Posted on 09/10/2002 8:57:02 PM PDT by AJFavish
My petition for certiorari (Adobe Acrobat PDF 159 KB) to the United States Supreme Court was delivered today. (Filing will occur in about a week after the package goes through biological screening.) This is my formal request to the USSC to hear this case and rule that the six withheld photos of the ten being disputed be released. The main portion of this document is in the first 17 pages. The rest is an appendix consisting of prior court decisions in the case. The margins of the document are unusually wide because the hard copy is printed on paper smaller than letter size paper, pursuant to Supreme Court rules. The government and two of Foster's surviviors are deciding whether to file a petition to the USSC to stop release of the remaining four photos that were ordered released by the Ninth Circuit panel. The USSC grants less than 1% of the petitions for certiorari it receives. If the USSC were to grant the petition, then the parties would submit further briefs and there would be oral argument before the USSC in the next year or so.
The petition is in the Foster section of my web site, but here is a direct link to the petition: http://www.allanfavish.com/pet_for_cert.pdf
Regards,
Allan J. Favish
http://www.allanfavish.com
They show a contact wound of small caliber under Foster's right jaw.
This explains why there was no damage to Foster's palate or skull, nor blood under his head, nor bullet in the skull or on the ground beneath.
Harold Weisberg died in February, having devoted careful and irreproachable effort to his investigation.
We're indebted for his efforts and yours.
Will now read your writ.
Question, can the right of personal privacy extend beyond the person's death and might the family be the interpreter of the right in that situation?
There is a deja-vu-all-over-again in the echo of all the obfuscations thrown up in Harold Weisburg's path over the years.
The attempt by the court to invent a right to privacy for families over matters relating to a deceased relative leaps out.
Allusions to grief and anguish are truly obscene. The widow had seen no depression in Foster, nor had any associates.
Expressions of suspicion were squelched by the same forces which moved Suzi Hubbell to blurt how afraid she was of Marsha Scott; just as Webb Hubbell, despite knowledge of monitoring, was moved to say he would have to "roll over one more time to protect the First Lady."
There can be no confidence in the investigations, nor in the rote recitation of the numerous investigations and their conclusions. The imperative was that every investigation would accept the unacceptable.
Such magic acts as the Honda keys "appearing" on Foster's person after Craig Livingstone visited the corpse should blast the investigations to confetti and beg for a fresh look.
The testimony of witnesses to the strange events and disposition of evidence at the park makes the official explanation unlikely.
The torn-up note was not checked for fingerprints. Its discovery in one of Foster's briefcases, after previous searching, is beyond belief.
The "death of a thousand cuts" inflicted on Rodriguez by Toohey and others with Starr's acquiescence indicates a coverup rather than an above-board investigation.
The Freedom of Information Act provides the public with a mechanism to see what it needs to see.
This case, as in Weisburg's, offers a series of "authorities" which presume to tell the public what it has seen, and therefore what it does not need to see, or have a right to see.
The obfuscators thereby demand of us, "Who are you going to believe? This court, or your lying eyes?"
Bravo, Mr. Favish, for your persistence.
You have an audience of concerned citizens here receptive to your findings.
check out # 5
The right of privacy for a person ends when they die. But some courts are still confused about this. In my case, the government based their case on the survivors' right of privacy. I argue in my petition that it doesn't apply here because there is no information about the survivors in the photos.
Question, can the right of personal privacy extend beyond the person's death and might the family be the interpreter of the right in that situation?
AJFavish:
The right of privacy for a person ends when they die. But some courts are still confused about this. In my case, the government based their case on the survivors' right of privacy. I argue in my petition that it doesn't apply here because there is no information about the survivors in the photos.
There is no information about the survivors in the photos.
Facts are terrible impediments to the miscarriage of justice.
Not since 1998 have we seen such appeal to nonexistent rights--in this case, survivors' right of privacy; then, protective service privilege, etc.
When Park Police investigators Braun and Rolla informed Lisa Foster that her husband was dead, Webb Hubbell physically interceded, blocking the investigators with his body.
Before leaving the Foster household, Braun and Rolla asked, "Did you see this coming? Were there any signs? Was he taking any medication?" Ruddy, p.109, reports "No. All negative answers."
On the night of Foster's death, Clinton confidant Webb Hubbell had arranged for Hamilton to represent the Foster family.--Ruddy p. 139 citing Hubbell FBI statement June 7, 1994.
Maureen Dowd found James Hamilton's advice to Clinton remarkable: "Even the Nixon crowd did not stoop to asserting that questionable discussions are protected by lawyer-client privilege." Ruddy p. 140 quoting Dowd.
Hamilton continued to represent the Foster family and was rewarded by Clinton with an appointment to the President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board.
James Moody received an appointment by President Bill Clinton in 1995 to the federal bench in the Eastern District of Arkansas.
James Moody and Lisa Foster were married January 1, 1996.
Moody's son Neil was killed August 26, 1996. One account says he'd found something odd in his step-mother's belongings, was promising a blockbuster to a columnist, was last seen arguing in the front seat of a car when it suddenly accelerated into a wall, killing Neil.
Vince Foster's sister Sheila Foster Anthony, as [per J. Orlin Grabbe] "an Assistant Attorney General, Office of Legislative Affairs, where her duties included liaison with Congress, clearance of bills before they were forwarded to the Office of Management and Budget, and help in selecting nominees for the positions of U.S. Attorney, U.S. Marshall, and Federal Judge" transferred $286,000 from a DNC account to Lisa four days before Foster's death.
Mike Wallace was paid $150,000 by the DNC [Grabbe] to do his 60 Minutes hit piece on Ruddy in 1995, a hatchet job requiring 300-400 edits in which Ruddy is never allowed to utter a complete sentence, and Gerald Posner (Case Closed) is allowed to take unlimited pot shots at Ruddy.
Lisa Foster Moody and Sheila Foster Anthony seem to be willing components of a well-oiled machine. Money and appointments have assuaged concerns over a murder disguised.
Webb Hubbell has shown he follows orders ultimately eminating from "the First Lady". Hubbell's intercession into the investigation of the suspicious death of a reputed former Hillary lover can rightly be viewed through the RICOscope.
Hamilton was advising Clinton how to cover up Whitewater (per Dowd) when he was tasked to stay with "the Foster family".
Sheila Foster Anthony, given an appointment by this organization, in an odd, unexplained coincidence, delivers $286,000 from the DNC to Lisa Foster a mere four days before Vince's death. Now Sheila objects on "privacy" grounds to the release of the photos.
Lisa marries a newly-annointed Federal judge--yet more Clinton largesse, directed to the vortex of the hurricane.
I posit the "embarrassment" and "angst" alleged to be incumbent on the release of the photos is in reality simply the self-protective reflex of the guilty.
The objection is not legal, and originates in the body of the beast, the Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organization responsible for the body in Fort Marcy Park.
veritas omnia vincit
And the veritas is all on Mr. Favish's side.
The opposition, finding itself deficient in law and fact, argues angst.
Gotta go with the law.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.