International / US / State Law and the Conspiracy

[Lee Forman]

There are multiple facets to this topic, but I would like to specifically address one aspect first, relative to the 'Wanted for Treason' advertisement.

Speculation, and my opinion, as usual, with my apologies in advance. I am attempting to be objective here. If anyone can ammend my ignorance of the law in this case, it would be greatly appreciated.

Let's assume that the action in Dealey Plaza was of significant magnitude [sorry - suspend that lone nut crap please]. It was planned, rehearsed, etc. It involved the use of plants, shooters, spotters, 'watchers' to seize any photographic record, chaos/diversionary tactics, broad communications, tracking, communication blocking technologies, professional operatives, etc. The Plaza would have had to have been surveyed [and again, I think it's tragic that the lead concerning the men surveying the plaza in the days before the assassination weren't properly followed up on], access and knowledge [floor plans, elevators, office locations, windows, exits, power panels, fire escapes, etc.] as to the DalTex and the TSBD [possibly County Records] would have to have been pre-planned. Multiple 'safe houses' would have been established. Numerous routes in and out of Dallas would have existed. Transportation of operatives and weapons would have been in order. Safe passage for the escape and camoflauge of the shooters would have been a number one priority - I'll use Culligan as a reference for my appreciation of that concept.

Documentation of the operation would have been crucial, which is why I believe there were quite a few more films/photos than anyone is even aware of, aside from those who have stated that they have seen films which were never made available to the public [note - I have never seen any personally, I am relying on published accounts, records, and my own observation, and many others as well, concerning multiple cameras and what appear to be lenses in the 'Official Record' of footage and photos deemed 'releasable']. Protection of the operatives, and a buffer to avoid any direct connection between the controllers / coordinators of the operation and the action would have to have been in place. Fallback and failsafe measures would have been considered - including weaponry of sufficient velocity and power to pierce the plastic bubbletop - since this was an unknown variable, and even a possible secondary position closer to the Trade Mart may have existed in the event of a hitch with the Elm Street design. Perhaps a 'machinegun in a briefcase' or a bomb positioned close to the Motorcade in a railway car, or a parked car, as a final 'safety precaution.'

Security would have needed to be penetrated. I assume that certain elements within the DPD would have had to have been compromised/infiltrated/involved.

So...let's assume that the conspirators involved in the original planning were brilliant. That's the conclusion I have drawn thus far myself. This was no simple operation. It was planned and executed - even with it's errors, a success - the target was eliminated - in a humiliating way in public view. The use of multiple shooters with rifles, as opposed to an explosive device, poison or etc. The uniforms worn by many of the operatives which I still opine may have been connected to a 'staged' operation which could be used to place blame on multiple Patsies - including the possibility of the Dallas Police Department, Castro and possibly even the Soviet Union.

1. In 1963, there was no specific Federal Law prohibiting killing a president. That's worth further discussion, as I don't fully comprehend what that entails. What impact would that have on the Statute of Limitations? Any?

2. The 'documentation' I suspect that was performed of the operation, by the operation, would have been for specific reasons - perhaps as cited in my rambling above, to place blame for other purposes - like a December invasion of Cuba - but most likely for other reasons as well. Insurance, etc. More on that some other time.

3. This is the one I was curious about. From the perspective of International Law, or Federal US law, or Texas State law, what would the conspirators / operation in Dealey Plaza have gained by creating the declaration / advertisement concerning the 'Wanted for Treason' against President Kennedy? What privilege, status, etc. would have been afforded to anyone participating in the operation in Dealey Plaza on the basis of this declaration under the law, anything? The 'Advertisement' doesn't even associate the Declaration with any specific group - as such, legally, it has no authorization, and no coupon value - right? Is anyone aware of any specific rationale as to why it may have been a requirement on the part of the conspirators to have issued such a 'statement' from the perspective of the law and the 'justification' of the action, in the event that the cover-up did not go ahead [as planned?]? If instead of the assassination that occurred on 11/22/63 - what if instead the Queen Mary came to a dead halt, and the SS disembarked and open fired with Tommy Guns on any number of shooters, that may have come to their attention? If the bubbletop was in place, or if Kennedy 'ducked,' forcing the failsafe into effect?

Rambling continued - but the above, Number 3, is my major question to the Forum. Maybe it would be interesting to cover each of the points in the advertisement in greater depth. For example, I just stumbled upon Peter Whitmey's info on 'Motorgate.' That could explain why Portugal would have [foolishly] been listed, but Katanga!?

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

Following the granting of independence to the Congo in June 1960 Katanga broke away from the new government of Patrice Lumumba in July and declared independence under Moise Tshombe. Lumumba was replaced in September 1960 in a coup d'état by Joseph Mobutu. In January 1962, Katanga created its own air force, which was commanded by Jan Zumbach. There were 10 Harvard T-6 bombers and two Vampire jets, almost all of which were destroyed by Swedish fighters in December 1962. Forces under the leadership of the UN conducted a two-year campaign to return Katanga to the Congo, culminating in the National Conciliation Plan in January 1963.

Just thinking here. I ran across some stuff relative to Tort's on Treason and found some interesting stuff, but I think I'm going down the wrong path somehow.

If there is any truth to theory concerning 'blackmailing' the Government into it's position of a large production cover-up and whitewash, with it's ridiculous and patently unacceptable position of Lee Oswald as sole, mentally unbalanced shooter, in what appears to have possibly even have been the wrong window [Hoover, Sprague, Alea, etc. etc.]. What would have constituted sufficient proofs and material to warrant agreement and collusion in the cover-up?

Perhaps that is a bad theory to begin with. It's at least questionable at the onset, if one considers the direct violations of law associated with the removal of the body, the immediate ordered 'destruction' of the crime scene, the tampering with the evidence, alteration of records, etc., how else would one 'silence' anyone within the Government's employ? And even if we took the position that not everyone was part of the plan, it's remarkable when one views first day reactions and responses to the assassination in hindsight. "You heard three shots." I'd very much like to believe, and I do personally, that not everyone working for the United States Government in the capacity of intelligence, etc., was very happy to go along with this program.

4. Does the removal of the body from Texas have anything to do with Habeas Corpus?

While trying to research Treason Torts and Texas State Law I came upon the following passage - found it interesting. George Mercier, who has a website devoted to 'Invisible Contracts.'

http://www.worldnewsstand.net/law/StateCre...ticBenefits.htm

[74] Yes, the Law operates out in the practical setting by your acts, and not on paper by the existence of a Driver's License, and you Highway Contract Protesters are really missing the boat altogether:

"The law necessarily steps in to explain, and construe the stipulations of parties, but never to supersede, or vary them. A great mass of human transactions depend upon implied contracts, upon contracts, not written, which grow out of the acts of the parties." - Joseph Story, III Commentaries on the Constitution, at 249 ["Contracts"] (Cambridge, 1833). [return]

[75] The deep soul searching that Highway Contract Protesting Patriots need to do is the same soul searching that other prominent people have already done in other settings, as they too knew that they were in serious error -- but for different reasons -- because the sanctification that their soul was unsuccessfully searching for was to correct error of a far different nature...

...It had been a nice day outside yesterday on that Thursday; generally it had been a wet week down here; reaching a typical afternoon temperature into the 70s, now on Friday it was quite humid outside. Coming down from New York to attend a Pepsi-Cola Meeting, as Nelson had arranged, the thought of being in "America" triggered something warm inside Richard Nixon's heart, although he did not know just what. Richard Nixon was an American Vice-President, a high-profile and very well known fellow throughout the world, and so it was important that other good reasons always be made available to explain away his presence on his peripheral assignments for Nelson Rockefeller -- a high-powered, heavy duty, and world class Gremlin. For Vice-President Richard Nixon, merely walking down the sidewalk or strolling through a hotel lobby created an attraction not easily forgotten by passers-by.

And now it was early on a Friday morning and temperatures were now into the low 60's, and were going to rise; the weather reports had stated that the expected intermittent rains that day. Richard Nixon had gotten up early this morning and had left his suite at the Baker Hotel for a stroll; he had a busy day ahead of him, as well as having to deal with something else that was eating away at him. He had left his wife Pat back in New York -- and for good reasons.

Standing there on the sidewalk next to Elm Street, watching the cars go by, something impressive was overruling his train of thoughts, as the idea would not leave his mind that he would never, ever, forget this time, this day and this place. Looking across the street, there was a series of small 5 to 7 story buildings. He looked across the municipal park and saw that United States Terminal Annex Building, then he turned and saw in series the County Court House Building; a beautiful old stone faced mansion called Old Red which held the County executives' offices, built way back in the 1800s, it was of elegant red brick -- well worn but elegant. Continuing his panorama view he saw the County Criminal Courts Building, then the County Records Building -- all those buildings were fronting on Houston Street, and they were all Government. He knew that this day would be haunting him for the rest of his life. Boy, what he had to go through for Nelson. Standing on the sidewalk next to Elm Street, Richard Nixon turned again and looked around behind him -- there was a set of railroad tracks over there, and a confluence of three streets -- Main Street, Elm Street, and Commerce Street -- going underneath those tracks. Turning back around, he once again saw the small municipal park and the series of Government buildings encircling it. Continuing his turn, now there appeared a taller warehouse like building that attracted his attention momentarily. Continuing his panoramic view, he continued to turn and saw another park like setting on a bluff -- there was a collection of trees, benches, and a concrete fence with an interesting architectural design in it -- and all of that looked like it was perched overall on a grass knoll. The concrete fence was actually a monument built by the Works Progress Administration in 1938 to honor a Tennessee lawyer named John Byran, one of the pioneers who settled in this town back in 1839, before taking off to join the California Gold Rush in 1849.

Continuing on with his circle, he encountered the railroad tracks again, but now his eye caught several boxcars parked nearby -- yes, he remembered how those boxcars were supposed to be there; Nelson's plans always were so well oiled. Looking at the stream of cars coming and going in both directions underneath its bridge, he studied the passengers for a while. Looking at the drivers in those cars, Richard Nixon thought to himself how he held valuable factual information those folks did not have -- factual information so important that literally, before the end of the day from right then and there, every single human being on the fact of the Earth, accessible to some news information, would then know in hindsight what Richard Nixon now knew in advance.

Occasionally, Richard Nixon had been baffled (if baffled is the word), or perhaps mystiqued, about the nonchalant ambivalence and indifference of Americans generally to their Government and to those who were quietly running the show hidden in the background; why these common folks just did not understand power very well.

Why couldn't these simple folks come to grips with the fact that successful politicians are simply accustomed to using juristic force to accomplish their own personal objectives? And that there were numerous others who also want the benefits derived from using Juristic Institutions on their behalf, while wanting to stay blended in latently within the shadows of the background.

Searching his soul some more, an idea came into the back of his mind -- a partial recognition of what it meant to be "in America" -- the real America was merely the absence of Corporate Socialist Rockefeller Cartel gremlin intrigues and maneuverings for conquest -- a Cartel power so dominant in New York that merely traveling anywhere else in the Country was "America." But something about this city was different; here nice, friendly, class people lived. He remember how he actually enjoyed being interviewed yesterday by the local Press in his suite at the Baker Hotel -- boy was that a refreshing change; he had felt relaxed. Richard Nixon really liked these folks, and once momentarily yearned to be one of them -- simple, uncluttered, and concerned largely with themselves and their families. Richard Nixon remembered how he saw his picture in the local newspaper this morning, and the photograph published was very distinguished looking. Why, if that Press Interview had taken place in New York City, there would have been no end to the distortion taking place, and the photograph selected would have been the worst -- Nelson's barking media dogs in his media, what garbage they were. Yes, Nelson had promised Richard Nixon the Presidency off in the future, so now the barking dogs were going to have Richard Nixon as a piece of meat to kick around once again. While trying to relate to the journalists who lived in this city, Richard Nixon visualized in his mind reading the editorial page this morning next to his Press Interview photograph, and recalled feeling how real Americans lived in this city, as the local newspaper editors had the Savior Faire to admire a man personally, while disagreeing with some of his philosophy:

"[We] hope, Mr. Vice President, that your brief interlude here today will be pleasant. The news, along with thousands in this area, has disagreed sharply with many of your policies, but the opposition is not personal."

Gee, Richard Nixon was thinking to himself, such a statement would never be found appearing in any paper Nelson and David had any control over -- a newspaper actually admiring someone else? Never. Hmmm, so that is what the distinguishing characteristic was: These common folks out here held no malice in them against others; they were not enscrewment oriented, so they thought in totally different terms. These common folks out here in America do not start out Press Interviews looking for ways to run someone else into the ground.

In watching the cars go by again, Richard Nixon remembered how sometime ago, he had once heard Nelson Rockefeller mutter some contemptful characterization of these common folks by calling them peasants, which was uttered with a salty derogatory slur in Nelson's inflection designed to rub in, in no uncertain terms, the elevated grandeur of his aloof status. Now while looking at a white convertible go by with a blonde in it, unsophisticated, seemingly carefree, uncluttered, and naive -- yet she and these other common folks down here possessed something important that Richard Nixon quietly yearned for, but could not identify; the very fact that Nelson Rockefeller had bad-mouthed these folks meant that there was something special about them that Richard Nixon thought he also wanted for himself, but in trying to figure out just what the something was, Richard Nixon's mind just drew a blank for the moment. These common folks out here in America, Nelson's peasants, hmmmm... unlike Nelson, they were carefree, they were without malice towards others, nor did they walk about like Atlas with the burdens of global problems on their shoulders, nor they did not hold the literal fate of entire civilizations in their hands, and they were also without factual knowledge on impending adverse circumstances, and yet, for some puzzling reason, they still clearly held the upper hand in some invisible way [Holding the Upper Hand is a characterization that Nelson Rockefeller would infrequently use in other textual settings, as his mind was constantly making assessments on power relationships he was evaluating]. Here Richard Nixon was in advanced and premier positions in virtually every perspective of measurement that society offers, and yet at the same time he also felt way behind all of these simple little common folks. Richard Nixon really did not want to be here this day; he did not want to have had to sit in on that briefing session in New York along with Nelson, Secretary of Defense Robert MacNamara; his assistant Alexander Haig; Director of Clandestine Operations for the CIA, Richard M. Bissell, Jr.; and Nelson's long time friend, George DeMohrenschilt. Nelson had also given Richard Nixon a peripheral but operationally important coordinating role to play in the scenario that would be unfolding into the public's view shortly. It was a massive operation involving several hundred people, many of whom did not know what the end objective was, and would only be realizing their supporting role after the objective blossomed out into the public eye -- but not Richard Nixon; he knew the total picture from start to finish, as all supervisors and coordinators have to know in order to supervise and coordinate. In a practical sense, Richard Nixon was a very powerful person today -- he had the ability to place a phone call to Nelson Rockefeller and call off the whole operation. And now Richard Nixon was telling himself that this was something he did not want to do, this was something he resented -- yet he remained silent about his opposition, and went right ahead and did what he was told to do, as his conscience was telling him not to do, as the good little water boy he had always been for Nelson Rockefeller. In a similar way, today was also going to be the end of the line for Richard Nixon as well, as he would not need to concern himself with his conscience wrestling with him any more.

Now while Richard Nixon's mind had been racing about, touching on one deep contemplative and historical thought after another -- almost an hour had passed, and he snapped out of his somewhat dreamy world to realize that he had other things to do before catching his plane back to New York. This was a matured Richard Nixon who was now starting to mellow out -- the old Richard Nixon was emotionally disturbed and had frequently thrown temper tantrums at students in his law class at Whittier College he once taught -- mean and ugly tantrums whose [expletive deleted] language caused even the paint to peel off the walls; those tantrums had indicated an unpleasant upbringing from a broken home [which his parents were responsible for] and lack of minimal esteem for others [which he was responsible for]. But now as the new Richard Nixon turned around in a circle once again, catching a final panoramic glimpse of the neighborhood scene again -- a scene that the entire world, literally, would become very well acquainted with in a few hours -- a tear formed in one eye and made it down to his cheek before it was wiped away; no, he really did not want to go through with this; he quietly resented this, and even momentarily regretted ever getting involved with Nelson Rockefeller.

A Question surfaced in his mind, followed by another: Who am I? What am I doing here?, with the first Question fading away quickly with the second soon following suit; he had done enough soul searching for one day, and this whole thing was eating at him too much. After suppressing expressions of sympathy that he and Nelson would be extending to Jackie on the morrow in a private White House reception -- those recurring condolences that he had been rehearsing -- Richard Nixon finally cleared his mind of these extraneous thoughts as he slowly turned around and left Dealey Plaza, heading indirectly for Love Airfield. After placing a phone call to Nelson Rockefeller in New York City, telling him that everything "...is set" and that he is flying back to New York, Richard Nixon would clear out of Dallas two hours before President Kennedy arrived in Dallas after having breakfast in Forth Worth. For factual information on Nixon in Dallas, see generally the Dallas Morning News:

["Guard Not for Nixon"], Section 4, page 1 (Friday, November 22, 1963);

["Nixon Predicts JFK May Drop Johnson" - Press Interview], Section 4, page 1 (has accompanying photograph);

["Thunderstorms" - weather], Section 4, page 3 (Friday, November 22, 1963);

["Rain Seen for Visit of Kennedy"], page 1 (Thursday, November 21, 1963);

["The President" - Editorial], Section 4, page 2 (Friday, November 22, 1963).

Yes, that Question: Who am I? really did once enter into Richard Nixon's mind in the idea stream of soul searching that he did on that Friday morning. If the great Highway Contract Protesters were smart, then unlike Richard Nixon's accelerated dissipation of difficult Questions his lack of factual knowledge created impediments to comprehending, this is one Question that Protesters should home in on without letup, until an Answer surfaces somewhere. There is no other Question in this Life that could be asked that is more important. Richard Nixon's error was in chasing the idea away quickly -- indicative of the error in judgment he also exercised as an unprincipled opportunist, when he was once invited to jump into bed with Nelson Rockefeller, a judgment that as of 1985, Richard Nixon has quietly both appreciated and regretted making several times over. Yes, Richard Nixon got that right: Us little peasants do in fact hold the upper hand in ways invisible to Gremlins, imps, and their water boys: Being the clumsy, ignorant, dumb, stupid, uncluttered and unmotivated simple little [deleted] cattle that we are, at least we haven't forfeited the Celestial Kingdom by murdering other people. [return]

[Mark Stapleton]

Lee,

I've often wondered about the "Wanted for Treason" poster. It's been suggested before that it may have been a message or signal to others. I can't see how it impacts on the legal status of the crime. Maybe Tim's sharp legal mind can assist here (although he's been pretty busy lately, gleefully telling everyone that it's now an established fact that the mob was behind the assassination).

It's probably of no significance, but it's interesting that it shows JFK's left profile, rather than his right. "A good commie's a dead commie".

Edited December 10, 2005 by Mark Stapleton

[Lee Forman]

Lee,

I've often wondered about the "Wanted for Treason" poster. It's been suggested before that it may have been a message or signal to others. I can't see how it impacts on the legal status of the crime. Maybe Tim's sharp legal mind can assist here (although he's been pretty busy lately, gleefully telling everyone that it's now an established fact that the mob was behind the assassination).

It's probably of no significance, but it's interesting that it shows JFK's left profile, rather than his right. "A good commie's a dead commie".

Hey Mark.

That's an interesting observation. I often wonder what Nagell was trying to say.

Yes - I am hoping to get Tim's opinion, and anyone else with any sort of legal background. I also like the idea of running through each one of these 'criteria' and seeing if anything adds. I may be way off base, but at least I'll have some fun thinking about it.

- lee

Abe Greenbaum, long suspected leftist is actually confirmed rightist, in deep cover, working plausible denial bit with one of nation's leading and best-financed foreign policy-making firms. He is driving along highway not far from Langley, Va., peering intently out of jagged hole in windshield of his Volkswagen, searching for sign bearing acronym "BPR". Date is November 21, 1963. BPR-Bureau of Public Roads-is innocuous designation used by Abe's firm. "Gee, the Chief must be upset about something," Abe mutters to self, "he used a rock this time instead of the ol' soap-the-windshield trick." Purposefully cruising past BPR sign, Abe makes U-turn in center of highway, barely missed by Fruehauf semi-trailer, then turns right onto road leading to firm's Main Office Building. "Must not be seen making left turn this close to headquarters," Abe mutters. Arriving at destination, Abe circles Main Office Building five times, finally enters parking lot abutting wooded area to right rear of building, drives to extreme right end of lot, parks Volkswagen on right side of firm's undercover utility truck, disguised with Bell Telephone Company markings. Sliding across right-hand seat, he exits from right door of auto, walking long distance to right rear entrance of Main Office Building which is draped with high Quonset-hut type roof. "Hello there," Abe mutters as he slips by uniformed guard he recognizes as Soviet defector, former KGB light colonel. Abe proceeds down mile-long, musty-smelling corridor, pauses under tiny, inconspicuous replica of firm's seal which is painted upside-down on right wall, notices that Bald Eagle's beak on seal is pointing to far left. "Must tell Chief Bald Eagle looking wrong way," mutters Abe. He then takes elevator to fourth floor, goes directly to Chief's office, raps out coded knock on unmarked door, enters. Chief is reclining in swivel-chair with feet on desk, arms folded, sleeping. On desk Abe sees torn-up typewritten letter addressed to CHIEF, DIVISION OF DIRTY TRICKS, signed by B. KNOWNOTHING. Chief is balding, slender man, oft referred to by underlings as "Dirty Dick", albeit behind back. "What's up, Chief?" asks Abe. Chief blinks eyes, opens them, snaps, "I see you got my message!" Chief smiles. "What's with this guy Osborne recruited for Fair Play Caper? XYZ man claims he's being used for wet affair by team we sold out at Cochina Bay." Abe shifts weight to left foot, uncomfortably. "Don't know, Chief," he mutters, "Ozzie seems like good man for penetration of target." Chief stands and yawns, grins slyly. . "Well, just the same you'd better contact Tidbit and have him execute alternate . . . plan." Abe stares at Chief with knowing-look. "Right, Chief, I'll get on it . . . first thing Monday morning." Abe picks up cloak and dagger conveniently lying on desk, turns to leave, stops dead in tracks. "Incidentally, Chief, Bald Eagle on firm's seal is pointing left." Chief grins, sits down in swivel chair, leans back, puts feet on desk, clasps hands behind head, closes eyes. "Really?" He says. Soon Chief is snoring. Abe departs, returns to Volkswagen, worried about jagged hole in windshield. Mutters to self, "Gee, I hope it doesn't rain tomorrow."

[Tim Gratz]

Lee and Mark:

The "Wanted for Treason" poster was of no legal significance.

The definition of treason is contained in Chapter 115 of Title 18 of the United States Code. (The United States Code are the statutes of the United States.)

Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.

I have not researched it but it is highly questionable that the President or Vice-President or a member of Congress could be convicted solely for policies such a person might advocate or promote.

If a President was determined to be actually giving national security secrets to our enemies, I suspect even the President could be tried for treason but I suspect he would have to be impeached first.

Even if there was clear evidence that a president had committed treason, no one has a license to kill him (clearly)--any more than anyone can use "vigilante justice" to execute a person who has even admitted commiting a capital crime. If a person is scheduled to be executed in five minutes (after ten years of appeal have been exhausted) no private citizen even then has a right to murder the person.

Clearly the infamous poster has no legal effect whatsoever.

With respect to what is the effect on the statute of limitations that there was no federal statute prohibiting the murder of the president, the answer again is clearly none. The murder was a crime under the laws of Texas, and the Texas statute of limitations would apply.

Should anyone want to read the United States criminal code, here is one on-line collection of the entire criminal code:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/donors/solicit...._sup_01_18.html

Edited December 10, 2005 by Tim Gratz

[Mark Stapleton]

Lee and Mark:

The "Wanted for Treason" poster was of no legal significance.

The definition of treason is contained in Chapter 115 of Title 18 of the United States Code. (The United States Code are the statutes of the United States.)

Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.

I have not researched it but it is highly questionable that the President or Vice-President or a member of Congress could be convicted solely for policies such a person might advocate or promote.

If a President was determined to be actually giving national security secrets to our enemies, I suspect even the President could be tried for treason but I suspect he would have to be impeached first.

Even if there was clear evidence that a president had committed treason, no one has a license to kill him (clearly)--any more than anyone can use "vigilante justice" to execute a person who has even admitted commiting a capital crime. If a person is scheduled to be executed in five minutes (after ten years of appeal have been exhausted) no private citizen even then has a right to murder the person.

Clearly the infamous poster has no legal effect whatsoever.

With respect to what is the effect on the statute of limitations that there was no federal statute prohibiting the murder of the president, the answer again is clearly none. The murder was a crime under the laws of Texas, and the Texas statute of limitations would apply.

Should anyone want to read the United States criminal code, here is one on-line collection of the entire criminal code:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/donors/solicit...._sup_01_18.html

Thanks for that,Tim. Ever efficient.

Lee,

I've often wondered about the "Wanted for Treason" poster. It's been suggested before that it may have been a message or signal to others. I can't see how it impacts on the legal status of the crime. Maybe Tim's sharp legal mind can assist here (although he's been pretty busy lately, gleefully telling everyone that it's now an established fact that the mob was behind the assassination).

It's probably of no significance, but it's interesting that it shows JFK's left profile, rather than his right. "A good commie's a dead commie".

Hey Mark.

That's an interesting observation. I often wonder what Nagell was trying to say.

Yes - I am hoping to get Tim's opinion, and anyone else with any sort of legal background. I also like the idea of running through each one of these 'criteria' and seeing if anything adds. I may be way off base, but at least I'll have some fun thinking about it.

- lee

Abe Greenbaum, long suspected leftist is actually confirmed rightist, in deep cover, working plausible denial bit with one of nation's leading and best-financed foreign policy-making firms. He is driving along highway not far from Langley, Va., peering intently out of jagged hole in windshield of his Volkswagen, searching for sign bearing acronym "BPR". Date is November 21, 1963. BPR-Bureau of Public Roads-is innocuous designation used by Abe's firm. "Gee, the Chief must be upset about something," Abe mutters to self, "he used a rock this time instead of the ol' soap-the-windshield trick." Purposefully cruising past BPR sign, Abe makes U-turn in center of highway, barely missed by Fruehauf semi-trailer, then turns right onto road leading to firm's Main Office Building. "Must not be seen making left turn this close to headquarters," Abe mutters. Arriving at destination, Abe circles Main Office Building five times, finally enters parking lot abutting wooded area to right rear of building, drives to extreme right end of lot, parks Volkswagen on right side of firm's undercover utility truck, disguised with Bell Telephone Company markings. Sliding across right-hand seat, he exits from right door of auto, walking long distance to right rear entrance of Main Office Building which is draped with high Quonset-hut type roof. "Hello there," Abe mutters as he slips by uniformed guard he recognizes as Soviet defector, former KGB light colonel. Abe proceeds down mile-long, musty-smelling corridor, pauses under tiny, inconspicuous replica of firm's seal which is painted upside-down on right wall, notices that Bald Eagle's beak on seal is pointing to far left. "Must tell Chief Bald Eagle looking wrong way," mutters Abe. He then takes elevator to fourth floor, goes directly to Chief's office, raps out coded knock on unmarked door, enters. Chief is reclining in swivel-chair with feet on desk, arms folded, sleeping. On desk Abe sees torn-up typewritten letter addressed to CHIEF, DIVISION OF DIRTY TRICKS, signed by B. KNOWNOTHING. Chief is balding, slender man, oft referred to by underlings as "Dirty Dick", albeit behind back. "What's up, Chief?" asks Abe. Chief blinks eyes, opens them, snaps, "I see you got my message!" Chief smiles. "What's with this guy Osborne recruited for Fair Play Caper? XYZ man claims he's being used for wet affair by team we sold out at Cochina Bay." Abe shifts weight to left foot, uncomfortably. "Don't know, Chief," he mutters, "Ozzie seems like good man for penetration of target." Chief stands and yawns, grins slyly. . "Well, just the same you'd better contact Tidbit and have him execute alternate . . . plan." Abe stares at Chief with knowing-look. "Right, Chief, I'll get on it . . . first thing Monday morning." Abe picks up cloak and dagger conveniently lying on desk, turns to leave, stops dead in tracks. "Incidentally, Chief, Bald Eagle on firm's seal is pointing left." Chief grins, sits down in swivel chair, leans back, puts feet on desk, clasps hands behind head, closes eyes. "Really?" He says. Soon Chief is snoring. Abe departs, returns to Volkswagen, worried about jagged hole in windshield. Mutters to self, "Gee, I hope it doesn't rain tomorrow."

Lee,

You've caught me out. I didn't know that quote was attributed to Nagell--I just read it somewhere. Re Nagell, I'm just reading TMWKTM now and it's fascinating.

[Lee Forman]

Hey Mark.

'TMWKTM' - which I was first introduced to through Larry Hancock and his excellent 'Someone would have talked' - was one of the most engaging and interesting books I believe I have ever read - however I had many questions, and wondered contantly about things which Russell raised and didn't seem to close.

In any event, it would have been helpful if he had included the actual correspondence, which as memory serves, is referred to in the work. Perhaps it wasn't included in my edition.

I think the big question is still the identity of Abe Greenbaum.

Thanks for raising that - I didn't realize that Russell had replied to my query.

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...opic=5254&st=15

Link to the the correspondence below.

- lee

http://www.webcom.com/~ctka/pr1195-nagltr.html

Lee and Mark:

The "Wanted for Treason" poster was of no legal significance.

The definition of treason is contained in Chapter 115 of Title 18 of the United States Code. (The United States Code are the statutes of the United States.)

Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.

I have not researched it but it is highly questionable that the President or Vice-President or a member of Congress could be convicted solely for policies such a person might advocate or promote.

If a President was determined to be actually giving national security secrets to our enemies, I suspect even the President could be tried for treason but I suspect he would have to be impeached first.

Even if there was clear evidence that a president had committed treason, no one has a license to kill him (clearly)--any more than anyone can use "vigilante justice" to execute a person who has even admitted commiting a capital crime. If a person is scheduled to be executed in five minutes (after ten years of appeal have been exhausted) no private citizen even then has a right to murder the person.

Clearly the infamous poster has no legal effect whatsoever.

With respect to what is the effect on the statute of limitations that there was no federal statute prohibiting the murder of the president, the answer again is clearly none. The murder was a crime under the laws of Texas, and the Texas statute of limitations would apply.

Should anyone want to read the United States criminal code, here is one on-line collection of the entire criminal code:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/donors/solicit...._sup_01_18.html

Thanks very much Tim!

That was very helpful. Greatly appreciated.

What about Habeas Corpus and the removal of the body from Texas?

- lee

[Tim Gratz]

First let me add something re the infamous poster:

Clearly, very clearly, none of the JFK actions criticized there amount to treason.

In fact, some are laughable. Appointing "non-Christians" to federal office is treason?

Lying to the American people is treason? (My gosh, Bill Clinton should have been executed, not impeached!)

Speaking of which, if you go through the litany of offenses claimed in the poster, most are policy disagreements which do not even rise to the level of impeachable offenses, let alone acts of treason.

This does not mean to imply, of course, that presidential policy is not important. At the height of the cold war, a policy mistake could have led to a Communist victory or a nuclear war. And I myself think that JFK made some serious policy errors, including endorsement of the coup in Vietnam. At the same time i think he was a cold warrior, and for that I would commend rather than condemn him.

To call JFK a traitor, as the poster did, far exceeded the limits of reasonable debate.

Now people may accuse me of getting on my soapbox again but I think it is appropriate here to note that the hatred that some far right-wing zealots exhibited toward JFK is comparable to the hatred that the left holds against Bush because they disagree with his policies. I understand the intensity of the feeling of those who disagree with Bush's policies including the war in Iraq but even deep policy agreements ought not devolve into personal hatred. Disagreement with a president's policies ought not result in labeling him a traitor or a moron.

But to reiterate my review of the poster indicates its criticisms of JFK involved policy differences that did not even rise to the level of impeachable offenses let alone treason.

Time flies. I will have to comment on the "habeas corpus" issue tomorrow.

Edited December 10, 2005 by Tim Gratz

[Mark Knight]

Tim, I personally believe that the "moron" references aimed at GWB have more to do with a Yale graduate being unable to speak in coherent sentences without the help of a teleprompter, and less to do with policy differences.

But that is merely my own impression, and I may be wrong.

[Mark Stapleton]

Tim, I personally believe that the "moron" references aimed at GWB have more to do with a Yale graduate being unable to speak in coherent sentences without the help of a teleprompter, and less to do with policy differences.

But that is merely my own impression, and I may be wrong.

Mark,

I think you're right.

Bush isn't called a moron because he's a rabid right winger. He's called a moron because he's a moron. Simple.

[Mark Stapleton]

First let me add something re the infamous poster:

Clearly, very clearly, none of the JFK actions criticized there amount to treason.

In fact, some are laughable. Appointing "non-Christians" to federal office is treason?

Lying to the American people is treason? (My gosh, Bill Clinton should have been executed, not impeached!)

Speaking of which, if you go through the litany of offenses claimed in the poster, most are policy disagreements which do not even rise to the level of impeachable offenses, let alone acts of treason.

This does not mean to imply, of course, that presidential policy is not important. At the height of the cold war, a policy mistake could have led to a Communist victory or a nuclear war. And I myself think that JFK made some serious policy errors, including endorsement of the coup in Vietnam. At the same time i think he was a cold warrior, and for that I would commend rather than condemn him.

To call JFK a traitor, as the poster did, far exceeded the limits of reasonable debate.

Now people may accuse me of getting on my soapbox again but I think it is appropriate here to note that the hatred that some far right-wing zealots exhibited toward JFK is comparable to the hatred that the left holds against Bush because they disagree with his policies. I understand the intensity of the feeling of those who disagree with Bush's policies including the war in Iraq but even deep policy agreements ought not devolve into personal hatred. Disagreement with a president's policies ought not result in labeling him a traitor or a moron.

But to reiterate my review of the poster indicates its criticisms of JFK involved policy differences that did not even rise to the level of impeachable offenses let alone treason.

Time flies. I will have to comment on the "habeas corpus" issue tomorrow.

Tim,

Good post but why always the bit about JFK being a cold war warrior? All the evidence points the other way. That's just your right wing mindset affecting your objectivity.

I agree with your points about the poster. They were just policy differences dressed up as treason. Re the zealotry, never having lived there, the right wing zealotry that existed in the South at the time is something I've never experienced. In Alastair Cook's "America", there's a photo of a happy lynching mob with two dead negroes hanging from a tree. Undated but the author suggests the early 1920's. Not really that long before Dealey Plaza.

[Mark Stapleton]

Lee,

I haven't got to the Abe Greenbaum bit yet. When I'm through, I'm keen to ask Dick Russell a few things about the book. Excellent book. Thanks for the link, btw. Interesting.

[Tim Gratz]

This post is to answer the question re how "habeas corpus" applies to the removal of President Kennedy's body from Dallas.

"Habeas corpus" means in Latin: "you have the body". Here is a good explanation of the "writ of habeas corpus:

Prisoners often seek release by filing a petition for a writ of habeas corpus. A writ of habeas corpus is a judicial mandate to a prison official ordering that an inmate be brought to the court so it can be determined whether or not that person is imprisoned lawfully and whether or not he should be released from custody. A habeas corpus petition is a petition filed with a court by a person who objects to his own or another's detention or imprisonment. The petition must show that the court ordering the detention or imprisonment made a legal or factual error. Habeas corpus petitions are usually filed by persons serving prison sentences. In family law, a parent who has been denied custody of his child by a trial court may file a habeas corpus petition. Also, a party may file a habeas corpus petition if a judge declares her in contempt of court and jails or threatens to jail her.

You see the body always refers to the live body of a prisoner seeking release by filing a writ.

"Habeas corpus" has nothing to do with the body of a murder victim.

As I understand the law, normally the body of a decedent "belongs to" the next of kin who can decide where and how it is buried (remember the Terry Schiavo case). Clearly, if a person was murdered or died under suspicious circumstances, the next of kin can be prevented from removing the body from the county in which the death occured at least until an autopsy is performed.

I am quite certain that there was no legal precedent for requiring that JFK have a "military autopsy" merely because he was the president (or a retired naval officer for that matter). I am sure we all rememer that there was almost a physical fight between the federal officials and the local coroner over this matter, but the local coroner was out-gunnned.

Of course, those who posit that the assassination was an internal coup suspect that the removal of the body from Dallas was part of the plot. I do not believe the conspiracy was so massive and even if there was a "large conspiracy" it is hard to presume the autoposy doctors were part of it. Pat's seminar presentation explains quite well that most if not all of the concerns over the medical evidence can be explained by incompetence.

[Mark Stapleton]

This post is to answer the question re how "habeas corpus" applies to the removal of President Kennedy's body from Dallas.

"Habeas corpus" means in Latin: "you have the body". Here is a good explanation of the "writ of habeas corpus:

Prisoners often seek release by filing a petition for a writ of habeas corpus. A writ of habeas corpus is a judicial mandate to a prison official ordering that an inmate be brought to the court so it can be determined whether or not that person is imprisoned lawfully and whether or not he should be released from custody. A habeas corpus petition is a petition filed with a court by a person who objects to his own or another's detention or imprisonment. The petition must show that the court ordering the detention or imprisonment made a legal or factual error. Habeas corpus petitions are usually filed by persons serving prison sentences. In family law, a parent who has been denied custody of his child by a trial court may file a habeas corpus petition. Also, a party may file a habeas corpus petition if a judge declares her in contempt of court and jails or threatens to jail her.

You see the body always refers to the live body of a prisoner seeking release by filing a writ.

"Habeas corpus" has nothing to do with the body of a murder victim.

As I understand the law, normally the body of a decedent "belongs to" the next of kin who can decide where and how it is buried (remember the Terry Schiavo case). Clearly, if a person was murdered or died under suspicious circumstances, the next of kin can be prevented from removing the body from the county in which the death occured at least until an autopsy is performed.

I am quite certain that there was no legal precedent for requiring that JFK have a "military autopsy" merely because he was the president (or a retired naval officer for that matter). I am sure we all rememer that there was almost a physical fight between the federal officials and the local coroner over this matter, but the local coroner was out-gunnned.

Of course, those who posit that the assassination was an internal coup suspect that the removal of the body from Dallas was part of the plot. I do not believe the conspiracy was so massive and even if there was a "large conspiracy" it is hard to presume the autoposy doctors were part of it. Pat's seminar presentation explains quite well that most if not all of the concerns over the medical evidence can be explained by incompetence.

Tim,

Thanks for that.

[Lee Forman]

This post is to answer the question re how "habeas corpus" applies to the removal of President Kennedy's body from Dallas.

"Habeas corpus" means in Latin: "you have the body". Here is a good explanation of the "writ of habeas corpus:

Prisoners often seek release by filing a petition for a writ of habeas corpus. A writ of habeas corpus is a judicial mandate to a prison official ordering that an inmate be brought to the court so it can be determined whether or not that person is imprisoned lawfully and whether or not he should be released from custody. A habeas corpus petition is a petition filed with a court by a person who objects to his own or another's detention or imprisonment. The petition must show that the court ordering the detention or imprisonment made a legal or factual error. Habeas corpus petitions are usually filed by persons serving prison sentences. In family law, a parent who has been denied custody of his child by a trial court may file a habeas corpus petition. Also, a party may file a habeas corpus petition if a judge declares her in contempt of court and jails or threatens to jail her.

You see the body always refers to the live body of a prisoner seeking release by filing a writ.

"Habeas corpus" has nothing to do with the body of a murder victim.

As I understand the law, normally the body of a decedent "belongs to" the next of kin who can decide where and how it is buried (remember the Terry Schiavo case). Clearly, if a person was murdered or died under suspicious circumstances, the next of kin can be prevented from removing the body from the county in which the death occured at least until an autopsy is performed.

I am quite certain that there was no legal precedent for requiring that JFK have a "military autopsy" merely because he was the president (or a retired naval officer for that matter). I am sure we all rememer that there was almost a physical fight between the federal officials and the local coroner over this matter, but the local coroner was out-gunnned.

Of course, those who posit that the assassination was an internal coup suspect that the removal of the body from Dallas was part of the plot. I do not believe the conspiracy was so massive and even if there was a "large conspiracy" it is hard to presume the autoposy doctors were part of it. Pat's seminar presentation explains quite well that most if not all of the concerns over the medical evidence can be explained by incompetence.

Thanks Tim.

I was told that 'ignorance of the law is no excuse,' however it is mine once again.

Of course, those who posit that the assassination was an internal coup suspect that the removal of the body from Dallas was part of the plot. I do not believe the conspiracy was so massive and even if there was a "large conspiracy" it is hard to presume the autoposy doctors were part of it. Pat's seminar presentation explains quite well that most if not all of the concerns over the medical evidence can be explained by incompetence.

I suppose I will need to take a look at Pat's seminar. 'Directed incompetence,' is a term I could agree with.

Need to think a bit more about the details of the poster. I'm seeing it in a different light - thanks.

- lee

[Dawn Meredith]

I agree (WOW!!) with Tim on his interpretation of the law, as stated in the above posts. (Thanx Tim).

Fascinating reading on just what may have gone thru Dick Nixon's mind- if he had any hand in this killing.

I know the conspiracy from the far right's perspective have the Rockerfellers at the center, and while this is also intersting reading, I don't buy this interpretation.

Dawn