To: Probate Sharks/MaryGSykes blog/NASGA
From: Ken Ditkowsky
Subject: Overstating the case.
I noted in the thread of e-mails there are people who condemn the entire Justice System – lock, stock, and barrel. There are others who take the next step and condemn America and claim that total hypocrisy reins. These individuals certainly have the absolute right to make the statement as such is guaranteed by the First Amendment, but, such extremism just undermines the credibility of the person making the statement and proved fuel to defame the cause. The elder cleansing enterprises are real and they constitute a clear and present danger to not only the republic but to every person who get old.
Of course no one is perfect, 100% right, or infallible. Similarly even the worst (or the best) of organizations have severe deficiencies and some laudable qualities. As much as I am outraged and offended by the cover-up promulgated by the corrupt judicial officials and their 18 USCA 371 co-conspirators even they can be found to have some good points. Certainly, their right to oppose the First Amendment, the Rights of the Elderly, and ***** are protected by the very First Amendment that they disparage. As I lawyer, sworn to uphold the law, I am duty bound to defend the right of Jerome Larkin to exhibit his ignorance, intolerance, indolence and unfitness to practice law. That is the Alvarez case recently decided by the SCOTUS and totally misrepresented by Larkin and his co-conspirators in JoAnne Denison’s disciplinary proceeding.
If you wish an example of an honest probate court judge, see: In re: Neprozatis . Therein a judge carved out a doctrine called ‘constructive fraud.’ In that case a crooked contractor preyed on an elderly lady and sold her a furnace she not only did not need, but charged her an outrageous price. Ms. Neprozatis was elderly and very lonely. Robert White (the contractor) took her to the bank where he emptied her bank account. Ms. Neprozatis had not been previously adjudicated incompetent. I was the attorney for Mrs. Neporzatis.
Obtaining the material to prosecute is sometimes very difficult. In today’s Sun-Times they decry the ‘cover =up’ in the case in which Mayor Daley’s nephew killed a kid in a street fight. They point out how the clout effected the prosecution and still blows smoke. Our presidential front runners similarly demonstrate that they are immune to the rules that apply to us. One candidate has openly defied the law while she occupied public office. The UBS bribe disguised as a ‘charitable contribution’ obtained for the Bank a dispensation and except to the Laws of the US, and while a general was chastised and disgraced for sharing government secrets with his biographer, the presidential candidate is seeking [and it looks (may be) like] a pass.
Today’s Wall Street Journal provides the latest saga! The Journal reports that the FBI is looking into whether or not the Clinton server was intended to thwart the FOI statutes. Is the Pope Catholic?
Former Clinton Staffer Granted Immunity In Email Probe
Bryan Pagliano set up the server in the New York home of the then-secretary of state
Bryan Pagliano, center, walks through the U.S. Capitol Visitor Center after leaving a House Benghazi Committee closed interview on Capitol Hill in September. PHOTO: BLOOMBERG NEWS
By
DEVLIN BARRETT
A former State Department and Clinton campaign staffer has been granted immunity by the Justice Department in exchange for talking to investigators about former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server to do government business, according to people familiar with the matter.
Bryan Pagliano has been the subject of intense interest from the Federal Bureau of Investigation and from congressional committees examining the email issue that has embroiled Mrs. Clinton, the leading Democratic nominee for president. Mr. Pagliano has previously invoked his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination in refusing to testify about the matter to a congressional panel.
A continuing review of Mrs. Clinton’s emails has found that some of the messages contained classified information, though Mrs. Clinton has maintained that none of the information was marked classified at the time she sent or received it. Still, she has said she made a mistake in not using separate email accounts for work and personal business.
Mr. Pagliano’s grant of immunity, which was first reported by The Washington Post, indicates the FBI is making progress in its investigation. It is unclear, though, whether Mr. Pagliano’s cooperation will put additional pressure on Mrs. Clinton or her senior aides. The FBI is investigating whether sensitive information was mishandled.
A Clinton spokesman said the campaign is pleased Mr. Pagliano is cooperating with authorities and that Mrs. Clinton has offered to meet with investigators.
Mr. Pagliano worked as a technology staffer on Mrs. Clinton’s 2008 presidential campaign and went on to work for the State Department when she took the helm there. He set up a server in her New York home in 2009 to handle her email while she served as secretary of state.
Mr. Pagliano maintains that he did nothing wrong in setting up the private server for his boss and that he carried out the instructions he was given, according to people familiar with the matter.
A Justice Department spokeswoman declined to comment. A lawyer for Mr. Pagliano didn't immediately respond to a request for comment.
Everyone is anticipating a 'fix' in the Clinton e-mail scandal case just as every one anticipates that there will be fixes every time that a guardianship case is filed and certain attorneys are present. In fact we are rewarded by watching the senior citizen being isolated from his/her family as the senior's estate is being plundered, the senior administered massive amounts of drugs, and ultimately (when the estate has no more value) killed. We saw it in the Gore case, the Sykes case 09 P 4585) *****. We also saw the cover-ups and open and notorious whitewashes!
In the Clinton saga the UBS bribe/contribution to the Clinton Foundation for favorable treatment gets only muffled media coverage, however, if committed by a person with no clout (or little clout) a lynch mob would be harboring!
Ken Ditkowsky
No comments:
Post a Comment
Thank you for commenting.
Your comment will be held for approval by the blog owner.