The SCAPEGOAT AND LAMB FOR THE FAMILY

WILL BUSH BE THE SACRIFICIAL LAMB TO COVERUP FOR THOSE WHO WERE TO BLAME FOR ALL THIS MESS!

Who is responsible for these acts within our goverment? President George Bush - with hidden deep set wheels who are involved in a huge part of the decision making within the Whitehouse, the ones we can not see who are the power makers and creators of the policy for which President Bush stands for.....

Vice President Dick Cheney, a powerful Corporate Man who has ties to many businesses which receive massive business contacts, all which can be under the issue of Conflct of Interest because of use of a Politically Office as a means to direct business to already established companies where you can gain financially. Such has Haliburton, Lilly, Chevron, Enron and many others all tied to the Vice President, President, Secretary of Defense and others. Can this be the cause of the issue of the Nightmare on Capital Hill?


Secretary of Defense Condoleez Rice, who speaks over 6 foreign languages, knows and is involved in Russian Policies, was selected by Former President George Bush Sr., to teach foreign relations to President Bush Jr.. She is on the board of many of the large Corporate Giants who are involved in controlling world oil reserves, military equipment and cleanup efforts for the areas of New Orleans and other weather disaster areas.

She too has her involvement in this matter of corruption, Whitehouse leaks, and the lack of investigation of those who have turn this nation into a mess of corruption and conspiracy against the American Public.

How about the Press Secretary to the White House, Karl Rove, who was in it from the beginning a man, who is a sort of Willam Randloph Hearst, a man who can spin the news in the direction which very important in the game of World control and influencing the masses. What of his involvement in this game that has brought the United States to its knees.

The issue was a statement made my Valerie Plames husband the former Ambassador of Itaqi made about the issue of weapons in Iraqi and President's Bush movement towards a war, without UN approval. After the comment then there was a leak by e-mail to those in the press, it was alledged this leak involved Robert Novak a reporter from Chicago and Judith Miller.

Miller goes to jail while the others are still untouched why? There is the question of aids being tied into Vice President Dick Cheney but again there is nothing, no arrest nothing, because in todays politicans all go without arrest because they know the public will and can do anything because they control all.

The History of the Valerie Plame Case can be located here Click this link for more information on why this indictment is very important.

The Court Files and tinelines click here

HIDDEN TIES TO THE SAUD'S READ ON AND CLICK HERE FOR THE FULL STORY

Mahfouz, the Saudi banker and part-owner of BCCI - later a key suspect in the 911 plot - Adnan, and Bush were tight? W. had been bailed out three times when his business ventures
went under. In 1988, the year his father won the presidency, a gaggle of Saudis bought into Harken Oil. Later the same year, Harken drilled for oil in the Persian Gulf, the company's first offshore contract. Two of the investors in Harken were Mahfouz and Osama's brother, Salem bin Laden.3

But reporters continued to be shocked by the continuous stream of "revelations." "In politics, truth is often stranger than fiction," wrote Martin Rivers at the Center for Research on Globalization. "Sheikh Mahfouz's sister is actually one of four wives of Osama bin Laden, making the two men brothers-in-law, a fact that former CIA Director James Woolsey revealed in 1998 Senate testimony. Thus, Osama bin Laden is sleeping with

the sister of Bush's [and Khashoggi's] business partner. Really."

The UK High Court has awarded Saudi businessman Sheikh Khaled Bin Mahfouz £10,000 damages in a defamation case filed against French author Jean-Charles Brisard and his two JCB Consulting companies. The defendants were also ordered to pay interim costs of £30,000.

In a verdict made public on July 20 following a court order on July 1, a judge found that Brisard and his two companies had made defamatory and false statements about Bin Mahfouz. Under the terms of the UK Defamation Act 1996, the court awarded £10,000 damages to be paid to Sheikh Bin Mahfouz by the defendants, declared the allegations made by the defendants to be false, and also ordered them to pay interim costs of £30,000.

Brisard and his JCB Consulting companies had alleged that a) Bin Mahfouz was one of the main individual Saudi sponsors of Al-Qaeda, b) Bin Mahfouz knowingly supported and assisted in terrorism, as a banker, by playing a leading role in the provision of financial support to Al-Qaeda and as chairman of National Commercial Bank by diverting or being responsible for the diversion of millions of dollars to terrorist organizations, and c) Bin Mahfouz is the brother-in-law of Osama Bin Laden.

Saudi Sheikh Khalid bin Mahfouz
Bush Financier & Osama Bin Laden’s Brother In Law

Nine hundred families of September 11 victims recently filed a trillion-dollar lawsuit against members of the royal Saudi family, businessmen worth a combined $5 billion, and banks and charities. The lawsuit accuses them of financing Osama bin Laden, Al-Qaeda, and the Tali

ban government. And one of the defendants - Saudi Sheikh Khalid bin Mahfouz -- will likely draw increasing attention in coming months due to his past business relationships with President George W. Bush - the sweetheart deals he made during the elder Bush's presidency.

According to a Saudi government audit acquired by U.S. intelligence officials, five of Saudi Arabia’s wealthiest businessmen, including National Commercial Bank (NCB) founder and chairman Khalid bin Mahfouz, transferred personal funds along with $3 million diverted from a Saudi pension fund, to New York and London banks with accounts linked to terrorism. (USA Today, 10-28-99)

The money transfers were discovered in April, 1999 after the royal family ordered an audit of both NCB and Sheikh Mahfouz.

The plot thickens when we find Mahfouz is also linked by marriage to terrorist Osama bin Laden, as Mahfouz’s sister is married to the Al Qaeda leader, according to not only former CIA Director James Woolsey in 1998 Senate testimony, but also Je

an-Charles Brisard, lead 9/11 lawsuit attorney Ronald Motley's researcher, and author of the book, The Forbidden Truth.

9/11 attorney Ronald Motley – Photo PBS

Motley’s 9/11 lawsuit alleges that Saudi money has “for years been funneled to encourage radical anti-Americanism as well as to fund the Al Qaeda terrorists,“ a fact not taken lightly by 9/11 family members fighting back tears at the podium dur

ing Motley’s recent press conference.

The alledge banking ties: UBS, Citibank, Noriba Bank, and others in the US and abroad.

HSBC, Citibank and UBS - a major sponsor of the IIFF under the guise of its Noriba
Islamic banking division – have all made serious moves into Islamic banking , the Noriba Bank in Bahrain seems to have the concept of the No Riba Program I developed within Royal Financial Group Inc., in Palos Hills Illinois.

Some of those involved in the bank are also faces I can recall seeing within and around the office of Bayatana Funding. I filed a 52 million dollar lawsuit about the stolen concept which was patented here, and but again theft of service is again a part of the concept of high crimes and criminal activities used to fund acts of terrorism.

THE COUNCIL OF ELDERS

There is another untold force in Washington read more here and click to read the full story: CLICK HERE TO READ THE FULL STORY

There is in Washington a group of men who oversee matters which can be severely damaging to either the Democratic or Republican party. It is thought by these men that if certain irregularities are divulged it may critically injure the two party system and allow a third party to become a major political force. This would cripple the the Democratic/Republican monopoly and end the Washington status quo for which they are the supreme guardians. These men are sometimes called elder statesmen and work with United States media barons as well White House and Congressional politicos to see that any investigations are contained on a particularly sensitive issue. These men have the capability of controlling media stories and Federal investigations that they deem threatening to the hegemony of the two party system and the status quo. Each potential scandal is treated case by case by the elders. The men within this council by-and-large hide deeply within the recesses of lawyer/lobbyist or special interest consulting firms of Washington. There medium of exchange is IOUs with the play-along-get-along philosophy. There word is considered gospel. Democrat Clark Clifford was one of these men before he was disgraced for becoming an active conspirator in the BCCI scam he was to hush. Republican Henry Kissinger was caught in the BNL scam and is currently hushing his role in the Orlando Letier/Allende assassinations. The Republican Bush and Democratic Bentsen families have hushed their deep involvement in the Savings and Loan scandal. Who in Washington allowed the "forgiveness of the S&L loans"? Why does the established United States media refrain from investigating the S&L "forgiveness"? We now are being told of the recently exposed Clinton/Cuomo HUD (Housing and Urban Development) scam whose conspirators seemed to have copied the S&L scam format. No one ever goes to jail and the conspirators get to keep the money, for they control the investigation. The New York Times reports: "Is it a pattern? Who is accountable? How high up the chain of command should responsibility be placed? A basic question, always, is: How much personal knowledge did the people at the top have of the abuses in the middle or at the bottom? --- Other situations are less fuzzy. --- the crime was anonymous --- no human was accountable.

The Issue of New Orleans andthe hidden Dangers - Racism Today Many State and its being found in this Adminstration. Click here on the report of the Bio Danger Down South from the Storm.

The Acts of Impeachment

Rule 609. Impeachment by Evidence of Conviction of Crime.

(a) General Rule. For the purpose of attacking the credibility of any witness, evidence that the witness has been convicted of a crime, whether by verdict or by plea of guilty or nolo contendere, shall be admitted if it involved dishonesty or false statement.

(b) Time Limit. Evidence of a conviction under this rule is not admissible if a period of more than ten years has elapsed since the date of the conviction or of the release of the witness from the confinement imposed for that conviction, whichever is the later date, unless the court determines, in the interests of justice, that the probative value of the conviction substantially outweighs its prejudicial effect. However, evidence of a conviction more than ten years old as calculated herein is not admissible unless the proponent gives to the adverse party sufficient advance written notice of intent to use such evidence to provide the adverse party with a fair opportunity to contest the use of such evidence.

(c) Effect of Pardon or Other Equivalent Procedure or Successful Completion of Rehabilitation Program. Evidence of a conviction is not admissible under this rule if the conviction has been the subject of one of the following:

(1) a pardon or other equivalent procedure based on a specific finding of innocence; or

(2) a pardon or other equivalent procedure based on a specific finding of rehabilitation of the person convicted, and that person has not been convicted of any subsequent crime.

(d) Juvenile Adjudications. In a criminal case only, evidence of the adjudication of delinquency for an offense under the Juvenile Act, 42 Pa.C.S.A. § § 6301 et seq., may be used to impeach the credibility of a witness if conviction of the offense would be admissible to attack the credibility of an adult.

(e) Pendency of Appeal. The pendency of an appeal therefrom does not render evidence of a conviction inadmissible. Evidence of the pendency of an appeal is admissible.

Comment

Pa.R.E. 609(a) differs from F.R.E. 609(a). Pa.R.E. 609(a), subject to the time limitations in Pa.R.E. 609(b), is similar to F.R.E. 609(a)(2) because it permits impeachment of any witness by evidence of conviction of a crime involving dishonesty or false statement, regardless of what the punishment for that crime may be. However, Pa.R.E. 609(a) does not permit use of evidence of conviction of a crime punishable by death or imprisonment for more than one year, which is allowed under F.R.E. 609(a)(1), subject to certain balancing tests. This limitation on the type of crime evidence admissible is consistent with prior Pennsylvania case law. See Commonwealth v. Randall, 515 Pa. 410, 528 A.2d 1326 (1987); Commonwealth v. Bighum, 452 Pa. 554, 307 A.2d 255 (1973). Moreover, Pa.R.E. 609(a), unlike F.R.E. 609(a)(2), specifically provides that a conviction based upon a plea of nolo contendere may be used to impeach; this, too, is consistent with prior Pennsylvania case law. See Commonwealth v. Snyder, 408 Pa. 253, 182 A.2d 495 (1962).

As a general rule, evidence of a jury verdict of guilty or a plea of guilty or nolo contendere may not be used to impeach before the court has pronounced sentence. See Commonwealth v. Zapata, 455 Pa. 205, 314 A.2d 299 (1974). In addition, evidence of admission to an Accelerated Rehabilitative Disposition program under Pa.Rs.Crim.P. 310-320 may not be used to impeach credibility. See Commonwealth v. Krall, 290 Pa. Super. 1, 434 A.2d 99 (1981).

Where the target of impeachment is the accused in a criminal case, 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 5918 again comes into play. See Comment to Pa.Rs.E. 607, 608 pointing out that § 5918’s prohibition against questioning defendant who takes stand about conviction of any offense other than the one for which he is on trial applies only to cross-examination. Hence, evidence of conviction of a crime may be introduced in rebuttal after the defendant has testified. See Commonwealth v. Bighum, 452 Pa. 554, 307 A.2d 255 (1973).

Pa.R.E. 609(b) differs slightly from F.R.E. 609(b) in that the phrase ‘‘supported by specific facts and circumstances,’’ used in the latter with respect to the balancing of probative value and prejudicial effect, has been eliminated. Pa.R.E. 609(b) basically tracks what was said in Commonwealth v. Randall, 515 Pa. 410, 528 A.2d 1326 (1987). Where the date of conviction or last date of confinement is within ten years of the trial, evidence of the conviction of a crimen falsi is per se admissible. If more than ten years have elapsed, the evidence may be used only after written notice and the trial judge’s determination that its probative value substantially outweighs its prejudicial effect. The relevant factors for making this determination are set forth in Binhum, supra, and Commonwealth v. Roots, 482 Pa. 33, 393 A.2d 364 (1978). For the computation of the ten-year period, where there has been a reincarceration because of a parole violation, see Commonwealth v. Jackson, 526 Pa. 294, 585 A.2d 1061 (1991).

Pa.R.E. 609(c) is similar to F.R.E. 609(c). There are no Pennsylvania cases dealing squarely with the matters covered by section (c). Where a pardon is based upon a finding that a defendant was in fact innocent, the conviction is a nullity and has no probative value; accordingly, there is no basis to permit its use. A pardon based upon a finding of rehabilitation is an indication that the character flaw which gave rise to the inference of untruthfulness has been overcome and so should no longer be taken into account. A subsequent conviction of any crime, whether or not it involves dishonesty or false statement, casts substantial doubt on the finding of rehabilitation and justifies use of the evidence. In the case of both types of pardon, the instrument embodying the pardon must set forth the finding of innocence or rehabilitation. A pardon granted to restore civil rights or to reward good behavior does not make evidence of the conviction inadmissible under Pa.R.E. 609(c), but is admissible in rebuttal if the conviction is used to impeach. Commonwealth v. Quaranta, 295 Pa. 264, 145 A.2d 89 (1926).

Pa.R.E. 609(d) differs from F.R.E. 609(d). Under the latter, evidence of juvenile adjudications is generally inadmissible to impeach credibility, except in criminal cases against a witness other than the accused where the court finds that the evidence is necessary for a fair determination of guilt or innocence. Pa.R.E. 609(d), to be consistent with 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 6354(b)(4) permits a broader use; a juvenile adjudication of an offense may be used to impeach in a criminal case if conviction of the offense would be admissible if committed by an adult. Juvenile adjudications may also be admissible for other purposes. See 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 6354(b)(1), (2), and (3).

Moreover, under the confrontation clause of the United States Constitution, the accused in a criminal case has the right to use the juvenile record of a witness to show the witness’ possible bias, regardless of the type of offense involved. See Davis v. Alaska, 415 U.S. 309 (1974); Commonwealth v. Simmons, 521 Pa. 218, 555 A.2d 860 (1989).

Pa.R.E. 609(e) is identical to F.R.E. 609(e). There is no Pennsylvania law on this issue. According to the Advisory Committee Notes to F.R.E. 609(e), a witness may be impeached by evidence of a prior conviction regardless of a pending appeal because of the ‘‘presumption of correctness that ought to attend judicial proceedings.’’ This is the predominant view. 1 McCormick, Evidence, § 42 (4th ed. 1992).


HERE IS A FILED TREASON LAWSUIT READ THIS ONE

THE ACTS OF TREASON.
[Official Lawsuit #04-384C USCAFC Please read and forward to the friend.]
This Appendix is the part of Extraordinary Writ of Mandamus addressed to
the Highest Authority, the Highest Court - the Appeal Court for the
Federal Circuit and to American Nation to stop the Acts of Treason
committed by Federal Judge Mary Ellen Coster Williams.
-------

The Bush’s Administrations, which are the members of the band of Super Rich Owners of American Oil Corporations and Military Industrial Complex and Criminal Group of American Government Officials [Secret Organization of Traitors in America (SOTA)] declared War of annihilation against Population of the United States of America.

The Bush’s Administrations, Federal Judges and the others Members of SOTA facilitated the completely destruction of the Economy, Law and Order in the Country, physically castrated American working Male Population, who lost their jobs and became unable to provide any more for their Families, and mentally annihilated People, destroyed Family Structures and left Millions Men, Women and Families in desperation and poverty and Millions of Children Fatherless.

This War on annihilation of American Nation has a name - Treason.“Treason against the United States shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.” Article III, Section 8, The Constitution of the United States.American Citizens cannot rely on the Court System any more.It does not matter, if You are White, Black, Yellow or Green color, Protestant, Catholic, Jew, Muslim, Seven Day Adventist or Buddhist, if
you are not a member of the Criminal Group of the Extremely Rich Thieves
protected by the Federal Judges, You are robbed just in the same way -
no discrimination.

The Democracy in America was the envy of the World. No more we are able to live in the Law-abiding Society, elect Our Government, The President, The Governors, The Senator, and The Congressmen to run our Country according to the Constitution and Laws of the United States.There are no Constitution or Laws enforced any more by the Dictatorial Regime of the Government Officials, who illegally and criminally obtained positions in our Government, as U.S. President, and illegal criminals installed by him, as the Heads of the Department of Justice,
Labor, Treasury, Health and Human Services etc…, Judges and Clerks of Federal Courts, Heads of Securities and Exchange Commission and in the Rest of American Institutions, which was originally created for one purpose and only to oversee that American People Constitutional Rights are enforced.

The United States Justice System does not exist any more. The members of SOTA Traitors, the Federal Judges are forcing the American People to spend countless years in Courts in hope that Plaintiffs will become sick, die or unable to continue their Lawsuits against members of SOTA. If by some chance, some honest Judge left make Judgment for the Common People, such Judgment will never be enforced by the Department of Justice, which is completely under control of members of SOTA.What is for the American People left to do?The Declaration of Independence. (July 4, 1776.) is demanding, “that thenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government.”

According to “The Declaration of Independence”, it is Holy duty and
Obligation of every American Patriots and American War Veterans to
organize Militia and arm themselves to abolish such Government like it
was done in 1776.

It is our Constitutional right to organize “A well regulated Militia (National Guards), being necessary to the security of a Free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” Amendment II, The Constitution of the United States.Dictators never gave their Power back to the People voluntary, it have to be taken from them by force.