Time: Thu Aug 07 19:35:01 1997 by primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id TAA13182; Thu, 7 Aug 1997 19:07:26 -0700 (MST) Date: Thu, 7 Aug 1997 22:06:46 -0400 Originator: heritage-l@gate.net From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar] To: pmitch@primenet.com Subject: SLS: ABA pushes for limits on Independent Counsel Dear America, I am beginning to re-evaluate my position on Kenneth Starr. He was once a federal judge, and the evidence now available to us is that all federal judges are accepting kick-backs, in large volumes. Perhaps we should begin by demanding discovery of the financial=20 disclosure statements which are required of all federal judges, past and present.=20 =20 That would give us some political leverage against Starr, for kneeling before the NWO. See the Ethics in Government Act of 1978 for authority: P.L. 95-521, 92 Stat. 1824, 1851. This Act is reproduced on page 1125 et seq. of West's "Federal Judicial Procedure and Rules," 1996 edition. See 5 U.S.C. 101(f)(11), referring to sec. 109(10): "judicial officer" means ... the judges of the=20 United States courts of appeals, United States=20 district courts ... and any court created by Act of Congress, the judges of which are entitled=20 to hold office during good behavior .... /s/ Paul Mitchell http://www.supremelaw.com At 01:00 PM 8/7/97 -0400, you wrote: >Not that what the ABA thinks should matter one way or the other. But we've >never yet had an Idenpendent Counsel who was truly as Independent as it >seems. Nor is our current one doing much of anything but spending money, >stonewalling, and hiding all the dirt under the carpet. >Patty > > >>At the American Bar Association's annual national meeting under way in >>San Francisco, Miami lawyer Neal Sonnett and other members are pushing >>for limits on which political offices can be investigated by the >>Independent Counsel and for what reasons, as well as eliminating the >>requirement for a final report. >> >> >>I wonder if Mr. Sonnett is a Friend of Bill >> >> >> >> >> >>Fair use: >> >>> American Bar Association votes on proposals to rein in >>> independent counsel >>> >>> >>> Copyright =A9 1997 Nando.net >>> Copyright =A9 1997 The Christian Science Monitor >>> >>> ABA declines to take stand on doctor-assisted suicide >>> >>> WASHINGTON (August 6, 1997 4:15 p.m. EDT) -- When he writes the final >chapter on one of the most expensive investigations of its >>> kind in American history, Kenneth Starr may also be closing the book on >the office of the independent counsel as it exists today. >>> >>> As the lawyer-helmsman of the three-year, $30 million dollar Whitewater >probe (with no end in sight), Starr has won only a handful of >>> relatively minor convictions. So far, he has yet to move against either >of the principals in his case: the president and the first lady. >>> >>> Meanwhile, critics are increasingly calling Starr a runaway prosecutor. >The length and sprawl of the Whitewater probe, which has >>> expanded far beyond its original mandate to investigate a failed= Arkansas >land deal, may be strengthening resolve across the political >>> spectrum to amend or abolish the independent counsel statute when it >comes up for renewal in 1999. >>> >>> "Counsels have run roughshod over the years," says Miami lawyer Neal Sonnett. >>> >>> Sonnett and other members of the American Bar Association want to clip >the counsel's wings. At the ABA's annual national meeting under >>> way in San Francisco, they are pushing reform proposals that, if >approved, will be used to lobby Washington to curb the powers of the >>> independent counsel. They could vote as early as Aug. 6. >>> >>> The recommendations would put new limits on which political offices can >be investigated and for what reasons, and eliminate the current >>> requirement for a final report. >>> >>> "If you took a poll you'd find a lot of people who are at least= cognizant >that some kind of limitations are needed to make sure the IC doesn't >>> become a runaway train," says Sonnet, describing Starr as a "poster boy" >for reform. >>> >>> The independent counsel statute came in the wake of Watergate to bolster >public confidence in the ability of the government to impartially >>> investigate itself - particularly the highest levels of the executive >branch, including the president. It has always been controversial. >>> >>> Even Starr argued against reauthorization in the Reagan years. >>> >>> While Starr's investigation has the highest profile, there are two other >investigations of the Clinton administration under way. Donald Smaltze >>> has been investigating former Agriculture Secretary Mike Espy since= 1994. >In 1995, David Barrett was appointed to investigate Henry >>> Cisneros, then-secretary of the Department of Housing and Urban Development. >>> >>> According to the General Accounting Office, those investigations in the >past two years alone have cost more than $36 million. By >>> eliminating the need for a final report, the ABA believes investigations >would be shorter, less expensive, and less intrusive, since >>> investigators would be less preoccupied with publicly proving their >investigations are balanced. >>> >>> As with many past independent-counsel investigations, Starr's >three-year-old probe quickly mushroomed beyond its original mandate to >>> examine the Clintons' Whitewater land deal in Arkansas. The >investigation's offshoots include the death of Vincent Foster, the FBI= files >>> flap, and the firing of the White House Travel Office employees. >>> >>> Most recently, Starr came under fire for questioning witnesses in >Arkansas about the nature of Bill Clinton's relationships with more than a >>> dozen women. >>> >>> A fellow Republican in the Reagan Justice Department, Terry Eastland, >says there is no need for the independent counsel. >>> >>> "So much of this is tinkering around the edges and I think we'll= continue >to have problems or objections to the statute," says Mr. Eastland, >>> who predicted in a book on the subject eight years ago that the statute >would not be overturned until Republicans had control of Congress >>> and a Democrat occupied the White House. >>> >>> Iran-contra prosecutor Lawrence Walsh, who spent seven years and more >than $40 million examining wrongdoing in the Reagan and Bush >>> White Houses, says the office is necessary but should be limited. >>> >>> "The real problem is to define the triggering standard" Walsh says. He >thinks appointing a counsel "should be related only to misuse of >>> government or unlawful use of government power in a matter of public >importance." >>> >>> By SKIP THURMAN, The Christian Science Monitor >>> >> > > >--------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------- >To subscribe or unsubscribe, email >majordomo@majordomo.pobox.com with the message: > subscribe ignition-point > or > unsubscribe ignition-point > http://ic.net/~celano/ip/ > > =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D Paul Andrew Mitchell : Counselor at Law, federal witness B.A., Political Science, UCLA; M.S., Public Administration, U.C. Irvine tel: (520) 320-1514: machine; fax: (520) 320-1256: 24-hour/day-night email: [address in tool bar] : using Eudora Pro 3.0.3 on 586 CPU website: http://www.supremelaw.com : visit the Supreme Law Library now ship to: c/o 2509 N. Campbell, #1776 : this is free speech, at its best Tucson, Arizona state : state zone, not the federal zone Postal Zone 85719/tdc : USPS delays first class w/o this As agents of the Most High, we came here to establish justice. We shall not leave, until our mission is accomplished and justice reigns eternal. =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D [This text formatted on-screen in Courier 11, non-proportional spacing.]
Return to Table of Contents for
Supreme Law School: E-mail