Posted on 01/19/2003 1:15:49 AM PST by kattracks
ALBANY - Former UN weapons inspector Scott Ritter was secretly prosecuted in Albany County in 2001 after he was snared in an Internet sex sting operation, law enforcement sources told the Daily News.Ritter, who lives in the Albany suburb of Delmar, is now a high-profile critic of President Bush's war preparations.
He was arrested by Colonie Police in June 2001 on a misdemeanor charge after he allegedly had a sexual discussion on the Internet with an undercover investigator he thought was an underage girl, law enforcement sources disclosed on condition of anonymity.
The case was sealed, and Colonie officials declined to release the arrest records, explaining the matter was adjourned in local court in contemplation of dismissal.
The Schenectady Daily Gazette reported yesterday that Albany District Attorney Paul Clyne fired veteran Assistant District Attorney Cynthia Preiser last week for failing to inform him of the case against Ritter.
Clyne said that as a "sensitive" case, it should have been brought to his attention.
Ritter, who has made frequent appearances on network television after speaking to the Iraq National Assembly last year, could not be reached for comment.
Joe Mahoney
In that case, he should be made to register at the State Dept. as a foreign agent.
Looks more like a rumor started to discredit Ritter. Let's see the evidence if there is any. Oh, excuse me -- it's sealed. Posting is a hoax.
Richard W.
Maybe they were trying to win his cooperation, and it didn't work? Or maybe they wanted to have an agent on whom they could rely prominent in the antiwar movement?
What I don't understand is why this news came out now. Maybe Ritter broke the deal he made with whoever it was.
You know that's just going to encourage him.
;-)
When the story was broke yesterday by a local reporter for a Schenectedy (sp?) newspaper, courthouse officials were refusing to say WHAT he was charged with...but an assistant DA was canned for covering it up.
I see that Ritter isn't commenting anymore...guess the "you must have the wrong guy" routine wasn't working.
Ignoring the people who see everyone in the conspiracy, I shall return to my initial thesis. If you will remember, one of the ways that the Clintons turned people was a two pronged approach. They would find a peson who was compromised, but also offer them a bribe (money, job, etc.) If the person spoke out, not only were they compromised by the initial scandal, but they were also under the pay of a Clinton crony, so that they were deemed untrustworthy and ungrateful.
For example, the former Miss America who was both threatened with disclosure of her one-night (apparently unwilling) liason with Clinton, but also was given a role in a television production by Harry Tommason. This is the same pattern. The initial assumption we made when first suspecting Ritter was that he had done this for the money. (Sounds suspiciously like the "book deal" accusation often made against Clinton enemies, doesn't it?) Now we find out what the initial hook was to keep him in line.
I am not explaining myself very well, I think. In almost every case (Webb Hubbell, Susan McDougal,etc.) there was both a threat and a pay-off. The pay-off covers up the threat, should the media go looking into motivation.
If no one has anything to hide, this should be a simple matter, right?
Right Mr. Ritter? Right, Ms. Prieser?
I don't know New York law, but I do know the judge in my state would have to approve of the agreement. However, in Wisconsin, these are called "deferred prosecution agreements" and the judge holds the hearings to approve the DPAs in open court. Once the terms of the DPA are met--usually staying out of trouble for a certain number of months (usually 6 to 24 months), the charges are dismissed and the case goes away. If the person under the DPA gets busted during that time period, the person gets prosecuted on the original charges PLUS the new ones. It's like probation, except this is pre-conviction and there's no visit to a PO. The person is just trusted to be good for that length of time.
It could be the judge's tush is going to be on the line as well. But if only Ritter's lawyer appeared for William S. Ritter (Scott is his middle name) and the prosecutor and defense attorney were in agreement, all the judge would've done is rubber stamp it. He or she may not have known that this was Scott Ritter, talking head.
I do wonder, though, why the ADA would risk her job--and probably her career and law license (if not disbarment, at least a bar ethics investigation and a possible suspension of her law license)--for Scott Ritter. And I wonder where she's working now.
Scott: "Listen up, buddy boy, are all out to get me, every single one of you..Back off now, just back off and let the weapons team do their job..This isn't about ME, it's never been about ME! It's about our boys going to war, getting killed. I love our country..I served in the military!!! I AM a true Patriot!! Let's stay focused on the REAL issue here!".
Wipes foam off his mouth.. as he pops another upper.
"Let me show you my weapons of mass destruction, little sugar plum..."
"Is that an Assistant District Attorney in your pocket, or are you just glad to see me?..."
Hadly so. That ideologue loon also likes to argue for the legalization of child pornography possession.
Since Scott went for some kind of world record one day last week, I believe it's the last one! (Works for me!)
From the article this thread is based on:
The Schenectady Daily Gazette reported yesterday that Albany District Attorney Paul Clyne fired veteran Assistant District Attorney Cynthia Preiser last week for failing to inform him of the case against Ritter.
It does appear reporters have not exactly jumped on the story, so the "coming out" seems to be limited so far to readers of said article, Newsmax and Free Republic.
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.