The Peoples Comission

[John Dolva]

PC 2007

A peoples Commission. Expected to last a couple of years. Members of the board elected from within the research community . Advisors appointed or invited. All members allowed to submit. The members of the Peoples Commisssion hold public hearings and publish its conclusions and majority minority reports on the fly for scrutiny and comment. Consensus voting. etc ???

The internet and vop and vid conferencing should make this possible today, it's the will that's needed perhaps.

[Tim Gratz]

John, I had suggested something similr to this quite a while ago. I'll try to find it.

[Lynne Foster]

John, I had suggested something similr to this quite a while ago. I'll try to find it.

We need a people's, Hoover Commission.

[Guest Stephen Turner]

John, sounds interesting, who do you believe should be invited to serve on this committee.

Tin, I to recall you posting something of this nature. Wasn't it to restablish court proceedings in this case, or was that a dream I had, LOL.

[Mark Knight]

The problem I see with establishing a People's Commission has surfaced within this very thread: those that wish to sidetrack and/or derail the purpose will evidently be able to do so at will. For if we begin the process of weeding out the disrupters, at what point do we become another version of the WC or the HSCA investigations, in which some witnesses were ignored or not invited, and some important questions not asked? WHO, then would decide which witnesses are important and which are not, and which evidence is germain to the issue and which is not?

In other words, how do we go about doing this fairly, and at what point do we concede, in "Pogo"-esque terminology, that "we have met the enemy, and he is us?" Better, how do we AVOID arriving at that point, without becoming a copy of the failed investigations that precede us?

Until and unless we can answer these questions, a People's Commission should remain merely an idea. I think it's a GOOD idea, but until we can avoid the pitfalls that have plagued other investigations, we would simply be doomed to repeat their mistakes...in my opinion.

[William Kelly]

The problem I see with establishing a People's Commission has surfaced within this very thread: those that wish to sidetrack and/or derail the purpose will evidently be able to do so at will. For if we begin the process of weeding out the disrupters, at what point do we become another version of the WC or the HSCA investigations, in which some witnesses were ignored or not invited, and some important questions not asked? WHO, then would decide which witnesses are important and which are not, and which evidence is germain to the issue and which is not?

In other words, how do we go about doing this fairly, and at what point do we concede, in "Pogo"-esque terminology, that "we have met the enemy, and he is us?" Better, how do we AVOID arriving at that point, without becoming a copy of the failed investigations that precede us?

Commissions have historically established to confirm a previously determined outcome, from the Doubleday Commission that determined Abner Doubleday invented the game of baseball in Cooperstown, New York in a certain year, which never happened.

In addion, the only thing a Commission can do is issue a report, it has no power to act. f

The Grand Jury on the other hand, especially a runaway grand jury, has the power to indict individuals for crimes - (though it is still up to the DA prosecutor to issue the indictment and bring the matter to trail).

The bets part of the Grand Jury proceedings, as far as eleminating disruption, is that only the evidence of crimes is presented, and those being questioned by the Grand Jury cannot have legal representation in the room for advice, and hearsay evidence is allowed.

If it goes to trail, then the defense is allowed to advise and cross examine witnesses, and hearsay isn't permitted.

Those responsible for the assassination of JFK and the coverup, really aren't affected by a Commission, but would be certainly scarred of a Grand Jury.

BK

[John Dolva]

The problem I see with establishing a People's Commission has surfaced within this very thread: those that wish to sidetrack and/or derail the purpose will evidently be able to do so at will. For if we begin the process of weeding out the disrupters, at what point do we become another version of the WC or the HSCA investigations, in which some witnesses were ignored or not invited, and some important questions not asked? WHO, then would decide which witnesses are important and which are not, and which evidence is germain to the issue and which is not?

In other words, how do we go about doing this fairly, and at what point do we concede, in "Pogo"-esque terminology, that "we have met the enemy, and he is us?" Better, how do we AVOID arriving at that point, without becoming a copy of the failed investigations that precede us?

Until and unless we can answer these questions, a People's Commission should remain merely an idea. I think it's a GOOD idea, but until we can avoid the pitfalls that have plagued other investigations, we would simply be doomed to repeat their mistakes...in my opinion.

Hmmm, I was going to name this topic 'a friday pipe dream'.

OOOOOOOOOOOOOO

Mark I believe you hit the nail on the head. I'm hoping that amongst us all there might come some guidance on this very point, WHO decides?: As a suggestion I have the idea of an answer: noone!, and to complicate matters I would suggest the most demanding voting system : consensus tempered with issue of equally promoted major and minor reports where disagreement exists. A solution that doesn't conform to my personal views is OK with me.

With regards to mentioning names. I suggest a method of nomination and voting within the international research community so every one gets a voice. There will be enough conflict so some means of maximum inclusion of views. The only people I'd actually mention by name for my nomination would be those elders less likely to get a big head or misinterpret any such nomination. Without regard for views, politics, position etc off the top of my head an indication would be John Simkin, Al, Gerry, Tom, Harry etc. I hope many women would be nominated as well. As my exposure to the community is only for a year or so and then only through this forum my view on this is naturally shaped by the exposure I get to the people available. There would no doubt be many people who don't or seldom address this forum who would be perfect for the role.

Anyway the poiont is it's not up to me but everyone equally, other opposing groupings would get equal consideration, perhaps a total of 45 split up in to comittees with principals who form a smaller oversight role. But an important element would be the acceptance of minority reports and fringe groups and the ongoing on the fly reports that are scrutinised as books are here on the forum and resubmitted.

[Lynne Foster]

Just curious. let's imagine the people's commission had reviewed all the research, and was about to produce it's final report.

Can anybody here tell me, what would the people's commission say about J. Edgar Hoover?

Some of you have indicated that Jim Garrison is a hero and I think that Garrison is Hoover's lackey. Would the people's commission call J. Edgar Hoover a hero, or what.....?

[John Dolva]

Just curious. let's imagine the people's commission had reviewed all the research, and was about to produce it's final report.

Can anybody here tell me, what would the people's commission say about J. Edgar Hoover?

Some of you have indicated that Jim Garrison is a hero and I think that Garrison is Hoover's lackey. Would the people's commission call J. Edgar Hoover a hero, or what.....?

Lynne, you would amongst all others be allowed/invited to submit. The reports (major/minor) would reflect the views of the communityas a whole. The point of this particular topic is not to reach any particular conclusion on 'who did it' but to discuss a possible commission format. On this issue your views would be part of the discussion.