RFK Assassination - Khaiber Khan

[NewKid]

<!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>Some time ago, Bugliosi announced his intention of writing a book about the JFK assassination. Did he ever do so? I liked his book about the Supreme Court decision on election '00, but I believe he was going to support the Warren Commission on JFK. <hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><br>Yeah, he's an Oswald-did-it guy. <br><br><br><!--EZCODE LINK START--><a href="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0393045250?v=glance" target="top">www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0393045250?v=glance</a><!--EZCODE LINK END--><br><br>On his Bush v. Gore effort, I haven't read it, but if the accounts of it I've seen are accurate in book reviews, then he takes what is indeed a bad decision and argues against it quite poorly. <br><br>Just one obvious example:<br><br><!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>First, normally in equal protection cases, the aggrieved party — in this case, the Florida voter who claims his or her vote was not counted equally — brings the action. That was not the case in Bush v. Gore, which raises the question whether Bush had standing (that is, the legal right) to sue.<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><br><!--EZCODE LINK START--><a href="http://writ.news.findlaw.com/books/reviews/20010810_hodes.html" target="top">writ.news.findlaw.com/books/reviews/20010810_hodes.html</a><!--EZCODE LINK END--><br><br>Now I hate citing NRO, but this George Mason professor has it about right:<br><br><!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>1) Bush did not have "'standing to sue.'" In equal-protection cases "the aggrieved party, the one who is being harmed and discriminated against, almost invariably brings the action." However, it was not the supposedly disenfranchised Florida citizens who brought the action, but Bush who "leaped in and tried to profit from a hypothetical wrong inflicted on someone else." <br><br>Bush was not the plaintiff and he did not sue. It was Gore who brought the contest lawsuit and Bush who appealed. Moreover, it is absurd to suggest that a candidate has no interest in or cannot be aggrieved by constitutionally impermissible procedures for counting votes.<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><br><!--EZCODE LINK START--><a href="http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/comment-berkowitz072001.shtml" target="top">www.nationalreview.com/comment/comment-berkowitz072001.shtml</a><!--EZCODE LINK END--><br><br>The first point is pretty basic. If Gore brings the suit in the trial court and takes it up to the Florida SC, the losing party in the Florida SC will have standing in the USSC by merely losing the case (Bush). This is enough to satisfy the injury, causation, and redressability concerns with standing. Now there maybe some more sophisticated arguments for the SC to have rejected the case on standing grounds, but Bugliosi's isn't really one of them. There are also other important critiscims of Bush v. Gore as a legal decision, but the good ones get quite elaborate. Of course, the bottom line is nobody seriously believes this was anything other than a political act, with Scalia putting hard pressure on the other justices to get the votes. <br><br><!--EZCODE LINK START--><a href="http://www.makethemaccountable.com/articles/The_Path_To_Florida.htm" target="top">www.makethemaccountable.com/articles/The_Path_To_Florida.htm</a><!--EZCODE LINK END--><br><br>But to be credible on something like this, you have to get the details in order. And the other stuff he argues about Boies is only part right. It's true the Gore legal team made many tactical errors, but they had nothing to do with Boies not being "a fighter." <br><br>If his JFK stuff is anything like this, he won't even get off the ground with an Oswald-did-it argument. <p></p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=newkid@rigorousintuition>NewKid</A> at: 8/31/06 6:40 pm<br></i>

[sunny]

<!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>On his Bush v. Gore effort, I haven't read it<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><br>You should read it. I cannot at the moment remember his exact arguments (loaned the book out some time ago and never got it back) but I don't think the arguments in the book have been characterized fairly in the reviews you posted. For one thing, I think he makes the point that the Supremes granted certiorari based on one argument and decided the case based on the another (14th amendment). I'm don't think(he could have) Bugliosi argued Bush didn't have standing under the 14th amendment.<br><br>His Equal Protection criticisms have merit. The Supremes gave Bush the presumption as the winner, and didn't consider Gore's Equal Protection rights at all. <p></p><i></i>

[NewKid]

I agree with the general conclusions that it's a terrible decision on the whole, but at least two reviews state that Bugliosi makes the standing argument (they both lead with it as number 1, and one of them seems somewhat favorably inclined to it), so I'm inclined to think he makes that argument. Now you can make a standing argument on Bush v. Gore (see, e.g., Erwin Chemerinsky, BUSH V. GORE WAS NOT JUSTICIABLE, 76 Notre Dame L. Rev. 1093 (2001)) but you have to overcome the very formidable obstacle of <!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>Asarco, Inc. v. Kadish</em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END-->, 490 U.S. 605 (1989) and its progeny (which Chemerinsky doesn't): <br><br><!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>The state proceedings ended in a declaratory judgment adverse to petitioners, an adjudication of legal rights which constitutes the kind of injury cognizable in this Court on review from the state courts. See, e. g., Nashville, C. & St. L. R. Co. v. Wallace, 288 U.S. 249, 261-265 (1933). Petitioners are faced with "actual or threatened injury" that is sufficiently "distinct and palpable" to support their standing to invoke the authority of a federal court. Warth, 422 U.S., at 500, 501. <br><br>Petitioners contend before us that the Arizona Supreme Court's decision rests on an erroneous interpretation of federal statutes. They claim that the declaratory judgment sought and secured by respondents, along with the relief that may flow from that ruling, is invalid under federal law. If we were to agree with petitioners, our reversal of the decision below would remove its disabling effects upon them. In these circumstances, we conclude that petitioners meet each prong of the constitutional standing requirements. As the parties first invoking the authority of the federal courts, they have shown that they "personally ha[ve] suffered some actual or threatened injury as a result of the putatively illegal conduct of the [other party] . . . and that the injury 'fairly can be traced to the challenged action' and 'is likely to be redressed by a favorable decision.'" Valley Forge, 454 U.S., at 472 (citations omitted). In addition, petitioners' standing to invoke the authority of this Court is not affected by any of the prudential limitations that have been identified in prior cases. Id., at 474-475. Indeed, the United States appears to recognize the force of these points. See Brief for United States 20, n. 14 ("In light of the decision below, [petitioners] may now have standing" to invoke the authority of a federal court). <br><br><hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><br><!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>Id.</em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END--> at 618-19.<br><br>Maybe an argument on ripeness grounds could work in Bush v. Gore, or political question or prudential (as opposed to constitutional) standing even (all of these concepts are very mushy and not consistently applied), but you'll notice that standing wasn't really much of an issue in the case. Nobody argued it in their briefs (and you had shit loads of briefs), none of the justices mentioned it, and almost nobody discusses it as an issue, which is a pretty good indication it is not a very good argument. <br><br>That said, Bush v. Gore is a bad decision, and there are countless articles on it that explain why. The main problem that even people sympathetic to it see was in the remedy, but there are a whole lot more things bad about it too. It's like 9-11 stuff, there are a lot of bad arguments made for a sound conclusion. Now maybe the reviews are just making shit up, but if they're right about the arguments he makes in the book, then I think he probably fits in that category. <br><br><br> <p></p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=newkid@rigorousintuition>NewKid</A> at: 8/31/06 9:27 pm<br></i>

[FourthBase]

Still interested in Ruppert's take:<br><br><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/pandora/rfk.html">www.fromthewilderness.com...a/rfk.html</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--><br><br>Also, I wonder if Sirhan's defense team has, when they hypnotized him, asked him to make them coffee with lots of cream etc. <p></p><i></i>

[MinM]

.
Khaiber Khan helped to overthrow at least 2 world leaders. Mossadegh and the presumptive leader of the free world, RFK.

http://www.acorn.net/jfkplace/09/fp.bac ... e/rfk.html

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/FBI/W ... nnedy.html

http://flag.blackened.net/daver/misc/rfk.html

http://rigorousintuition.yuku.com/topic ... aiber-Khan

viewtopic.php?p=168453#p168453

viewtopic.php?p=328006#p328006

http://rigorousintuition.ca/board2/view ... 47#p398647

viewtopic.php?p=446755#p446755

[MinM]

Show #422
Original airdate: May 7th, 2009
Guests: Russ Baker / Jim DiEugenio
Topic: Family Of Secrets

# Play Part Two - Jim DiEugenio
# The Puppet and the Puppet Masters Part 1 and Part 2
# Jim doesn't believe Gonzalez and Dubois wrote the second Puppetmasters article
# He believes James Phelan was the likely author
# Phelan a 'bought and sold' author... CIA
# The Mormon Mafia incapacitated Howard Hughes with drugs and stole his empire
# Something happened at Playboy to stop Part 2 from becoming a decent article
# Lamar Waldron and Thomas Hartmann not only screw up the JFK assassination, but also the RFK and MLK assassinations
# Grace Stevens' institutionalized for being a credible witness to disprove James Earl Ray as an assassin
# Legacy of Secrecy completely leaves out Judge Joe Brown
# Self hypnosis all but impossible... Sirhan couldn't have done it
# Michael Wien (Michael Wayne) and Khyber Khan
# The book says Thane Cesar did not shoot RFK yet he was the ONLY person in the perfect position to
# The bumbling Watergate burglars... really a setup job focusing on the removal of Nixon

http://www.blackopradio.com/black422b.ram

http://www.blackopradio.com/archives2009.html

[MinM]

Just reading up on it a little, and good christ it's twice as blatant a conspiracy as JFK's murder was. Why the hell haven't people been focusing on that, more of the perps are alive (including the patsy), the cover-up was shoddier, the contradicting evidence is abundant.

I am looking for more information on Khaiber Khan.
A couple sites said he was a major spook, was involved with the overthrow in Iran in the 50's, was Sirhan's handler, and even that perhaps the polka dot girl was his daughter. I'd love to find more evidence of all that.

Also interested in researching these people more:

Michael Wayne (Cesar's accomplice?)
Bill Bryan (hypnotist for Boston Strangler and Sirhan?)
Jimmy Owen (ranch cult leader, mind controller?)
Thane Cesar (right wing Cuban working at Lockheed Martin!)

And of course, all the LAPD involved. It sucks how Ruppert ditched town...but his info re: the LAPD and RFK was fascinating.

And it should be noted that Bugliosi was pure status quo re: the Manson family, but quite the radical regarding RFK's murder, no? Interesting role, anyway.

http://rigorousintuition.yuku.com/topic ... aiber-Khan

[MinM]

@CBSNews: Police: "Major development" in Boston Strangler case http://cbsn.ws/1adVUbR

CBS/AP/ July 11, 2013, 10:22 AM
Boston Strangler investigation makes "major development" in 1960s slaying

BOSTON Massachusetts law enforcement officials say advances in DNA technology have led to a breakthrough in the last of the 1960s slayings attributed to the Boston Strangler.

Authorities are planning a Thursday morning news conference to discuss a "major development" in the nearly 50-year-old slaying of Mary Sullivan.

The 19-year-old was found strangled in her Boston apartment in January 1964. She was the last of about a dozen women whose deaths were attributed to the Boston Strangler.

Albert DeSalvo confessed to the killings but was never convicted. He was sentenced to life in prison on other charges and was stabbed to death there in 1973.

City police say in a statement to CBS News that "the miracle of science and DNA evidence" point to a suspect.

Sullivan is the only victim for which DNA evidence is available.

© 2013 CBS Interactive Inc. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. The Associated Press contributed to this report.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-575 ... s-slaying/

Just reading up on it a little, and good christ it's twice as blatant a conspiracy as JFK's murder was. Why the hell haven't people been focusing on that, more of the perps are alive (including the patsy), the cover-up was shoddier, the contradicting evidence is abundant.

I am looking for more information on Khaiber Khan.
A couple sites said he was a major spook, was involved with the overthrow in Iran in the 50's, was Sirhan's handler, and even that perhaps the polka dot girl was his daughter. I'd love to find more evidence of all that.

Also interested in researching these people more:

Michael Wayne (Cesar's accomplice?)
Bill Bryan (hypnotist for Boston Strangler and Sirhan?)
Jimmy Owen (ranch cult leader, mind controller?)
Thane Cesar (right wing Cuban working at Lockheed Martin!)

And of course, all the LAPD involved. It sucks how Ruppert ditched town...but his info re: the LAPD and RFK was fascinating.

And it should be noted that Bugliosi was pure status quo re: the Manson family, but quite the radical regarding RFK's murder, no? Interesting role, anyway.

http://rigorousintuition.yuku.com/topic ... aiber-Khan