« Executing the Insane | Main | "Mistakes Have Been Made" »

January 11, 2007


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Joan A. Conway

I am on it! Must take it home with me first.

Defamation is a very difficult subject to own. I read the lengthy chapters recently, but realize that it must be reread often to have a handle on it.

It will be fun to see if I come close to answering this.

See you tomorrow.

Joan A. Conway

My humble analysis in this matter is the following:

Bush has previously made decisions that are occassioned with illegal and abusive methods, as commander in chief, his overrides might otherwise constitute such things as T O R T U R E! if not misusing his executive power in the performance of his presidency of the U.S.

Bush wants to clarify the record that the President had not authorized or condoned any interception of national security information nor had directed any actions or excused any actions under his accusers', NYT.

This is a matter where the NYT's discloses a public figure for suspected espionage in illegal interceptions of classified matters involving national security agencies in order to use the disclosure of allegations of espionage as a fulcrum to create public discussion about the methods being used in connection with his undeclared war that avoids full scale adversary procedures.

Bush freely chooses to publicize issues as to the propriety of his secret authorization. Bush would be compelled to go to court by the U.S. Criminal Lawsuit against NYT to obtain legal release from the NYT's false defamation by not vague attempts to do so, conspired with NSA to intercept international electronic communications, did obtain the communications, appointment with someone and that someone was aware he was coming, and delivery had been established much less agreed upon.

The ultimate objective was to intercept for political reasons and delivery of classified material was intended solely as a means to that end and not for any other reason.

Thus, it may be inferred that any intent to deliver the matieral to the President was probably only conditional upon reaching a satisfactory agreement with the National Security Agencies on a secret authorization, or for a political favor.

As a matter of law, no reasonable trier of fact could have found Bush guilty of an attempt to intercept international electornic communications, because it requires further exercise of Bush's will in a fateful step or "last act"

However, commission of the "last act" is not alwaus necessary for attempt liability.

There is no absolute executive privilege under FRCP 17 (c), U.S. v. Nixon (1974), and U.S. v. Mitchel, et al, in a tripartite government, separation of powers, Article III, Marbury v. Madison.

Bush is easily difusing errorneous NYT's reporting that he feels is misleading reports without a judicial threat in libel law, but it may backfire here, since subterfuge is designed to protect Bush's reputation. Article 6, U.S. Const. U. S. Signed treaties, the Supreme law of the land.

Joan A. Conway

"Asked whether a different National Security Council, under more deft and decivie leadership, would have made a difference, Powell shrugged. "I don't known," he said curtly, "probably not." "Why not?" "Cheney."

Joan A. Conway

The quotes are taken from the following:
"SOLDIER, The Life of Colin Powell," Karen De Young.

Joan A. Conway

Everyman contributes to change by their perseverance to make in-roads into areas previously closed to them.

Colin Powell is Barak Obama's United States Government pathmaker, and there were many others, such as Clarence Thomas.

I am proud to be from the state of Illinois that produced to candidates for the United States President in 2008, with other mid-west states contributing to their lead, such as Iowa and Arkansas.

Does Lincoln live here?

On a personal note: My loss in the "Cut-Off Procedure" Case is quite dead, since I have discovered nothing to make a claim against any defendant, let alone more than one defendant.

I owe this loss to my rusty condition, and degenerative osteo-arthritic handicap, with an inability to be entirely focused, energic and mobile; a clouded struggle in thinking a small claim didn't justify pleading the elements of a tort, on a full scale as is needed in any claim.

Therefore, I was unusally missing the requirements for a small claims with a lack of due diligence.

Only I am to blame for my loss.

It should never have been encourage by the Illinois General Attorney's Office, as having promise, since it did not have any sound argument where the post transaction is controlling on your credit statement.

This transaction does not have to fall in the same accounting period of the actual purchase.

Next time I will wait for the merchant to go beyond the pre-authorization transaction and actually post the post transaction against my credit.

I was too quick on the complaint; let it happen!

Now you have a breach of contract if your credit card company doesn't reverse the charge, and a false claim.

But when I talked to the credit card company there were unspoken words that something was still in my problematic transaction(s) that lead to the "Fraud Alert" and blocked account.

Unfortunately, I still do not know if I am being drawn into a false claim or simply don't know the wrong committed in the procedures by the credit card company and the merchant?

But I am moving on and licking my wounds, just the same. This appears to have been a fictitious claim. And I hold my first one!

Another error in my previous blog: "Alan" Burr is Arron Burr, and of course Alexander Hamilton does have a first name.

My desk top personal computer pushed me to my limit with my disease. I have returned it. I am now awaiting my new wireless lap top. Until then, I'll be back on track to tackle some of these probbing blogs.

The comments to this entry are closed.