« Tillerson dosn't have a clue ... | Main | HOW I GOT HERE »

27 October 2017


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

Sam Peralta

Col. Lang

Some years back I followed the court cases around the denial of mass surveillance. In every case the federal government invoked "state secrets" to prevent the cases from going forward in any meaningful way. As expected the courts ruled in favor of the government.

It seems that in most cases "state secrets" were invoked to protect government malfeasance and/or ineptitude.

Is there a reasonable standard were real national security secrets are protected but not malfeasance and ineptitude?


Sam P
You wrongly believe that the IC and DoJ are acting in good faith when they prosecute. lawyers think it just fine to make deals between the sides and including the judge that are based on administration desire to "nail" someone for political reasons involving control of society. The DoJ often withhold evidence from security cleared defense lawyers, evidence that should have been handed over in Discovery. I havecaught them at it a few time by telling them what is in the material withheld, just a matter of logic. pl


What I would like to know, Col. Lang, is why you know this and why Congress is not even interested in knowing? The reality is that the judicial system, on all levels, is a huge scam and nobody is doing anything about it.



I guess you missed the fact that I am considered to be a global level authority on these subjects as well as military affairs in general. Public and other defenders solicited my assistance. DoJ and the federal courts hired me, accredited me and DoJ cleared me to the Top Secret codeword level so that I could read all the government files offered in Discovery. Nobody did that for you? the courts also paid me extremely well but not was well as some of the experts favored by DoJ. HOW do I know the essential collusion and conspiracy present on the US justice system? I watched it up close. How about you? Congress is part of the swamp and filled with stupid and ignorant people. pl


Col. Lang, Sir:

As a new commenter, long time reader, I can't, adequately, express my appreciation and respect for your experience, and, the body of knowledge you bring to this forum. It is on that basis that I ask you for some additional illumination regarding your description of the attorneys provided to indigent defendants:

"These lawyers are fully funded and staffed and are every bit as good as the DoJ US Attorney's people and staff."

Certainly, my experience in such matters dwarfs yours, but, it is not non-existent. My experience with court appointed counsel (thankfully, not as a defendant) is far less laudatory than is your description. Too often, I've found judges succumbing to the same prejudices that many laypeople do. The mindset, "your most likely guilty," is way too common, and, obvious. Even more unjust, the, all too often perfunctory denial of: 1. additional time for these overburdened Public Defenders to adequately study the case at hand, 2. Sufficient funds for outside investigators & lab/forensic work, and, 3. Enough time to properly/thoroughly examine witnesses, directly, and, in cross. They are always in a hurry to, "move it along." Thus, they are more likely to deny the indigent motions, and, lines of questioning that are standard for more affluent participants.

Granted, my experience is in State Courts; Is it that much different in Federal Courts?

Thank you.


Money and Politics seems to be the main rules under which DOJ AND CIA AND CONGRESS (in caps) function.

Funding both unclassified and classified, and funding that isn't supposed to exist, along with politics where aspiring personnel and lawyers hoping to make their bones so-to-speak before their bosses would rather see their careers advanced over the right thing (and lawful depending).

If Justice could only peer out of her blindfold and take a peek at the jesters before her, what would she say?



There are times when it's an advantage to be an old fart and not have to deal with a bunch of pecker woods anymore.

Seamus Padraig

Two words: limited hangout.


The records also reveal a deposition given before the presidential Commission on CIA Activities in 1975 by Richard Helms, who had served as the agency’s director. After a discussion of Vietnam, David Belin, an attorney for the commission, turned to whether the CIA was involved in Kennedy’s killing.

“Well, now, the final area of my investigation relates to charges that the CIA was in some way conspiratorially involved with the assassination of President Kennedy. During the time of the Warren Commission, you were Deputy Director of Plans, is that correct?” Belin asked.

After Helms replied that he was, Belin then asked: “Is there any information involved with the assassination of President Kennedy which in any way shows that Lee Harvey Oswald was in some way a CIA agent or agent…”

Then, suddenly, the document cuts off.




An absence of evidence is just that. I have given my opinion. pl


Seamus Padraig

Means what? pl


NY Shooter

I was on a state grand jury once. other than that I know nothing of state courts. Federal defenders are superb and the other defense attorneys appointed by federal judges are also very good. pl


I agree with every word you say, except that IMHO you seem to overlook one thing: All of this is a game two can play. I would like recall the big excitement that came about when it became known that Trump's Tax return had been stolen. His opponents phantasized about a handcuffed Trump being removed from office. As it turned out, he had actually paid a higher tax rate than his opponents. And why shouldn't he? He understood the (pseudo) legal and highly fraudulent financial markets well enough to make billions with little effort, so why should he be so silly and scrounge on a few millions? He is certainly no saint, but he is too smart for that. Everybody seems to think it is a foregone conclusion he has a corpse in his cellar, but he has not. Herr Müller and his accomplices went into the battle cock-sure they would dig something up, but they did not and are now between a rock and a hard place. I think Trump, continously being underestimated, has the upper hand. He can deeply embarrass the CIA and FBI, and he will if need be, but FBI and CIA (und Herr Müller) are much more use to him if he can squeeze them. Example: As you pointed out yourself, he can declassify the secrets Herr Müller always refers to, which IMO would leave Herr Müller not just without clothes, but even without anything that needs hiding. And so on. This may sound like a conspiracy scenario, but conspiracies DO happen occasionally, dont they?


Well Helms' former executive assistant Victor Marchetti believed Oswald had been recruited as part of the ONI's fake defector program. Marchetti also believed JFK had been assassinated by a CIA-Mafia-Mossad plot. None of the voluminous information that has been released has done anything but reinforce this scenario. That is the thing there already is the information out there, it would help but we don't really need to have Helms confirm it again. John Newman even managed to put together a whole book on Oswald and the CIA based on released information, it should be noted Newman spent twenty years as a military intelligence officer ending up as executive assistant to the NSA Director, so his expertise and integrity should not be questioned.

So the question really is why should we care? Chauncey Holt came forward in the early 90s to document his (unknowing) role in the assassination because he felt Oswald's family should not have to live with the stigma and that Oswald should be exonerated. He also felt the American people should know the truth. Recently we have once again seen the issues that arise from an all too powerful national security apparatus, how this can and is used to distort the democratic process, how public opinion can be manipulated, and how the interests of a bureaucracy or special interest to maintain its own power and influence can harm the public interest. This are still very much live issues and I hope Trump pushes ahead with the full release, he more than most should appreciate the need to do so.


My experience with court appointed counsel (thankfully, not as a defendant) is far less laudatory than is your description.

I didn't notice court appointed counsel for the defense surfacing prominently in Pat's comment above. Maybe you can help me out.

Are you referring to cases were this was as necessity. Like Guantanamo?

What did I miss, on admittedly a highly superficial scan (reading) basis?



I know nothing of German courts or your legal system. An indigent defendant in a US federal court can be defended either by a federal public defender office (civil servants)or a court appointed lawyer willing to do such work. A lawyer is often appointed to a great deal of work at a fee rate much below what he gets in private practice. http://www.uscourts.gov/services-forms/defender-services pl


Basically the same over here, Pat. On the other hand might more generally become a more and more narrowed context. considering the larger context.

For whatever reasons it reminded me of this. Ok admittedly my best friend in London in the 70s lured me into all the diverse experts on Jack the Ripper. No one knows more about the murders then me, thus you have to read my book. In the end a sociological study about the East End at the time was more interesting then any of the earlier theories, at least for this nitwit. Anyway, I decided to wait it out and then take a look, date in mind:


on my diverse curiosity sublayers this surely connects to many things. ....

Jonathan House

My experience in the courts is small but existent. I have been a court appointed expert on psychiatric matters in NY, both in State courts and in the Southern and Eastern District Federal Courts.

Although once or twice the state court experience was acceptable, the general inefficiency and incompetence (as often the judges as the lawyers) in the state courts led me to turn down such work even though it was well reimbursed.

In the Federal Courts judges, prosecutors and defense attys - very much including those from the Federal Defenders office - were smart and efficient and used me well.


The focus of my question is why Congress can care less about a judicial system that is seldom about justice. As far as watching it up close, I have been involved in a law suit that now is over 11 years old. I have also testified as an expert witness. It is still a not very effective system and it is mainly structured to enrich lawyers.

B. D. Warbucks


A grizzled CI Warrant Office once informed me "the three most highly overrated institutions in America are home cooking, home screwing, and the CIA."

After decades in the business I would say he was correct . . . . at least on the third institution.


B.D Warbucks

I don't quite get the point of your comment. I never worked for CIA although I have two decorations from them. pl

robt willmann

This latest release of documents said to relate to the assassination of president John Kennedy that have strangely been keep secret was brought about by the President John F. Kennedy Assassination Records Collection Act of 1992, Public Law 102-526, signed on 26 October 1992--


It was amended by the President John F. Kennedy Assassination Records Collection Extension Act of 1994, Public Law 103-375, signed on 6 October 1994--


Both laws together appear in the section of the National Archives that is the John Kennedy assassination records collection--



The report by the records review board describing its process is at the National Archives here--


I read the Warren Commission Report when I was a teenager while on a family summer vacation. I did more reading and looking around off and on over the years.

The successful plan to murder president John Kennedy on a public street in broad open daylight was a very sophisticated operational scenario. Lee Harvey Oswald -- at least the one whose face became well known to the public -- certainly did not kill the president with the lousy, bolt-action, mail order rifle.

Among the people working for the Assassination Records Review Board, created by the 1992 law, was Douglas P. Horne; he is on pdf page two of the appendix 'B' about the staff--


"Douglas P. Horne. Douglas Horne served as the Review Board’s Chief Analyst for Military Records from March 1997 to September 1998. Mr. Horne previously served the Review Board as a Senior Analyst. Prior to his work at the Review Board, Mr. Horne served in the U.S. Navy and also worked as a civilian for the U.S. Navy. Mr. Horne received his B.A. from The Ohio State University."

He worked at the review board for three years of its four-year operation, and while there, also worked on the JFK medical evidence and issues regarding the Zapruder film. He later wrote a five-volume set around 2009 entitled "Inside the Assassination Records Review Board".

As a result of his work at the board, he came to believe that Oswald did not commit the crime.

An article by him about the Zapruder film is here--


Another article by Horne is about a bullet hole in the windshield of the presidential limousine--


The National Archives website page about the latest release of records within the last few days is here--


The initial, main web page of The President John F. Kennedy Assassination Records Collection at the National Archives is here--




Here's a link I'm sure the CIA would rather people didn't know about:

The President John F. Kennedy Assassination Records Collection | National Archives


CIA whistleblower says Allen Dulles was fired by Kennedy; was running a shadow gov't group to take Kennedy down; had the last laugh by being put on Warren Commission, picked the witnesses and told them what they could say:


.....I find it very easy to believe that what CIA and FBI want suppressed forever in the Kennedy papers is evidence of their own failures in the matter rather than conspiracy evidence.
That's pretty much the way I see it. The CIA knew they had created a monster in the aftermath of Operation Mongoose. They knew of the threat against the President that it presented. They knew of the potential for its operatives to unleash a scandal against the CIA should they deal with the situation forcefully and effectively. They gave bureaucratic ass-covering priority over security for the President. 

The comments to this entry are closed.

My Photo

February 2021

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
  1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 12 13
14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27
Blog powered by Typepad