Okay, going out on a limb here. Could not any private citizen in Texas who saw the broadcast and later found out it was a hoax, file a police report with the local sheriff's department?

I know in CA there has to be a police report before a DA can even think about moving on a case.

And if the county DA office doesn't think it has the resources to pursue, it kicks it up to the state level. These type of major fraud/bribery issues are the bread-n-butter of state AG offices.

Of course it's a crime. Forging gov't docs and distributing them is always a crime. The one doc - with a letterhead of the 111th suadron - clearly made it a forged gov't doc.

The really big question is why CBS would continue to hide the identity of the criminal/s. Somebody cooked them up, and then he, or someone else, distributed them.

If Rather, et al, know the identity of the forger, they could be considered material winesses to the crime. After all, CBS distributed the forgeries - despite being cautioned by their own document examiners.

I'd guess this is a pretty big crime because the purpose was to defame the President so as help his opponent in the election.

James Eidson (the DA) would bring charges, not the sheriff.

Here is a template for all Rathergate follwers:

Fax Number: 325 674-1306

James Eidson, Esq.
District Attorney, Taylor County
300 Oak Street
Abilene, TX 79602

Re: Forgery Matters Pertaining to Taylor County

Dear Mr. Eidson:

I am writing to you to bring to your attention a potential felony committed in Texas and Taylor County.

As you are likely aware, the CBS program 60 Minutes II broadcast on Wednesday, September 8, 2004 a program concerning four memos purportedly related to President
Bush’s service in the Texas Air Guard. Those memos are available at the CBS News website: http://www.cbsnews.com

CBS broadcast and published its 60 Minutes program, including the four forged memos, in Texas via several affiliated CBS stations in Texas.

In addition, the producer of the 60 Minutes program is a resident of Texas.

On September 20, CBS acknowledged publicly that the four documents were forgeries. Prior to CBS's broadcast publication of the memos, two experts hired by CBS warned CBS that the four government documents were forgeries.

Two persons, including one of CBS's document experts, have publicly stated that the memos were faxed to CBS during the first week of September from a Kinko’s store located in Abilene, Texas.

It appears that CBS has committed one or more felonies under the Texas Code pertaining to publication of forged government documents, and that Taylor County is a proper venue.

The Texas Penal Code (Sec. 32.31) governs forgery. “Forgery” includes publication of a forged writing. I assume that under Texas law, a television broadcast constitutes a
publication.

Code Sec. 32.21 defines the requisite criminal intent for forgery as, “an intent to defraud or harm another.” Significantly, the Penal Code 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. Here, there are four forged memos, all purporting to be government file memos, at the heart of the CBS program. Under the Penal Code, CBS’s intent is thereby presumed, by the very nature of the multiple forged government documents it published.

On its face, it appears that CBS, with knowledge of their falsity, published the four forged government memos, and thus violated the Texas Code pertaining to forged
documents. If so, the act was a felony.

CBS’s broadcast in Texas, the producer's Texas residency, and the news reports of the Abilene Kinko’s being at least one source of the forged memos, would seem to establish Texas, and Taylor County, jurisdiction.

I hope the foregoing is helpful to you in your duties.

Very truly yours,

John Q. Public

And here is the DA's phone number:

James Eidson, Esq.
District Attorney
Taylor County
300 Oak St.
Abilene, TX 79602

Phone: 325-674-1261

Would someone please read CBS their rights? It is apparent a crime has been committed...and, they have rights, you know.

I would think that the federal law would supercede the state law, since not only was it a forging of military records but was transmitted via telecommunication lines between states. If the person responsible for the forgery had help, then you could have quite possibly a RICO statute thrust into the mix for added penalties.
I am sure some ambitious Assistant US Attorney in Texas might be looking at this to garner some points.
***********
TITLE 18 PART 1 Chapter 63 Sec. 1343. - Fraud by wire, radio, or television

Whoever, having devised or intending to devise any scheme or artifice to defraud, or for obtaining money or property by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, or promises, transmits or causes to be transmitted by means of wire, radio, or television communication in interstate or foreign commerce, any writings, signs, signals, pictures, or sounds for the purpose of executing such scheme or artifice, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both. If the violation affects a financial institution, such person shall be fined not more than $1,000,000 or imprisoned not more than 30 years, or both

Bill,

While I generally agree that most of the power structure in Texas government is decentralized, I do not know of any reason why the Texas AG can not bring the appropriate criminal charges. Though, going the DA route might be easier since those people like to make a splash when possible.

The big question I have is what prevents General Staudt from bringing a defamation of character charge against the author of the documents and then use subpeonas to force the author out into the open?

I based it on what Kepple told me ...

As I've said previously on this page, I don't think UCMJ Article 132 is a god fit for this crime. 132 is normally applied to financial frauds.

I think that there is a clear case for Article 123 Forgery plus 133 Conduct Unbecoming and 134 Crimes against Good Order

Thanks!

The other question: Are there federal election laws that have been violated? I imagine that forging docs for the purpose of influencing the election (or knowingly putting those docs forward) would be a federal crime.

- Eric.

I do believe that in Texas, like in most other states, anyone with knowledge of a felony is guilty of a felony if they do not report it, likewise, if a law enforcement officer is aware of the commission of a felony he is also guilty of a felony if he does not take proper actions to see that the offender is arrested and charged. Someone should call the district attorney of Callahan county and report this crime, he then cannot claim to have no knowledge and must either have Burkett arrested of be arrested himself. It would probably never result in a conviction, but that's for a judge and a jury to decide. I live in Texas but not near enough to Callahan county to press the matter.

I am a retired Air Force officer (JAG), a former senior level prosecutor. I offered my own analysis of the offenses last week at my blog, longleggedfly.blogspot.com.

I finally settled on Texas criminal statutes governing impersonating a public official and tampering with a government record because these statutes do not have a financial element to them. That's the problem with charging forgery or fraud. The essence of forgery and fraud is a false writing made to deceive the recipient into 1) giving up money or property, or 2) changing or creating a legal relationship. These are technical elements and a prosecutor can be creative only to a point in finding ways to satisfy them. In my opinion a prosecutor would have to overreach to charge them given the current state of the evidence.

If a retired military (including Guard) officer is complicit in this mess, perhaps he could be activated or recalled. He might then be charged with false official statement and conduct unbecoming an officer at a minimum. If I were the military prosecutor I would probably argue for at least two years imprisonment (six months per document) and a dismissal (the officer equivalent of a dishonorable discharge). I'm a softie. I know other military prosecutors who would seek at least twice as much confinement.

I can understand why a DA might be reluctant to spend the time and money on a prosecution. It could be very expensive to prosecute, and like all public beauracracies, DAs have limited budgets. But these practical barriers can probably be overcome for several reasons, First, there are usually ways to get additional monies (from the state or federal government) to fund important proseuctions. Second, if no one at CBS News is made a defendant (treating them as victims and allowing them sanctuary behind the defense of ignorance) the case immediately becomes simpler and less costly.

In any event, Just letting the matter slide is a very poor option, in my opinion, because that sends the WRONG message to the public in what might well be the most highly visible false public document case in modern Texas history, that cobbling together false public documents is "no big deal." The DA has an opportunity to make an important point here, one that could have beneficial preventive impact far exceeding its nominal cost to prosecute.

If the Texas authorities want to have better, more honest, and reliable documents in the future by discouraging similar misbehavior, this is a one-in-a-lifetime opportunity to get it right--or wrong.