Re: [CTRL] Drudge/Excite: Tripp Hung Out to Dry (fwd)
-Caveat Lector- Secondly, Tripp's recording always (as far as I know) crossed State lines and would therefore seem to be a Federal issue, over which Starr's office's immunity grant would seem to be unequivocal. Could somebody please explain why this isn't a slam-dunk for Tripp? Simply because something crosses a state line does NOT make it only Federal, or only the issue of a given state. Let me explain. A stands 100 yards inside the State of New York. B stands 100 yards inside the state of New Jersey (200 yards total distance between the two). A fires a rifle, bullet goes directly into B's heart. B's dead before he hits the ground. Who has jurisdiction? Answer is: Everyone. The criminal act was in New Jersey. The firing of the bullet with intent to kill. The bullet then actually killed SOMEONE (Note: as a matter of law, intent follows the bullet. IF A's bullet had nicked B and then tore half of C's head open, that is still murder.) The result of the criminal activity was in New York. A bullet fired by someone with intent to kill killed someone in the confines of the State of New York. That makes it a matter for the State of New York, as the death occured in the state. Now why did I say 100 yards? Because MANY states (I'd say all) state that if the action occurs within X yards of the border, the state can take it. This is to avoid the infamous "Well I'll make a run for the border" stuff. I think NY is 100 yards from its border, I don't think NJ is much different. And let's not forget the potential Federal aspect. Since this was a crime involving the crossing of a state line, the Feds could argue jurisdiction. Doubtful, but possible. Now, what does this have to do with Tripp? Maryland law applies since the (alledged) criminal action occured in Maryland. The resulting injury was in DC, but since DC is a federal district, a grant of immunity by Starr covers. A Federal prosecutor's grant of immunity does NOT however utterly totally preclude a state prosecution. A Federal JUDGE orderiing such a immunity does "Full faith and credit". That's why Maryland is scrambling to prove its case without using anything gotten from Starr's work to avoid this issue altogether. But this raising a whole nother issue: if a prosecutor grant immunity, does it need to be signed by a judge before it is offical? Well, that depends on the kind of immunity (limited, full, "transactional", etc.), the state, and so on. So, what do we have with Tripp: State-to-District jurisditional problem Time when an immunity agreement is deemed "in place" State's authority to ignore a Federal immunity deal if/when One more point Tripp was suppose to argue: Federal law says that the collection of information of a felony is valid (kinda like "citizens arrest". If you see a Federal crime (or any crime for that matter)in front of you, you are SUPPOSE to observe it if you can. Now Tripp was going to argue that since Federal law made such a collection of information ok, and since Federal law trumps state law (supremecy clause) that her collection was proper. The counter arguement: the collection of information means if you see a murder taking place, you are SUPPOSE to watch. NOT then sit there and go run and grab a video recorder, come back and ask the murderer "Can you please get into frame? Thanks." __ FREE Personalized Email at Mail.com Sign up at http://www.mail.com?sr=mc.mk.mcm.tag001 DECLARATION DISCLAIMER == CTRL is a discussion and informational exchange list. Proselyzting propagandic screeds are not allowed. Substancenot soapboxing! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory', with its many half-truths, misdirections and outright frauds is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRL gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credeence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. Archives Available at: http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/CTRL.html http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Om
Re: [CTRL] Drudge/Excite: Tripp Hung Out to Dry (fwd)
-Caveat Lector- What still bugs me about the whole thing is that Clinton was born in 1946 so he was 50+ years old. Lewinsky was born in ? but was certainly not more that 20 when it happened. Clinton is not "Bubba" he went to Yale Bush Sr. was born in 1924 documentation that he is a pedifile. when was Bush Jr. was born in 1946 Age is physical, chronological, mental, and emotional so almost anyone qualifies as a child to a Sadist, for sadist control. His example as a role model leaves a lot to be desired! MICHAEL SPITZER wrote: -Caveat Lector- [This x-post begins with some relevant questions by a member of another list. --MS] --begin forward-- There's a legal finesse-point or two that I don't pretend to understand here. Tripp maintains she didn't know that what she was doing was not protected (Maryland's law, from what I've read, immunizes those who don't comprehend the illegality of recording). Today's testimony clarifies this not at all. If she were counseled that the "grant of immunity... would make it difficult for any state prosecutor to use her recorded conversations as evidence in a criminal proceeding", then it would sensibly seem to be a get-out-of-jail-free card for Tripp. Bennett testified, "[We made] the task (of state prosecution) insurmountable." Certainly this testimony would argue *against* the hysteric "Hung Out To Dry!" headline on Drudge. Unless I'm missing something. Secondly, Tripp's recording always (as far as I know) crossed State lines and would therefore seem to be a Federal issue, over which Starr's office's immunity grant would seem to be unequivocal. Could somebody please explain why this isn't a slam-dunk for Tripp? --Scott J. From: http://news.excite.com/news/r/991213/14/clinton-scandal-tripp Starr staffers say Tripp not guaranteed protection Updated 2:20 PM ET December 13, 1999 By David Morgan ELLICOTT CITY, Md. (Reuters) - Linda Tripp, whose secretly recorded phone conversations with Monica Lewinsky led to President Clinton's impeachment, was never guaranteed protection against state charges she violated Maryland's wiretap laws, an independent counsel's office lawyer said Monday. Investigators from the office of former independent counsel Kenneth Starr instead offered the former White House secretary a grant of immunity that they believed would make it difficult for any state prosecutor to use her recorded conversations as evidence in a criminal proceeding. "We told her the state of Maryland was a separate sovereign (from the federal government) and that they may ultimately be able to return an indictment against her," Stephen Binhak, a federal prosecutor attached to Starr's office, testified at the start of a hearing in Howard County Circuit Court that will determine whether Tripp should be tried on two criminal counts of violating the Maryland wiretap statute. Jackie Bennett, the Starr deputy who signed Tripp's immunity letter, said, "What we could do, and intended to so, and did do, was to make the task (of state prosecution) insurmountable." Tripp secretly taped more than 20 conversations in which Lewinsky discussed her illicit affair with Clinton. Some were taped from Tripp's Maryland home, violating the state law that makes it a crime to record telephone conversations unless all parties consent to it. The best form of protection Tripp could hope for, Binhak said, was a grant of federal immunity "that would make it extraordinarily difficult, if not impossible for the state of Maryland to use those tapes in the prosecution of a criminal case." Binhak, one of four former Starr staffers to take the stand Monday, testified that "Mrs. Tripp was not grasping the technicalities" of her legal situation when she first met at her home with four members of Starr's staff around midnight on Jan. 12, 1998. But now, nearly two years later, that same distinction could be crucial for the Columbia, Maryland, woman who faces up to five years in prison and $10,000 in fines on each count if convicted. Howard County Circuit Judge Diane Leasure was expected to rule in open court Tuesday morning as to whether Tripp's immunity began on Jan. 16, when Starr's office gave her a letter of immunity and subpoenaed her tape-recordings of conversations with Lewinsky, or on Feb. 19, when it was officially ordered by a federal judge in Washington. Tripp's attorneys, who want the case dismissed, claim her immunity protection began on the earlier date. If Leasure agrees, prosecutors will lose a crucial piece of evidence, namely a taped conversation with Lewinsky from Dec. 22, 1997. Tripp is charged specifically with making the tape and sharing its contents with a reporter from Newsweek magazine. On Monday, Tripp was absent from court but submitted a sworn affidavit maintaining that she would never have come forward with her evidence against Clinton without Starr's immunity letter and the
[CTRL] Drudge/Excite: Tripp Hung Out to Dry (fwd)
-Caveat Lector- [This x-post begins with some relevant questions by a member of another list. --MS] --begin forward-- There's a legal finesse-point or two that I don't pretend to understand here. Tripp maintains she didn't know that what she was doing was not protected (Maryland's law, from what I've read, immunizes those who don't comprehend the illegality of recording). Today's testimony clarifies this not at all. If she were counseled that the "grant of immunity... would make it difficult for any state prosecutor to use her recorded conversations as evidence in a criminal proceeding", then it would sensibly seem to be a get-out-of-jail-free card for Tripp. Bennett testified, "[We made] the task (of state prosecution) insurmountable." Certainly this testimony would argue *against* the hysteric "Hung Out To Dry!" headline on Drudge. Unless I'm missing something. Secondly, Tripp's recording always (as far as I know) crossed State lines and would therefore seem to be a Federal issue, over which Starr's office's immunity grant would seem to be unequivocal. Could somebody please explain why this isn't a slam-dunk for Tripp? --Scott J. From: http://news.excite.com/news/r/991213/14/clinton-scandal-tripp Starr staffers say Tripp not guaranteed protection Updated 2:20 PM ET December 13, 1999 By David Morgan ELLICOTT CITY, Md. (Reuters) - Linda Tripp, whose secretly recorded phone conversations with Monica Lewinsky led to President Clinton's impeachment, was never guaranteed protection against state charges she violated Maryland's wiretap laws, an independent counsel's office lawyer said Monday. Investigators from the office of former independent counsel Kenneth Starr instead offered the former White House secretary a grant of immunity that they believed would make it difficult for any state prosecutor to use her recorded conversations as evidence in a criminal proceeding. "We told her the state of Maryland was a separate sovereign (from the federal government) and that they may ultimately be able to return an indictment against her," Stephen Binhak, a federal prosecutor attached to Starr's office, testified at the start of a hearing in Howard County Circuit Court that will determine whether Tripp should be tried on two criminal counts of violating the Maryland wiretap statute. Jackie Bennett, the Starr deputy who signed Tripp's immunity letter, said, "What we could do, and intended to so, and did do, was to make the task (of state prosecution) insurmountable." Tripp secretly taped more than 20 conversations in which Lewinsky discussed her illicit affair with Clinton. Some were taped from Tripp's Maryland home, violating the state law that makes it a crime to record telephone conversations unless all parties consent to it. The best form of protection Tripp could hope for, Binhak said, was a grant of federal immunity "that would make it extraordinarily difficult, if not impossible for the state of Maryland to use those tapes in the prosecution of a criminal case." Binhak, one of four former Starr staffers to take the stand Monday, testified that "Mrs. Tripp was not grasping the technicalities" of her legal situation when she first met at her home with four members of Starr's staff around midnight on Jan. 12, 1998. But now, nearly two years later, that same distinction could be crucial for the Columbia, Maryland, woman who faces up to five years in prison and $10,000 in fines on each count if convicted. Howard County Circuit Judge Diane Leasure was expected to rule in open court Tuesday morning as to whether Tripp's immunity began on Jan. 16, when Starr's office gave her a letter of immunity and subpoenaed her tape-recordings of conversations with Lewinsky, or on Feb. 19, when it was officially ordered by a federal judge in Washington. Tripp's attorneys, who want the case dismissed, claim her immunity protection began on the earlier date. If Leasure agrees, prosecutors will lose a crucial piece of evidence, namely a taped conversation with Lewinsky from Dec. 22, 1997. Tripp is charged specifically with making the tape and sharing its contents with a reporter from Newsweek magazine. On Monday, Tripp was absent from court but submitted a sworn affidavit maintaining that she would never have come forward with her evidence against Clinton without Starr's immunity letter and the later court order to assist investigators. Later in the week, the judge also will oversee a so-called Kastigar hearing in which prosecutors must show that their evidence against Tripp is independent from the protected findings of Starr's investigation. Lawyers have said that Lewinsky herself may be called to testify. Because of the White House sex scandal's rampant coverage by myriad media outlets, ranging from supermarket tabloids to cable-TV talk shows, the challenge facing Maryland prosecutors is being compared with a failed attempt by U.S. authorities to prosecute former Reagan aide Oliver North for his role
