if rather and mapes and burkett and heyward are indicted,
can edwards defend them?

What about the hard disks/network volumes on the Kinko's public PCs. A forensic examination could possibly reveal deleted (but not yet over-written) files including creation and modification dates/times... and possibly more.

daniel -- Edwards only does civil law; probably wouldn't make the big bucks in criminal...

Johnny Cochran, call your office.

...a caller to the Neil Boortz show pointed out that when the Democrat memos discussing plans to block a judicial nomination that would affect an affirmative action case in Michigan came to light, the MSM and the Democrats changed the focus to how did they get leaked "Rather" than the contents. Now they want to play the "B" side of that tune regarding the Killian memos. Hypocracrateeeees Law at its best.

This doesn't apply to civilians. Whether it applies to Lt. Col. Burkett is an interesting question that has a lot to do with his service to the U.S. Armed Forces (as opposed to Texas National Guard), the official status of his position, and circumstances of his retirement.

10 USC 802 sets forth the applicability of the code of military service generally.

Generally, it applies to the following individuals.

1) Members of a regular component of the armed forces, including those awaiting discharge after expiration of their terms of enlistment; volunteers from the time of their muster or acceptance into the armed forces; inductees from the time of their actual induction into the armed forces; and other persons lawfully called or ordered into, or to duty in or for training in, the armed forces, from the dates when they are required by the terms of the call or order to obey it.

I don't think Lt. Col. Burkett fits any of these descriptions.

2) Cadets, aviation cadets, and midshipmen.

Nor these

3)Members of a reserve component while on inactive-duty training, but in the case of members of the Army National Guard of the United States or the Air National Guard of the United States only when in Federal service.

Under the right circumstances, this might be applicable, but I don't think those circumstances exist today.

4) Retired members of a regular component of the armed forces who are entitled to pay.

We know he retired from the TANRG. Its possible that he may have also served and retired from the regular armed forces as well.

5) Retired members of a reserve component who are receiving hospitalization from an armed force.

He claims to have retired because of a disability he incurred while in the guard, so this may apply to him.

This section continues on and on, with many more conditions. It very well might be worth pursuing this line of inquiry, though I suspect any prosecution will need to come at the hands of the military.

The documents were created with an intent to commit fraud. I should think civil law would cover it.

Thank you Bill!!

As you may have noticed, I have been raising this issue trying to get the answers on the criminal side for several days, but with my 3 jobs it's difficult to find the free time.

Great job on getting the tapes.

Just a matter of time now.

Bill - VERY good thinking on those tapes. Great job you Allah, Charles, et. al. are doing.

I think we're close to the mark, but not right on it. Burkett is the fall guy. With all the skating through the legalities on this, we need to be taking a hard look at his lawyer. See my post at http://www.houblog.com .

Re: countertop's point above - Was Burkett's commission strictly a straight Texas commission, or did he hold a commission (at whatever rank) in the US Army Reserve. If he did hold a Reserve commission, then he still holds a commission in the Retired Reserve (all military retirees are in the reserves for life). There has always been a significant migration back and forth between the Guard and the federal force. I believe that the commissions are all granted by the USAR, in order to facilitate integration of command structures in the event of mobilization. Otherwise, how would Guard commanders currently in Iraq be able to command Regular forces or Reserve forces?

Bottom line, I believe the statute applies.

The personal file defense might work for the "Note to self" documents but doesn't fly for the memos allegedly written to Bush.

From it's initial report, CBS claimed that its documents were from private files. No doubt, that was on the demand of the CBS legal team, who we now know had been warned, by their own expert(s) prior to broadcast, that the memos were likely forgeries.

Did CBS have a "guilty mind?". You bet.

How can we discern that?

Because CBS lawyers had checked the Texas criminal statutes - Penal Code 32.21 and 37.01, and learned that it is a felony to forge two or more "government records." Or...to "publish them."

So CBS, advised by their expert that they were about to publish multiple forged government documents, and advised by their lawyers that to do so would constitute a felony, decide to forge ahead, but they tossed in a little insurance.

CBS's solution was to state that, "It understood the memos to be from 'personal files.' "

As in -- No government records, no felony.

Just in case things blew up.

Which they have.

A little too smart, for a big dumb con job?

IANAL, but I've read much of the UCMJ and tons and tons of "you must do this" and "you must not do that" or "you will spend many years in jail" instructions during my tenure in the Navy.

With that as the disclaimer, I would be surprised to learn that the federal statute you cite would be applicable in this case. It seems to be focused on money, hence the repeated reference to "claims."

My 2¢.

It's the Texas Code that applies here.

And...CBS has TV affiliates in Texas, which broadcast the 60 Minutes piece. I cannot imagine CBS being able to avoid the Texas long-arm statutes, on some "lack of minimum contacts" argument.

My crystal ball says Mr. Burkett will very shortly be checking himself into some kind of psychiatric institution so he can plead the insanity defense based on his neurological illness.

Maybe Rather was hoping to get JohnJohn in office and then get a pardon?

Is there any law against forging military orders? One of the CBS documents is an 'order' from Killian to Bush regarding that latter's annual physical.

I don't see how an order can be a private document. IMO falsifying a military order should be a very serious crime.

Hey, another thought:

There MUST be some sort of statute relating to forging a document with intent to influence a federal election. I would hope so, anyway.

There exists the possibility that Burkett typed the memos from hand-written documents.

I don't know if the Democrats can think three moves ahead, but the 'bombshell after the bombshell' of Burkett producing accurate, possibly authentic, hand-written documents from Killian would be a disaster for Bush and the pajamahadeen.

The spin could be a simple 'Killian's handwriting was hard to read, so I transcribed the documents for my own use and decided to fax those to CBS instead. I'm sorry'.

Just a thought.

Bumperstickerist: It would work if there weren't signatures and initials on the documents. With the signatures and INITIALS, these are forgeries, plain and simple... IMHO (of course)

Thanks, Bill, for taking this (raging) bull by the horns.

You clear the good name of LTC Killian of this nonsense and nail the bastards that did it, and I'll owe you...steaks, beers, scotch, whatever.

There exists the possibility that Burkett typed the memos from hand-written documents.

Even so, trying to pass off the typed memos as originals is still fraud.

How can you be sure the tapes won't be cleansed? This is worrying.

I feel for those poor people at the Kinko's in Abiliene as they have been used in the course of their normal business operations to foist a fraud on the whole of the country. Its not their fault and I hope people will acknowledge that fact.

Bumper:

Not possible. There are anachronisms and mis-terminologies that rule that out.

I think the bigger story may be missed. We should not assume that Burkett sent these documents to CBS, he may have sent them elsewhere.The Kinkos tapes should tell us where he sent them.
I don't believe Rather is defending Birkett as a source.
We should also ask USA Today where they got their documents from.
I suspect its more interesting than they wish to disclose.

don't know if anyone has metioned this yet, but the fax logs/hard drives at this kinkos should be in some way secured as well.... any word on this???

We should not assume that Burkett sent these documents to CBS, he may have sent them elsewhere.

USA Today, I believe.

Re: Kinko Tapes and Criminal Statutes

Burkett is a retired military officer, and is subject to recall to active duty for purposes of courts martial. It might be too hot politically...but wouldn't it be fun?

Daves not here:

My point is that I don't know enought to say whether this statute is applicable or not. If what you say is the case, it may be. At a minimum, it certainly warrants a further investigation.

Concering the issue of whether forging government documents is a crime - its not clear it is a federal crime, at least in this case. I thought there might be a violation of 18 USC 506 (forging a seal) based upon the theory that a signature over an official rank is in effect a seal. Eugene Volokh disagree's with me, and a subsequent search of case law seems to back him up.

For what its worth, he had a number of examining the civil and criminal consequences for CBS. You can check them out here, here, here, here and here.

Burkett is a sorry figure. Forget nailing him, he is small fry.

CBS is the story here.

Interesting turnabout, perhaps, if CBS' cute attempt to buy itself a little "felony forgery insurance" by concocting a "from a personal file" stance, early on, instead ends up establishing their own guilty mind, for a hat trick of purposes: 1) criminal procedings (the Texas statutes); 2) the Sullivan v. NY Times standard of "actual malice" for a libel case; and 3) ..a solid reason for Viacom brass to fire Dan Rather, under the typical "commission of a felony" clause in high-level employment contracts.

It'll all play out......

jwnhnh,

Is he really a retired military officer for purposes of this statute? I don't know (seem my previous comment to Daves not here). From what I can gather, he held an upper mid level position with the the Texas Air National Guard. That, in and of itself, doesn't seem to place him under the jurisdiction of the Uniform Code of Military Justice. However, if he also retired from active duty service (or for some other reason - perhaps because his retirement was related to a condition which occurred on the job) it might apply. I simply don't know, but a JAG lawyer might.

The federal statute doesn't look applicable. I suspect "claim" means a claim for money or property, as in the False Claims Act.

The TX statute looks like a better bet, depending on the definition of "harm" and whether it includes damage to reputation or interference with an election.

"Victims of Forgery
While forgery is blind to the types of victim it takes, it prefers to hunt the elderly and feeble minded."

In that case, CBS should fire Dan Rather for being feeble minded. (:

Does transmitting a fax of forged documents over the public telephone network constitute wire fraud?

it prefers to hunt the elderly and feeble minded

That's as good a discription of Dastardly Dan as any I've seen lately. Thanks for the chuckle.

I had to do some official stuff with Kinkos once. I have the contact info for their IT folks, if anyone needs it.

They reimage their machines after every use, so there is no chance that there is any forensics there. However, they do have VIDEO tapes, as well as firewall logs. So, if this clown who did the faxing also rented computer time, one could reconstruct the sites visited (like web-based email) and determine if they downloaded, say, a Word file.

I'm a lawyer, licensed to practice in Texas, and these are my $0.02 (this is not legal advice to any of you, btw).

Sorry to rain on the parade, but I don't think there's much traction with a civil fraud claim. To make out a cause of action in Texas for civil fraud, the plaintiff needs to allege (and later, prove) that he or she suffered actual damages as a result of his or her reliance on the fraud. The plaintiff can't sue for abstract damages on someone else's behalf. So who suffered actual, quantifiable damages here?

I think a criminal action or an administrative proceeding in the FCC would have a better chance of succeeding.

I don't know much about the laws that apply either way, but wouldn't the use of fraudulent documents in order to influence an election violate some kind of election law? I confess the thing I find most disturbing here is that the liberals and even some in the press seem to think the autenticity of the documents doesn't matter, it is the content that is important.

I could care less what the content is, if the documents aren't real.

Ace has an interesting link between Burkett's lawyer (who is running a cmapaign fo supreme court in tx) and Clinton the man himself.

A conspiracy theory I have favored is some former Clinton guy, possibly on their own, basically fed them to burkett since he would be in a position to have such documents. Even this asshat investigatory process would have been suspicious if someone like begala just handed them over.

I think if you read between the lines of what Pat Cadell has been saying he suspects something like this. Some Clinton-wing( I doubt the man himself is dumb enough to be part of this ) dickhead up to the old tricks. In a semi panic trying "help" out the kennedy wing(kerry camp).

Hopefully both wings get outed and Pat Caddell runs for president in 2008 and restores some sanity to the Dems.

CBS claims to have had the memos for 6 weeks before airing the 60 minutes. If the Kinko's connection is just coming to light, wouldn't you think the Kinko's security tape has long been erased or over-written?

Guys.....don't chase the red herring of Burkett. CBS had the memos six weeks prior. The kinkos fax was one week prior. He is the scapegoat for the DNC and Kerry

Just me,

One of the Volokh links I posted discusses that issue.

"Lest any funny business happen, I'd like to publish that INDC has made sure that the Kinko's video tapes for the Abilene branch are pulled and saved from deletion in order to guarantee future scrutiny. Kinko's assures us that they will be saved from the erase button, which is typically pressed every thirty days."

...If the tape has identified the forger...

Common sense predicts there will be a break-in and/or fire where the tapes are kept.

Wisdom suggests that somebody better review and make copies of security tapes immediately.

It's a shame law enforcement hasn't taken action.

If Burkett (Rather's interviewee and the likely memom source) is retired from the military and recieving pay, then he is subject to the 10 US Code "fraud" charge you mention. (Retired people are subject to the UCMJ).

Any person (servicemember) subject to the UCMJ can "prefer charges" formally against any one else who is also subject to the UCMJ.

To commit this Art 132 fraud under the UCMJ, some sort of property or money needs to be involved. A personal archive document does not qualify as property.

Isn't Lt Col Killians signature personal property?

If Burkett is assigned as scapegoat, there's a danger he might squawk.

If he knows too much...the Vince Foster treatment?

CBS’s Felony Problems under Texas law

The Texas Penal Code (Sec. 32.31) provides that routine forgery is a misdemeanor, but it’s a felony if a government record is involved.

Forgery is defined to include a transfer or a publication of a forged writing. A television broadcast is a publication.

Texas law requires criminal intent for a forgery claim. It defines criminal intent as “an intent to defraud or harm another.” But the code also provides that a person is presumed to intend to defraud or harm another if the person acts with respect to two or more writings of the same type and if each writing is a government record.

There are 4 forged Killian Air Guard memos. Ergo, “intent” is presumed under the Texas Penal Code, as there are 2 or more government records involved.

Now, CBS can and has claimed that it believed the documents were real. It inserted the claim in the original 60 Minutes broadcast that the memos were "documents we are told were taken from Col. Killian's personal file."

True? Or an attempted side-step of the Texas forgery law, cooked up by a CBS lawyer during the six week interval?

Wanna get real Black Helicopter about it? Perhaps Burkett was the patsy that CBS enlisted to re-fax the memos to CBS, with a cover sheet saying, “I got these from Killian’s personal files.”

CBS then thinks it side-steps the presumed “intent” and felony uptick provisions of the Texas Code.

Too cute. The initial “personal file” tag has CBS Legal Dept’s fingerprints all over it.

Do the following New York criminal statutes apply to Burkett or, more interestingly, Dan Rather, if either knew the documents were fake? New York law appears to apply because the documents were sent to New York and "uttered" by Rather and CBS there.

NY CLS Penal § 170.10 (2004)
§ 170.10. Forgery in the second degree

A person is guilty of forgery in the second degree when, with intent to defraud, deceive or injure another, he falsely makes, completes or alters a written instrument which is or purports to be, or which is calculated to become or to represent if completed:

1. A deed, will, codicil, contract, assignment, commercial instrument, credit card, as that term is defined in subdivision seven of section 155.00, or other instrument which does or may evidence, create, transfer, terminate or otherwise affect a legal right, interest, obligation or status; or

2. A public record, or an instrument filed or required or authorized by law to be filed in or with a public office or public servant; or

3. A written instrument officially issued or created by a public office, public servant or governmental instrumentality; or

4. Part of an issue of tokens, public transportation transfers, certificates or other articles manufactured and designed for use as symbols of value usable in place of money for the purchase of property or services; or

5. A prescription of a duly licensed physician or other person authorized to issue the same for any drug or any instrument or device used in the taking or administering of drugs for which a prescription is required by law.

Forgery in the second degree is a class D felony.

NY CLS Penal § 170.25 (2004)
§ 170.25. Criminal possession of a forged instrument in the second degree

A person is guilty of criminal possession of a forged instrument in the second degree when, with knowledge that it is forged and with intent to defraud, deceive or injure another, he utters or possesses any forged instrument of a kind specified in section 170.10.

Criminal possession of a forged instrument in the second degree is a class D felony.

You are a blogging STUD!!!
I'm in awe of what has been accomplished in just a few days.
Thank you. Really. Thank you.

The tapes aren't enough! Kinko's also should preserve computer hard drives and billing records and possibly the digital copies that some high-end copiers keep in memory. Security tapes will at best show someone using copy machines and a fax machine--circumstantial at best.

My money is, and has been since early this morning, on the lawer, David Van Os. Former labor lawyer, former legal associate of ex Gov. Richards' husband (yes, that Richards, of the "silver foot in his mouth" fame), Democratic party activist, former county Dem chairman, Dean (now Kerry) activist, and candidate for the TX Supreme Court.. check his biography at http://www.vanosforsupremecourt.com/vanos_biography.htm .

Burkett is the front/fall guy if it gets tracked back. Period.

Cleansing:

It's unlikely that Kinko's cleanses the PCs available to the public. They probably just delete files. But a high-end forensics lab can even resurrect files that have been overwritten, depending on the number of times the sectors have been rewritten.

Thus I would suggest issuing a subpoena on the PCs as well. However, this would put Kinko's in a bad position because it would tie up their working machines.

Bill, Winemaker-

The first set of statutes doesn't help us as the forgeries aren't a "claim" (which in this context essentially means a bill for services or the like). What we need is federal statutes regarding misrepresentation of military documents, and improperly influencing an election. I am sure one or both exist.

I have to strongly disagree that charges against Burkett are not important just because he is a "small fish." From the indictment through the sentencing, a trial keeps this in the news. And every time people see it, they'll think "Hmmm, dirty Democrats. Dirty Dan Rather." With the advent of 24-hr news channels, trial coverage is tremendously amplified. This is why I've been harping on the issue since the forgery became obvious.

He doesn't need to accuse McAuliffe or Kerry of putting him up to it; guilt by association is an easy game. 55% of the electorate believe Bush is behind the Swift Vet ads thanks to Kerry & Co.'s constant insinuations. And that's despite Bush's campaign never attacking Kerry's military record, while the DNC and Kerry campaign have been all over these NG claims.

They have sown the wind with these lies and forgeries, and justice requires they now reap the resulting whirlwind.

More important than the security camera tapes, will be the call record for the fax machine phone line. Who else got a copy? Are the faxed phone numbers on Burkett's billing statement?

Does he have a computer? Does he use "Microsoft Word"? Has he registered his "Word" program with microsoft? The list goes on. I wonder, what is the best way to destroy a hard drive?

Bill,

a couple of points summarizing thoughts of others above.

1, You have quoted article 132 of the UCMJ on Fraud. Though not a lawyer, I was an Army Officer and am married to a NG Lawyer. I don't think you can pass the test of 1a or 1b. I read "claim" = "filing a false travel claim" rather than "claim" = "statement of fact"

2. I think you can establish ART. 123. FORGERY
Any person subject to this chapter who, with intent to defraud- -
(1) falsely makes or alters any signature, to, or any part of, any writing which would, if genuine, apparently impose a legal liability on another or change his legal right or liability to his prejudice; or
(2) utters, offers, issues, or transfers such a writing, known by him to be so made or altered;
is guilty of forgery and shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.

The forged Order by LTC Killian for Bush to appear for a physical seems to me to have falsely "apparently impose a legal liability on another"(i.e. Bush)

3. Normally Officers in the National Guard, have their commisions and ranks "Federally Recognized", i.e. they hold commisions and ranks in both the Guard and the Reserves. It is commonly accepted that retirees and ex-servicemen can be called back to active duty and court martialled for crimes created on active duty or for crimes which reflect on the Services. e.g. falsely impersonating an officer. I'd be wiling to think that the Army would consider a court martial for an Officer who forged an order by a second officer (Killian) for the purpose of falsely creating a legal liability for a third officer (Bush).

4. alternately the TexNG might feel the same way, or
5. alternately a Texas procecutor might want this.

This seems more like a case for a civil lawsuit than a criminal one. The problem in this case, however, that it would be Killian who sues, since he is the victim of the forgery. This also might be a defamation case, or perhaps lible? Perhaps his kids could sue.

The dead can't sue for libel

OT: I recommend a classic Film on the interaction of the Legal and Journalistic professions: Absence of Malice

Paul Newman plays the son of a long dead Mafia boss who is a simple liquor warehouse owner. Frustrated in his attempt to solve a murder of a union head, a prosecutor leaks a false story that Newman is a target of the investigation, hoping that he will tell them something for protection. As his live begins to unravel, others are hurt by the story. Sally Field, the reporter, is in the clear under the Absence of Malice rule in slander and libel cases. Knowing nothing to trade to the prosecutors, Newman must regain control of his life on different ground.

most applicable line to Rathergate:

James A. Wells, Assistant U.S. Attorney General : Now we'll talk all day if you want to. But, come sundown, there's gonna be two things true that ain't true now. One is that the United States Department of Justice is goin' to know what in the good Christ - e'scuse me, Angie - is goin' on around here. And the other's I'm gonna have somebody's ass in muh briefcase.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0081974/quotes

If you are acquainted with any Texas litigators who for ethical, publicity or political reasons would like to haul CBS into a Texas court to force the network to defend its actions, ask your litigator to consider bringing a qai tam action (a private attorney general action) under Penal Code 32.21 (or some other Texas statute) against CBS and its affiliates.

...the Federal charge is Wire Fraud, sending forged documents across state lines...

...there's a possibility that the security camera has a continuous time stamp that will match the Fax time stamp and Fax phone call...

The business of the forged memos show that the the most radicalized leftists in the Democratic Party are willing to destroy the Two-party system that has worked very well for this country since its founding. It is not written into the Constitution, nor is it confirmed or protected by any Legislation. We can have as many political parties as we want. But it has proven to be a workable system to have two main political parties that are required to work with each other, and from time to time switch places, each serving as the "loyal opposition" when edged out of the dominant role.

There are many discouraging examples of countries whose governments are just a continuing fistfight among dozens of parties contending, in there is no consensus or coherence. If we want to make our government equal in stature to, say, Italy, we can certainly accomplish that by emulating their example. That is what we can expect if the extremists of the left are allowed to continue their suicidal mutilation of the once functional Democratic Party.

Bill -- If you haven't done it already, you should e-mail Beldar (he's on your blogroll) and see if he'd be interested in filing a lawsuit on a pro bono basis that would permit the issuance of subpoenas. He appears to be ticked off enough about this to dedicate some pro bono time to the project and he lives in Texas. Just a thought.

These were transmitted over phone lines. There are statutes making wire fraud a federal crime. NO?

But, I'm just guessing.

Now I'm only a retired AF Hardshell(NCO), but ya'll read title 10, U.S.C., 932 wrong-subsections 1-4 are separate and 'stand alone',not interdependant-and these forgeries violated Title 10 U.S.C. 932, sections 2a and 2c, & 4-Greyhawk, Powerline, Instapundit-some input-or maybe you know, Bill-but if these are Felonies-Federal and State (HaHa-all federal crimes ARE felonies)-then the transmission is wirefraud-and yes, there is a federal law on election fraud-and it MIGHT apply-only a hardshell mossback-so I'll defer to the Legal Eagles (and thankfully there are many HONEST ones, and we've a bunch in the PAJAMASPHERE (my word-it is now published and copyrighted)-just tell us where the Legal Cost Tipjar is, Bill-I for 1, will definitely hit it if we can start it NOW......Retired AF and a Texan...(I'm a Computer and Electronic Tech, but how does 1 make them little elevated subscripts in a blog-naw' don't have or use MSWord)...Sigh....

INDC is authorized to use PAJAMSPHERE at no charge-but not to license it......Heh, Heh....

My bet is Burkett is found face down in a park, with a .45 hole above left ear and a .38 special in right hand. Then Maurice Matley pronounces the "recently discovered" by CBS News suicide note to be 100% authentic , while 1000 other experts say other wise.
(you may have to really think about all the above a bit to really get it)

You guys go get em'. If Rather and Co. walk from this we all lose in the end.

Kinko's Copies
4133 S Danville Dr
Abilene, TX 79605-7230 Phone:
(325) 698-3300

The Democrtas in Texas meet at the Kinko's where the memos were faxed !!!

(Democrat Meeting Memo)

The speaker for our meeting on Monday, January 5th, will be Lavena Cheek, Taylor Country Tax Assessor Collector. Lavena will give a short talk on how we at the grassroots level can revitalize the Democratic Party in a positive manner.

The meeting will be at 7 p.m. at Kinko's on Danville just north of Buffalo Gap road in their meeting room. There are soda machines, etc. You're welcome to bring other refreshments if you like.

The room will cost us $5.00 per hour and we'll be requesting donations of $1.00 to help defray the cost. Any amount over the room cost will go into the club's general fund.

Please attend and bring a friend! And, think about clearing your schedule the weekend of February 20th for the TDW state convention in Austin! We'll have more information on that at the meeting!

Victory in 2004!

......everybody is have a good laugh at this "coincidence"......

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1218362/posts?page=1,50

Pietr:
OT: for those of you who aren't html guys, most comments will take html tags they work like this >sup< th >/sup< would superscript. Using b instead of sup would bold etc. So RatherGate
This is a great reference site:
http://www.blooberry.com/indexdot/html/

heh oops that should be ^th

and

RatherGate

hmm ok or maybe that tag doesn't work in these comments. Submission does some formatting of the acual text.

Hope they hold more tape than just the time of the fax. Depending how far back it goes, they may have someone on tape repeatedly re-copying a document too. This may have been done on a different day since I'm sure the time of the fax was agreed upon after the documents were 'ready to be faxed'.

Anyone catch Pat Caddell and Bill O'Reilly last night, 9.16, on the O'Reilly Factor?

1/2 minute discussion (during the Kerry Guard speech segment) referencing the Texas felony forgery statutes at issue here, and that "this isn't going to go away."

O'Reilly replied to Caddell that "Our guys are looking into it" or something like that.

The problem with claiming election fraud is that if Bush loses, he would have to prove beyond reasonable doubt that these forged documents were the reason for losing. However, there are so many things involved here that it'd be impossible to prove this, and only this, was the deciding factor. That scenario is, clearly, after the fact. As for trying to influence the election before it occurs, while it may be obvious to the reasonable person with normal common sense, if there are no records or witnesses, then nothing can be proven - circumstantial evidence versus big time lawyers won't work.

Chuck said earlier: Is there any law against forging military orders?....IMO falsifying a military order should be a very serious crime.

Well, all I can say is that DoD civilians would get in some pretty hot water for doing it (and no, not personal experience). I'm pretty sure it'd be even worse for military folk.

...why doesn't the F.B.I. investigate this suspicous act of Wire Fraud?

...Has no complaint been filed?

...Do they need one when so much evidence points to probable cause?

...Or is it a political decision by the F.B.I.?

Silly question... as a citizen who was decieved by the CBS news story... can I participate in a class action suit?

Pietr: not that it matters but FYI: Pajamasphere was apparently coined by Andrea Harris on Sept. 11 and (unrelated) I registered Pajamasphere.com on Sept. 14.

Naturally I link to INDC Journal; great coverage of an important story!

LA Times says today the fax header
from the document from Kinko's shop near Abilene, Texas was sent at 6:41 p.m Sept. 2.

Should be too hard to find that spot in the surveillance videos, if they haven't been destroyed already.

Scott Lawton, My apologies for stepping on your copyright then-(guess I should've Googled b4 opening mouth and inserting foot)-Do I owe you anything for this infringement, and can we settle out of court?