| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: Culture Wars |
| A bit of Law for Rantburgers |
| 2004-09-11 |
| Title 18, Part I, Chapter 47, Section 1001 of the U.S. Criminal Code: (a) Except as otherwise provided in this section, whoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the Government of the United States, knowingly and willfully - (1) falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact; (2) makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation; or (3) makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry; shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both. Fred/Moderators, please delete this whole article if this is not a proper posting for Rantburg. |
| Posted by:OldSpook |
| #16 TGA is actually on to something here. The stupidity of Robert Fisk allowed someone in the blogosphere to coin the term "fisked". The stupidity of Dan Rather has now given us the verb "rathered". Example: Young Babe: Oh thank you for the beautiful diamond earrings, you old darling. Old Man: Nothing but the best for my sweetie. Now come here and give me some sugar. Reality: The earrrings are cubic zirconia. The young babe has been "rathered" |
| Posted by: Mark Z. 2004-09-11 5:30:52 PM |
| #15 How do you like orange jumpsuits Danny? |
| Posted by: BigEd 2004-09-11 4:10:29 PM |
| #14 How did Dan get the guy who was the expert on suicide notes of Vince Foster, and Kurt Cobain? This must have been a stroke of pure creativity. |
| Posted by: BigEd 2004-09-11 4:09:35 PM |
| #13 just think that very soon the term "you have been fooled" will be replaced by "you have been rathered". TGA, we already have that expression, but you may not know that in Amerenglish "rathered" is pronounced "buggered". |
| Posted by: Anonymous6393 2004-09-11 1:28:35 PM |
| #12 Drudge also has a link to an article about the Vince Foster suicide note in which Marcel Matley figured. Is the guy on retainer for McCauliff? Could he be the forger himself? Here is an excerpt: "... Then the program turned to Marcel Matley, identified as a "handwriting examiner" with no further credentials given, who offered his opinion that the "suicide" note is genuine. Matley believes that the "deteriorated copy" of the note.... that is, it's been copied over too many times.... and the "stress" Foster was presumably under account for the differences in handwriting. He then went on to show how Foster used different styles of letters in the genuine samples, such as both cursive and block letter "s", for example, and how the same multiple styles appear in the note; and from this he concluded that the same person wrote both the note and the samples known to be genuine. One problem with Matley's statements is that it is impossible to determine to what extent the copy of the "suicide" note used by the experts has deteriorated from the original.... because the government has yet to release any official copy of the original, much less a high-resolution one. I just don't see how Matley can point out examples of "deterioration" in copies of the note without having seen the original note...." |
| Posted by: Super Hose 2004-09-11 4:17:27 AM |
| #11 Drudge has a link to an article written by Marcel Matley, Rather's handwriting expert. It may contain good advice for Dan. The Expert Ambush: How to hold off your opponent until the cavalry arrives. |
| Posted by: Super Hose 2004-09-11 4:12:24 AM |
| #10 You missed my point: CBS used the documents without the permission of the estate. The Berne Copyrights do not allow this. Regardless if they are the originals or not. IN the pursuit fo a copyright case, they coudl demand CBS produce the source and originals if they have them to find who is guilty for abuse of copyright. The ohter way, the violation of military regs, also assuymes them to be genuine. SO CBS is stuck: wither they stuick by thier claims and end up on the butt end of a lawsuit, or they admit they are forgeries and get out of the lawsuit. Either outcome is bad for CBS, and either one discredit the documents by revelaing them as forgeries, or else revealing their source. |
| Posted by: OldSpook 2004-09-11 4:10:34 AM |
| #9 Old Spook, I think what CBS will say is that they don't hold the originals. The documents that they hold are copies which aren't property of the estate. I don't know that the family can even claim the originals while simultaneously claiming that they are forgeries - i.e. the originals would be their property if they were real. |
| Posted by: Super Hose 2004-09-11 3:48:21 AM |
| #8 I just think that very soon the term "you have been fooled" will be replaced by "you have been rathered". |
| Posted by: True German Ally 2004-09-11 3:34:36 AM |
| #7 OldSpook: check out what Eugene Volokh has to say about this. |
| Posted by: Steve White 2004-09-11 3:26:14 AM |
| #6 These documents were the PRIVATE documents of the colonel in question - and as such they belong to his estate - i.e. his son and wife. Were they? A former military officer suggested yesterday that officers were allowed to keep "unofficial" (I've forgotten the proper terminology here) files on those under their command but that such files must, upon the person in question exiting the superior's command, either be merged into the official files or discarded. Now that of course doesn't guarantee that the official protocol would always have been followed or have been followed in this case but it's yet another argument against the idea that a prudent officer would have maintained such "personal" files after Bush exited his command. That said, I agree 100% with Phil: the best thing Bush can do is let this ride. If it's as damning as it appears to be, this will tear CBS and possibly the Kerry campaign apart. |
| Posted by: AzCat 2004-09-11 3:13:17 AM |
| #5 Yep, why stop a trainload of terrorists when it's about to go over a cliff? |
| Posted by: Atomic Conspiracy 2004-09-11 2:08:28 AM |
| #4 OldSpook, I think it would be unwise for the Bush Administration or anyone else to try to limit the distribution of these documents, even if there is a legal basis for such actions. First, it would tend to give them an air of credibility they don't deserve, and second, when your enemy is making a horrible mistake, never, ever try to correct or stop him. |
| Posted by: Phil Fraering 2004-09-11 1:59:56 AM |
| #3 I will take an order of Dementia Dan to go. |
| Posted by: Capt America 2004-09-11 1:45:02 AM |
| #2 One other thing: These documents were the PRIVATE documents of the colonel in question - and as such they belong to his estate - i.e. his son and wife. They should DEMAND that CBS turn over the documents to them - they are their property. And if they are "government" documents, they should have (BY LAW) been either placed in the permanent files, or DESTROYED when (then) LT Bush left the unit. THeir retnention is a UCMJ violation - and shoudl be turned over to the USAF for investigation of thier source. So, they have a choice - either there was a crime comitted in that these documents were retained, then exposed in contravention to Dept of Defense laws, or they are personal papers and they belong to the estate, and CBS is illegally with-holing them, and may have illegally obtained them. Come on - there have to be lawyers digging into this to launch lawsuits and TRO's at CBS. |
| Posted by: OldSpook 2004-09-11 1:36:40 AM |
| #1 This las appears to mainly refer to congressional investigations. Call you local congressional representative and demand they investigate the forgeries and CBS part in distributing forged documents. |
| Posted by: OldSpook 2004-09-11 1:32:35 AM |