Kate Dixon wrote:I am going to try to respond to the points you raised. I will quote some of of material, as -- you say in "Quotes:" with my point in response. You know point by point, collegially.
I do not have a "position" although you seem to think I have one. i mean I have not been contacted by law enforcement or by Jimmy Hughes and I have not reviewed any court files, which I am sure will be subject to a sealing fight. This case is about 28 years old so it is very hard to research -- many witnesses are not available or deceased or will not talk or simply can't recall.
You can read my article, "when is case too old to try" on NMN and see that the courts are throwing out cases for being too old to try. Age in a case also can lead to other due process problems. So I do not have a "position" about the whole case, but I do have a position about the issue of immunity, which I am expressing.
Ms. Dixon, I will frankly confess that you are a puzzle to me. And one that I've encountered so many times before that I almost feel like we're old frenemies. I wish that I understood you. In fact, I very much want to understand you. And I really do mean that from the bottom of my heart, and in the most warm, decent and human sense of the word "understand" possible. So if that's of any honest interest to you, please consider yourself informed that I'll be on the alert for some sign of it. Okay? Because having said that once as sincerely as I'm able to say it, I'm not going to say it again. Nor am I going to knock myself out making a unilateral effort to discern something that's recognizable to me as truth in what you're posting absent some such sign. Which doesn't mean I'm hostile to you. At all. I'm not. It just means that you're posting nonsense, which I very much regret but am totally powerless to change.
You did not express a position on immunity. That's a manifest falsehood. As the record reflects. Please consult it. Thank you. Now please excuse me for one moment while I say an explanatory word or two on behalf of whatever general readership this thread might have. I'll be back in a moment.
_________________
Hey, for you people who aren't familiar with the California Penal Code, or with fifth and fourteenth amendment issues as they arise in the context of grand jury testimony generally. This is the deal:
California is one of several states that happens to empanel grand juries at a county level. As you may dimly recall from that Judy Miller episode during the grand jury investigation into the leaking of Valerie Plame's name, the law gives federal prosecutors quite a bit of enforceable power both to compel grand jury testimony and to sanction witnesses who don't think they're subject to it. Same goes double for prosecutors conducting grand jury investigations in California. And in a grand jury context, "I invoke my fifth amendment right not to incriminate myself" does not count as testimony. You have to answer the questions. Therefore, grand jury witnesses who have a reason to want to exercise that right (and/or their right to due process) can go to a hearing where a judge will tell them that they have to testify and tell the prosecutor that he or she has to grant them immunity from prosecution for crimes to which they admit while doing so. Plus related crimes and so forth and so on. And the California statute on that, which Ms. Dixon cited in her first post, happens to be very comprehensively protectively worded. It also states quite clearly that whether it's transactional immunity (which effectively means: almost total immunity) or use immunity (which effectively means: not-so-total immunity on terms to which both the state and the witness agree, in writing)
That's a very rough outline, and criminal law is very complicated, but it's more or less in the ballpark. As Ms. Dixon has got to know, given that she was after all licensed to practice law, including criminal law, in California for thirteen years before the state bar court showed her the door in no uncertain terms. So she's actually qualified to express her position on immunity. At least to the extent of knowing what a position on immunity fucking is, for the love of Jeebus.
Which, incidentally, would be something more along the lines of "In a grand jury setting, transactional immunity doesn't just protect the witness's fifth amendment rights, it extends them considerably, and I'm all for and/or against that" than it would, well, this:
Kate Dixon wrote:
This whole case with Jimmy Hughes is turning on the issue of whether he
was granted transactional immunity for his grand jury testimony in the past in the Alvarez triple execution case. This TV sequence seems to indicate that Det. John Powers and Rachel Begley are informed that Hughes did have
immunity. Now, one has to look at this matter realistically. It is very unusual to prosecute a person who was granted transactional immunity regarding the matter, i.e. crime, that he testified about -- that person cannot be prosecuted for any crime related to any matter about which the witness testified. One way that the courts have allowed a person to be
prosecuted again, given the grant of transactional immunity, is when all the evidence the prosecution intends to use is derived from legitimate independent sources -- i.e. independent from the prior testimony for which the use immunity or other immunity was granted.
Now, it is easy to see, if there was a grant of immunity to Hughes, that Rachel Begley and John Powers have developed some evidence from independent sources. We can expect that Begley is one of those independent sources, and a prominent one. So, let's get to the point --
Begley and Powers are trying to find a way around the immunity granted to Hughes in the past -- they have developed a new theory of prosecution, in which Begley stars, given her use of undercover taps (video and wire) to obtain statements from Hughes. She is actually a person who is part of the affidavit of probable cause for arrest. This is truly a unique type of prosecution -- sashaying around a prior grant of immunity with a relative of a victim --not a victim, but a relative of one, who indicates she is a type of sleuth. I am personally in favor of citizen sleuths, especially when they are truly independent. But let's get real here -- this is not about Begley but this is about wiggling around a prior grant of immunity from prosecution.
Look at U.S. v. Mendoza (9th Cir. 1996) 78 F3d 460.
Kate Dixon
Because from end to end, that's an expression of her position on the motives and actions of Rachel Begley, Detective Powers, Jimmy Hughes, and the various parties to whatever grant of immunity he got shortly before apparently (it must be said) fleeing the fucking country, which does kind of suggest something less than transactional immunity which she quite plainly states as if it were known fact. Although upon inquiry, she readily admits she has no authoritative information about that or any other authoritative assertion she's making about the case. Which is unsurprising, since it turns out that she evidently doesn't even know that Rod Pacheco (a) has no reputation of integrity to put on the line; and (b) has recused himself from this prosecution, reportedly due to his family relationship to Hughes.
_________________
Ms. Dixon, thank you for your patience. WRT to that Rod Pacheco thing: In light of the belief many readers have in your reputation for integrity, your words do carry some weight, you know. You should really do your homework, therefore. Because it's an ethical obligation, for one thing. And because it's generally good for business, for another.
YOU SAID: "First of all, as far as I know, starting with the arrest of Jimmy Hughes in connection with a notorious triple homicide that appears to be rife with deep political and organized crime associations, and going forward, nobody thinks or has been tenaciously, tyranically and unaccountably superficial enough to suggest that it was about Rachel Begley. Not excluding Rachel Begley herself, actually, from what I've seen of her demeanor and conduct." MY RESPONSE: I agree with you that there are deep political and organized crime associations in this case, but there are these considerations in many many cases. In fact all prosecutions are tinged with political considerations. And organized crime, well it is organized, you have to say that. You forget though that the Hughes case is tinged with what is referred to these days as "national security" considerations. Back in the day, one could simply say the CIA was all over the case. Or that the President was all over the case. If you take this Alvarez triple execution to the status of "national security", above and beyond mere politics and organized crime, then of course, Hughes can pull out the so-called national security card -- and assert the case can't be tried without revealing classified information, thus he can't be tried.
Wait, wait, wait. Do you have any evidence or even a strong reason to believe that Hughes was and/or is working for a federal agency charged with keeping the nation secure? Because I sure as hell haven't seen any evidence to that effect. And iif he wasn't, he really couldn't pull out that card, it kind of goes without saying. Furthermore, it would hardly be due to any act of Begley's or Powers's if the prosecution for which they laid the groundwork ended up getting shut down by spooks, dude. So if your concerns on that score are in fact based on anything non-imaginary, please count to ten, and take them to the spooks. Because they're the ones you have a possibly completely notional problem with, if you think about it for a moment.
But I see you comments and those of Begley and Powers -- the main if only sources of info from the prosecution never mention "national security", just focus on organized crime and politics. Oh well....
I do not know who you are, but I don't mind responding to anonymity -- it has its place.
Thank you.
I must say though that you are in error, in stating that the case is not about Ms. Begley. Yes, Yes it is about her.
Ms. Dixon. I was responding to you. Does this refresh your memory?
Kate Dixon wrote:But let's get real here -- this is not about Begley
Again, I do not understand your position on this one. Is your final answer that it is about Rachel Begley, or that it isn't about Rachel Begley? Please let me know, as I am at a loss as to whether we agree here or not, and I would rather be friends than not, if possible. So out of an abundance of caution, I'm just going to punt pending clarification for now.
Why? First, it was her father who was murdered -- important point,
I agree. But not an important point that has any legal implications, per se. Certainly not any legal implications regarding a grant of immunity that Hughes did or didn't get in some difficult-to-surmount form a couple of a decades or so ago.
Second, she is the means by which the prosecutor will attempt to overcome Hughe's grant of immunity -- by establishing that they have a case independent of that old immunity grant, based on new fresh information, generated by Begley, at least in part, and by Powers. Without Begley, the prosecution cannot overcome the immunity problem.
Objection, introduction of facts not in evidence, move to strike.
Or, to put it another way: How do you know that, assuming that you do know that?
She is in position here --- not the first time law enforcement used someone. Wait until she finds out she was used as a mere tool.
Okay. Now you're just, like, palm-reading. Let's cross that bridge if and when we come to it.
YOU SAID: "Apart from yourself and Virginia McCullough, both of newsmakingnews, which -- as I understand it -- appears to be your shop."
MY RESPONSE: You are right if you think I am the exclusive owner of Newsmakingnews (NMN). Virginia McCullough runs her own shop and always has and always will. I have nothing to do with what she writes. I publish it if I want to. If Ms. Begley sent me an article, I probably would publish that too.
I get the impression that she's not your biggest fan. And thank you for the clarification wrt NMN. I had no strong view about its ownership, due to my being unable to find any record of it as anything other than one of the I-forget-how-many active fictitious business names you have registered with the Alameda County Clerk's office. That's why I allowed for some ambiguity in my phrasing. Because you obviously can't leap to any conclusions about the sole ownership of anything on the bare-bones evidence of a dba registration records. If I were that lax, I'd also have assumed that you were the sole owner of what appears to be a strip mall in Fremont. a process service enterprise, and, like, some kind of tech company or something, IIRC. There's never really any sure way of determining exactly what that kind of paper trail actually records, apart from asking the person who appears to have left it. And in a vacuum, all property transfer records always look odd, almost by definition. In fact, all business records do, practically, in my experience. But that's just how they look. It takes a lot more work than looking to find out whether they are. And I mention that by way of indicating why my position is that both you and Ms. McCullough strike me as being so shockingly irresponsible in that very regard in connection with what you say about Rachel Begley, Ms. Dixon. Show a little courtesy and ask her for a response before you go on record with your interpretations of whatever flotsam and jetsam drifting around in her general vicinity happened to wash up in the court filing or newspaper story inspire your various suppositions. Or a little enterprise. Or a little self-respect. Or whatever you want to call it. Do some reporting, is what I'm saying, fundamentally.
YOU SAID: "And for some reason that's presumably known to you even if it isn't to me, since the get, your shop and/or its representatives have given every appearance of repeatedly attempting to impugn Rachel Begley's character, both explicitly and implicitly, via a series of pretexts that either don't seem to justify the slurs on a prima facie basis, or for which you're not offering any proof other than your word, or that later appear to be contradicted by facts that you yourselves don't challenge. Or all three. Why? What's up with that? I do not understand it at all. That's my A#1 question, therefore. Why, why, why do you not trust Rachel Begley? Why?"
MY RESPONSE: I don't know Ms. Begley. She never contacted me. I am not involved in impugning her. I realize she like everyone wants to maintain credibility. I also realiize that the entire reputation of the Attorney General and Riverside Sheriff and Rod Pacheco is resting upon the integrity of her as a witness -- as one of the main witnesses who will take them past the grant of immunity -- they hope, so they can prosecute Hughes, despite this immunity. So, the credibility of Begley goes way beyond what one person thinks about her -- law enforcement has a stake in her future and her future testimony. She is their pawn. I am interested in her in that I am intrigued as to how she is being used. I have no personal feelings about her except that I regret she lost her father and lost him at a young age.
Move to strike as non-responsive. The question was: Why have you and Virginia McCullough been so inexplicably inclined to suggest that Rachel Begley is either corrupt or incompetent? Why?
YOU SAID: "Because while it may be clear to you, I assure you: It's absolutely baffling from a third-party perspective. You appear, for all the world, to be rooting for Hughes, what with stuff like the posting of an address to which supporters can write."
MY RESPONSE: I am not rooting for Hughes. This forum has a degree of intellectual inquiry into the facts. I am not the one who raised this legal issue. Begley and Powers raised it on television -- the TV show was linked to this thread a few posts ago. When they raised the issue of Hughes' immunity, I simply researched the issue, thought about it and expressed some points. You must know that law is pro and con, and Lincoln said, the job of a lawyer is to spend 99 percent of his time thinking about what the other guy is thinking, (paraphrase of his statement). So to look into what Hughe's defenses might be is simply logical. Not to do so, is simply stupid unless one take the extreme right wing position that defendants should have no defense and no rights and no right to defend themselves.
I actually think that suspects in criminal investigations should have more not fewer rights. And there's not really enough to get going on yet, in terms of logically anticipating Hughes's defense. As Dr. Doogie so correctly points out, the scope of the case against him isn't even known yet.
YOU SAID: "Or, as above, all of a sudden and out-of-the-blue, taking an uncompromising and principled stand on defendant's rights, when it:
(a) represents a 180-degree turn in editorial policy wrt to the defendant in question;
(b) represents a 180-degree turn in editorial policy wrt the general legal implications of advocating on principle for the absolute inviolability of transactional immunity in the context of grand jury investigations, as if your newest and bestest friend were Dick fucking Cheney or something, especially in the context of California state saw, for pity's sake; and
(c) actively obscures the two most fucking obvious legal meanings that Rachel Begley's statement about the immunity having been contingent on the testimony panning out could possibly fucking have in the state of California.
Which are, as I'm sure you know: (1) that he did have transactional immunity, which doesn't protect him from being prosecuted for perjury, and that they do have rock solid evidence that he perjured himself; or (2) that the DA's office had enough on Jimmy Hughes back when to get him to agree to testify in exchange for limited immunity.'
MY RESPONSE: I think you are right that a person who has transactional immunity can be prosecuted for perjury. In fact, I am surprised that the complaint against Hughes does not consist of a perjury charge. It does not. Why? Does law enforcement think he did not perjure himself? I say, if he lied, prosecute him for perjury -- wouldn't that be logical. I guess they don't have a case for perjury. Instead they just ignore his immunity, which you seem to know is "transactional",
I have no idea what kind of immunity he had. Or has. And I didn't say anything that seemed to indicate that I did. He may have waived most of it, for all I know. I simply pointed to the two biggest bluntest exceptions sitting smack-dab in the middle of the statute. One of which would be transactional immunity, open to prosecution from perjury and -- perhaps you know how this language has been interpreted in case law, but I don't, so if you do, I'd love to learn it -- other forfeiture and penalty.
the and charge him with murder 1. I don't know if Hughes had a plea bargain connected to his immunity, in other words, he has a reduced plea for some lesser charged based on his giving true testimony, and which allows the reduced plea to be revoked and then allow him to face charges on the original complaint. I don't know that he ever served any time regarding the triple execution or pled to anything regarding it -- I believe the media would have picked that up and it would be a public record if he actually pled to something in regard to the execution. I haven't seen that. So, it appears to me that Begley and Powers are saying that Hughes perjured himself during grand jury testimony during which he was granted transactional immunity, therefore his immunitiy is somehow "revoked". How stupid can they be? Immunity is never "revoked" by abracadabra it is revoked --- no. It is revoked after perjury is proven in a court of law, unless it was contingent on a plea deal.
Hughes' immunity remains in place and Powers and law enforcement can't revoke it by saying it is revoked.
If you restated that as: "I don't know what the deal is. So it appears to me that the deal is thus-and-such. Scratch that. The deal is thus and such," the number of substantive points you'd made wouldn't be diminished by a number as great as "one."
My question to you is, if Hughes testified before the grand jury about his role and testified presumably about the role of others, then why were those other people not charged in the past and not charged now. Ooops I forgot, John Philip Nichols is mentioned as a conspirator re: murder in the current complaint, but oops, he is dead. Oh well, ooops, the Riverside sheriff and Indio police and Riverside D.A. for whom Pacheco worked during those long years, were unable to make a case against JPN before he died. Ooops ooops ooops. Looks like they can't make a case against anyone else but Glen, but oooops, they are not arresting Glen, not explaining his deal or his immunity, but just accusing him of Murder 1 and letting him walk around a free man. Ooops, oops, oops. The idea of this prosecution is just that Jimmy Hughes must be charged -- forget all the rest of it. So, come on, everyone, have you ever seen a situation like this one? This one takes the cake? No one one God's green earth can believe in the integrity of this complaint and the investigation behind it, when the issue of Glen going free and JPN not being prosecuted for during his lifetime, are not addressed squarely and honestly. Instead, all we hear about is the story of Rachel Begley and John Powers, as if they are characters in a novel, wearing white hats and riding for "justice". Oh, come on, give me a break. The only coverage that I know about in the media other than the work by Virginia McCullough that addressed any of these matters was the TV show cited in this thread. Even Nathan Baca missed the immunity issue. Nathan, where are you?
That's all pure supposition. You don't know what he testified to. You don't know who else is going to be charged. Rachel Begley does not have the power to bring Nichols back to life, assuming that he really is dead, so you can't really lay that one off on her or on anybody else. You don't know what, if any, immunity issues there are. Or at least, not according to you, you don't. If you do, please share your knowledge with the class. I can't answer your question to me. I don't know. I don't pretend to know.
YOU SAID: "Furthermore, while it is, of course, possible that Jimmy Hughes had transactional immunity and that Begley and Powers (and/or anyone on God's green earth, for all you know) did somehow manage to beat the very formidable odds against putting together a bringable case against someone for crimes related to testimony he gave under conditions of transactional immunity, as you "can easily see," from where the fuck are you getting the undercover-wire-tap-by-Rachel-Begley part of your hypothesis? Do you have any reason to believe that such wire-tapping occurred? And if so, that it was done by Rachel Begley? In which case it would almost certainly be not so much "undercover" as it would "illegal and inadmissible in court," not to mention "pretty close to libel per se for you to suggest without so much as a nod in the direction of due diligence"?"
MY RESPONSE: Well I view Begley's conduct, of apparently, and correct me if I am wrong, of apparently going to a meeting Hughes had in Fresno with some religious people, and confronting him about the death of her father.
Now with that I have no issue -- I think anyone can confront anyone about the death of one's father. However, Begley was recording this audio and visual. And doing this without Hughe's knowledge. To me that is a wiretap, i.e. she was wearing a wire and tapping without someone"s knowlege. I guess you are offended by the word "wiretap", but it has legal implications. Usually persons who law enforcement designate as "informers" wear wiretaps, and often law enforcement even provides the little microphones. So the issue here, is whether Begley was in fact working for Powers when she tapped Hughes -- was she law enfordcement's informant, or a mere private person, a citizen sleuth? There are so many issues here, one could write a book about it. Obviously if one is a wired informant for law enforcement there are questions about the legality of the tap. If one is a mere private citizen doing a wire tap, the questions are different. I guess I just view Begley as an informant wearing a wire for law enforcement. Correct me if I am wrong? Wasn't she all involved with John Powers when she went tapping?
Not as far as I'm aware. But I don't actually know. I wouldn't describe what she did as tapping, however. I'd describe it as taping a conversation at an event where there wasn't any reasonable expectation of privacy, and therefore no fourth amendment concerns. I'm not offended by the word "wiretap." But as you say, it does have legal implications. It also has a legal definition, even. Per which, the recorded communication, warrantless or otherwise, have to be electronically or digitally transmitted. Back in the day, that would have literally been over a wire, exclusively. So obviously, the definition has expanded somewhat over time. But it hasn't drifted so far from its moorings that its interchangeable with tape recording your own conversations with someone in public.
YOU SAID: "Also, has it ever occurred to you that as a plain logical proposition, if you're correct in assuming that Begley and Powers have put together enough evidence from independent sources to overcome a grant of transactional immunity, you can't be correct in assuming that they "wriggled around" the law to get it? And vice versa? Because Hughes does have an attorney, you know. And Begley isn't actually in a position to rule on probable cause as an individual and non-aligned actor, all by herself. As I certainly fucking hope you know, usually that's only done by judges. Whom you typically find in courtrooms, possibly asking questions like: "Who authorized this wiretap? Elves?" MY RESPONSE: I think you are right that judges will be ruling away in this case. I can only add that many rulings will involve the investigation and tap done by Begley as she is law enforcement's tool to try to get around the transactional immunity of Hughes, which apparently exists, per the TV show cited in this thread.
You're reading an awful lot into a casual statement made by an ordinary citizen with no legal authorities or responsibilities as an officer of the court and/or law, Ms. Dixon. However, since we agree that any violation of Hughes's rights -- which, by legal definition, can only be violated by the state and not by ordinary citizens -- will be fully adjudicated, and since he's not an indigent defendant, I'd again suggest that we cross those bridges if and when we come to them.
YOU SAID: "As you really and truly must know, full knowledge of every damn detail of the high-stakes poker game that prosecutors looking for bigger fish routinely play with comparatively small-fry suspects is a stone impossibility, for both legal and common sense reasons, 99.9 per cent of the time or oftener. So on what grounds, exactly, is the scenario that you so easily see premised? Do you have any evidence of any kind that supports your point of view? And if so, don't you think it's massively irresponsible of you so completely to ignore your obligation to at least take a shot at presenting it to your readers?" MY RESPONSE: I am not going to buy into the game that prosecutors are somehow working hard behind the scenes to get bigger fish and therefore we should have faith in prosecutors. I don't know what "scenario" you are talking about? I am interested in who actually commited the triple exeuctions. I would like to know their names, living or dead, and what they did in regard to the executions. I would like to see this proven in a court of law and proven openly without sealing every bit of testimony and ever document. If the President of the United States or head of the CIA authorized the hit, I would like to see them named in a complaint and see the case pursued. I personaly do not have any evidence in my possession about this case, if you mean testimony or documents. I have tried to study it by reading about it but much info on the internet and in print is really disinfo. The public is really relying on this current prosecution to deliver the truth and so far we have one man dead, JPN, and Glen, walking around a free man, and one man who had transactional immunity.
Where's the beef?
In a sealed court document or nowhere, at the moment, although logic favors (a) over (b), given the arrest and everything. I've known a few prosecutors who did their jobs as civil servants in the public employ whom I, as a member of the public, would give decent job reviews to were I assigned that task. Although I don't really like to admit it. My politics are kind of inherently anti-Power. And only one of them is a career D.A., I'll concede. The others now work for the other side. And I'll still yet more readily concede that most people aren't that good at their jobs, prosecutors and police fully inclusive. But they're not all pure evil corrupt scum, in reality. It hurts me to say that about the NYPD, it sounds much more positive than reality merits. But technically, it's the truth. I personally don't have any problem with the roll-out of the state's case proceeding at a reasonably gradual rate, as long as they roll it out eventually or drop it before they get into sixth amendment violation territory. Which I'm absolutely and totally not saying this case is anywhere close to approaching, btw. I mean, they only arrested him, like, eight weeks ago. And all delay since then has been at the defense's initiative, not the prosecution's. So I don't really see that there's much of a case to be made for borrowing anxiety about freedom-of-information-abuses-yet-to-come from the future just yet.
YOU SAID: Or are you just speculating? And if so, why are your speculations all conditional on the inherent no-goodness of Rachel Begley?
MY REPONSE: I really don't know Ms. Begley. As far as I am concerned she is a tool of law enforcement at this point, as I have described above. Law enforcement put her on the front line to soldier on for them. I have seen other people in this position in my life and remember the outcome. I remember one guy who soldiered on for law enforcement for years in court and before the media, and when the case was over, I saw him in the hall and try to talk to one of the chief inspectors on the case, like he had in the past, so nice and friendly, lovey-dovey, and guess what the inspector just smiled and turned away from him. The guy was a nothing. His use over. Frankly these law enforcement guys are mostly interested in retiring, getting their fat pensions and working for some high level security type firm, preferably Wackenhut. Ooops. That's a good one. What was the role of Wackenut in the triple executions?
Please see above.
YOU SAID: "Thanks in advance for your attention to these questions. Please let me know if I was unclear in some way or can otherwise be of any assistance to you in answering them. I very much appreciate your consideration and look forward to hearing your responses at your earliest convenience. MY RESPONSE: It was nice going point by point with you because you are smart.
Thank you. I think you're smart too. I just wish I understood you.
YOU SAID: PS: FYI -- Casting aspersions on the character and motivations of random strangers who have no formal power or authority, aren't public figures, and who arent, as far as the eye can see, doing anything that might make them appear to be dishonest or malicious in some way -- ie, by maybe withholding information, or shifting goalposts, or telling inconsistent stories, or being excessively secretive for no apparent reason, or consistently directing attention to some minor side issue, or, I don't know...maybe just vaguely giving the impression that they might be acting in the furtherance of some undisclosed interest simply by displaying a bunch of small behavioral or structural or ideological anomalies that could very well have a perfectly innocent explanation that just isn't easily perceptible or could (but usually aren't) very well be signs that they might be engaged in some enterprise of a potentially conspiratorial nature -- isn't actually really that good of a fit with any of the primary interests by which RI posters are so passionately if irritably united. Although I can totally see how you might have gotten the idea that it was. So no big thing, really. It's strictly a point of information," MY RESPONSE: I am not casting asperions on anyone. This prosecution is not making its position clear about the entire case, it is, rather, just putting Ms. Begley out there, as its quasi-spokesperson. So, anyone who looks at this case, can only learn about it from her press releases and what she says, backed always by Mr. Powers, who makes it seem she is speaking for law enforcement, at least to some extent, and at this time. Really, this prosecution needs to have a good solid press conferencde and clear the air about their case. END.
I'd prefer to just see them bring a good solid case. But I know what you mean. I can't really argue that Rachel Begely isn't the most interesting figure presently visible in a largely unrevealed landscape. She is. But she's not doing anything obviously shady, and she's not responsible for the silence of authorities with real power. Which, in any event, isn't abusive in itself yet anyway, at this stage of the game. It's par for the course, and until that shows signs of being value-negative or value-positive, it's value-neutral when you're only eight weeks into a case for which there's some reason to think that revealing you know more than the law requires you to reveal you know might put your life and the lives of others at risk.
So I still don't understand you. And I still wish that I did. Thanks again for taking me seriously. It's a gift I very much appreciate. My writing style may suggest otherwise, but that really is just stylistic. I do in fact reciprocate the respect, even if I'm not situated to reciprocate it at a rate of equal exchange. And please feel free to continue to express your positions exactly as you hold them, and exactly when and where you choose to do so. I have no wish to interfere with anyone's right to do that. In fact, it's the last thing on earth I'd wish to do, pretty much. As I said, I'd opt for communication and amiability if it were strictly up to me. And I try to. As perhaps and even probably you do as well, even if it may be in some way that I'm just not capable of understanding. Because that would be totally like almost all human interaction ever, in my experience and observation. Based on information, conviction and belief. Except in the order that attorneys actually list those three things, which I'm sure you know and thus hope you'll give me a break by privately rearranging for me as you read them.
And this is so incredibly long, I should probably also thank you again for having made it this far, if you have, and just get out of Dodge before I make it any worse. As I will now do.
Yours truly.
