’t help myself sometimes. laugh.gif

Not a problem.....

Based on my limited understanding of jurisprudence the judge was correct in granting the prosecutor’s request for a new trial, though I think the prosecutor should have let the matter drop. On the other hand Wecht should have admitted error and accepted a plea.

We will wait to see what happens, I suppose.

Since I was teenager I’ve felt a bit torn about the “civil rights violations” prosecutions on one hand I thought it was good the Feds tried to put racist murders who’s escaped justice behind bars but they seemed to be doing so by making an end run around the 5th amendment.

Point well taken, I am sure you've heard of the book, The Power to Destroy: The Political Uses of the IRS from Kennedy to Nixon - John A. Andrew III

http://books.google.com/books?id=s6WzAAAAI...p;q=&pgis=1

Politics is politics.......

Not to jump off topic, re Cyril Wecht, but one change I, as a student of history have undergone regarding the Kennedy Assassination is the "group-think" ideal. The fill in the blank _______ did it. Everything is an area of scrutiny, which is understandable, as there are areas that have not been fully documented, no thanks to the fact that there are still a great deal of classified documents.

The group-think approach is fraught with ambiguities that lead, in my opinion to a proverbial road to nowhere.

My main area of focus in this regard is with reference to the "deep politics" of an intertwining of the Intelligence agencies, organized crime and key persons.

What in effect I believe, is that when one applies a scholarly historical approach to the events in the years leading up to the assassination, there is a possible or probable insight that this deep political nexus that Peter Dale Scott references has come out into the open here and there in the succeeding years such as during the era of the Red Brigades and the Aldo Moro murder, with subsequent detailing of groups such as P-2, the Masonic Lodge with tentacles that extended into the American structure, although in a transmuted form. Transmuted, as a transitive verb.

Having said that, the fascist and neo-fascist elements seem to love to shift the onus on the Jewish race, which I feel is patently false, in a manner not unlike the Protocols of Zion being attributed to a Jewish cabal, when in reality, the same groups that were behind the pogroms against the Jews had been the creators of the Protocol's of Zion in the first place.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...