Posted on 03/13/2003 8:06:41 AM PST by Scholastic
Flight 800: Breakthrough!
Posted: March 13, 2003 1:00 a.m. Eastern
© 2003 WorldNetDaily.com
One cannot underestimate the impact of what has just transpired in James and Elizabeth Sanderses' ongoing civil suit against the federal government and seven named individuals. The case number is federal EDNY, #01-CV-5447 JS.
The United States government has declined to respond to the Sanderses' summary judgment motion – "Rule 56.1 Statement." Incredibly, by so declining, U.S. Attorney Kevin Cleary has conceded that the Sanderses' 32 damning charges against his clients cannot be rebutted.
In so conceding, the Justice Department tacitly acknowledges that, yes, the TWA Flight 800 investigation has been corrupted and, no, we are not prepared to contest this fact.
In sum, Cleary has thrown in the towel on a case that ranks among the most egregious violations of a reporter's constitutional rights in the history of American journalism.
From the beginning, the story of TWA Flight 800, the one that James Sanders chronicled, has been a story of humanity betrayed – none more so than the 230 good souls aboard that doomed plane.
Fifty-three of the dead were TWA employees. James' wife, Elizabeth Sanders, had trained many of the attendants on board and knew several of the pilots. Their deaths wounded the sweet, vulnerable Elizabeth deeply. In the weeks afterward, she and her TWA colleagues passed numbly from one memorial service to another, their grief matched only by their growing anger at the obvious misdirection of the investigation. One of those colleagues, 747 pilot and manager Terry Stacey, would become James Sanders' best source within that investigation.
From the beginning, too, James Sanders has recognized the humanity of those who have tried to block him from telling this story. In his civil suit, as in his reporting – including the book he and I have co-authored, "First Strike, TWA Flight 800 and the Attack on America" – Sanders has never shied from putting a human face on injustice.
What makes Sanders' legal case so powerful is that he targets not merely the anonymous monolith of "government," but seven named defendants within. These are real people with real fears who, for a variety of reasons, yielded to those fears and betrayed the trust of the American people. For several years now, Sanders is all that has stood between them and knowledge that they got away with it. No doubt, they are anxious about this turn of events. One hopes major media will seek them out and exploit that anxiety.
As Sanders argued in his summary judgment motion, the named defendants used their legal authority not to protect the federal Flight 800 investigation, but to thwart Sanders' reporting on their own lawlessness. In the process, the defendants knowingly violated the First, Fourth and Fifth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution.
The persecution of Sanders can be traced to March 10, 1997, when California's Riverside Press-Enterprise headlined its front page with an article titled, "New Data Show Missile May Have Nailed TWA 800." Written by Loren Fleckenstein, the story identified James Sanders as an "investigative reporter," provided information on his previous non-fiction books, and described his inquiry into the FBI and NTSB Flight 800 investigation over the preceding five months.
This story created a significant problem for the Justice Department. The article's text confirmed that Sanders was on the trail of potential criminal activity within the Flight 800 investigation. As to those charged with containing the investigation, their worst nightmare had been realized. Forensic evidence had left the hangar. Some unknown person within the investigation had removed a pinch of material from the plane as telling and potentially damaging as Monica's famed "blue dress." That person was Terry Stacey. He removed it of his own volition and sent it to Sanders.
This piece of seatback was laced with the DNA of the crash, a reddish-orange residue trail that streaked across a narrow section of the plane's interior. The FBI had lifted samples in early September 1996, then refused to share the test results with the NTSB. For the record, those tests today remain classified under the guise of national security.
Once the story had broken, the Clinton Justice Department used its considerable powers to thwart Sanders. The key to its strategy was the denial of Sanders' standing as a journalist by two Justice Department lawyers, Valerie Caproni and Benton Campbell. The current Justice Department now concedes that these two attorneys did the following:
conspired to print factually false information in a Justice Department letter to deprive [James Sanders] of his civil rights afforded by the PPA (Privacy Protection Act). By falsely alleging they did not know plaintiff was a journalist, defendants conspired to create an illegal scheme allowing them to subpoena and obtain work product and documents because, per the scheme, they did not know [Sanders] was a journalist until after receiving work product and documents.
The charges went beyond the two attorneys. The current Justice Department has chosen not to contest the following related charge from Sanders' civil suit:
Within seconds of learning that the overarching conspiracy [FBI agents Jim Kallstrom and Jim Kinsley, NTSB Chairman Jim Hall, NTSB head of investigation Bernie Loeb, and NTSB head of the Fire & Explosion Team Merritt Birky] were engaged in to alter the outcome of the TWA 800 federal 'investigation' was compromised by [James Sanders], CAPRONI and CAMPBELL knew beyond any doubt that [Sanders] was a journalist protected by PPA and Justice Department CFR (Code of Federal Regulations) 50.10. Defendants CAPRONI and CAMPBELL, in order to protect themselves and their co-conspirators, knowingly and willfully widened the overarching conspiracy to include violating [Sanders] PPA civil rights by using grand jury subpoena power to illegally seize work product.
The Sanders' suit details the way this conspiracy worked and names those responsible. Again, the Justice Department has let these incriminating charges stand unrebutted:
Defendants, no later than March 11, 1997, falsely said the reddish-orange residue was glue. Defendants HALL and LOEB made this false statement to Congress on March 11, 1997. Defendant BIRKY inserted this false information into the Fire & Explosion Team "Factual Report" … Defendants removed substantially all reddish-orange residue from rows 17-19. LOEB was then given the assignment to lie to Congress and state there was no residue trail on the seats inside Calverton Hangar.
At the FBI's Nov. 18, 1997 press conference, Kallstrom made the following claim about this residue trail:
The seat cushion residue, reported in the Riverside, Calif., press, of the residue that someone said was rocket fuel. The truth is the material is contact adhesive.
We know without a doubt – without any doubt whatsoever – that it's the adhesive that holds the back of the seats together. It's not rocket fuel. It's not residue of a rocket, never was, never will be.
The Justice Department, in essence, now concedes Kallstrom's "statement was false, [and] known to be false." Justice also concedes that "KALLSTROM and KINSLEY conspired to create a factually false illusion that [James Sanders] had misrepresented the [red residue tests]."
In fact, the residue was demonstrably not glue. The Justice Department also concedes that another FBI agent gave false testimony about the red residue by choosing not to contest the following charge:
FBI agent Ken Maxwell, testifying at the [Sanders'] criminal trial April 7, 1999, falsely stated the FBI first observed the reddish-orange [trail] in late October to early November [1996]. This factually false statement was made as a part of a conspiracy with [Justice Department attorney] PITOFSKY to place the peak FBI point of interest in the residue at the same period of time [James Sanders] and [Terry] Stacey were discussing removal for testing purposes.
If there were a consistent strategy among the seven defendants, it was to de-humanize the Sanderses – to strip away their dignity and individuality. This strategy reached its tragi-comic peak on Dec. 5, 1997 when the FBI's New York office Internet site proudly headlined the story of the Sanderses' arrest: "Conspiracy theorist and wife charged with theft of parts from airplane," and scrolled it across the top of its home page. The arrest warrant was shot through with false statements. In his suit, Sanders would credit FBI agents Jim Kallstrom and Jim Kinsley for this misrepresentation – and the Justice Department now concedes these constitutional violations.
Here is another critical point that the Justice Department has chosen not to contest: "On Dec. 5, 1997, the New York Justice Department-FBI website, coordinated with the KALLSTROM-KINSLEY conspiracy to vilify [James Sanders]." By labeling Sanders a "conspiracy theorist" on its website, the FBI employed a subjective characterization that violates the FBI's own guidelines.
Things got uglier four days later when FBI agent Jim Kinsley paraded James and Elizabeth through a throng of reporters, their hands cuffed behind their backs. Throughout it, Elizabeth worried deeply about what her aging mother, a Philippine immigrant, would think. Sanders would remember her hurt in his civil suit and charged Kinsley with inflicting it by orchestrating a gratuitous and illegal "perp walk."
Kinsley was also involved in one of the more clever bits of illegal mischief. As the Sanderses charge, and the Justice Department concedes, federal prosecutor David Pitofsky recognized that Kinsley's seizure of Sanders' computer was illegal. So Pitofsky initiated a scheme in which relevant printouts of that information would be sent to publisher Alfred Regnery. He and Kinsley then jointly contacted Regnery and demanded the publisher turn all over related documents in his possession, which he did.
At almost every turn in this sordid tale, cleverness trumped honor. The legal deck was stacked from the beginning and the jury pool poisoned. In April 1999, James and Elizabeth Sanders stood trial in Long Island before a jury shielded from the knowledge that James Sanders was acting as a journalist uncovering the criminal acts of federal agents, let alone that he was being prosecuted by the very agents he had hoped to expose.
As typical in a criminal trial, the prosecution got the last word. "A conspiratorial government going after these people?" David Pitofsky scoffed. "And, to what end? What is the government's motive? Ask yourself that. What is the government's motive to falsely implicate these people?"
One can hardly fault the jury for not knowing. They heard nothing about corruption within the investigation. They did not know about James Sanders' First Amendment right to expose that corruption or that his attempt to assert that right had been denied.
All they knew was that these two likely thieves may or may not have conspired to steal evidence from a crime scene. And why believe these "conspiracy theorists"? The establishment media obviously didn't. Besides, what reason did their government have to "falsely implicate these people?"
The jury returned after less than two hours of deliberation. Elizabeth clutched her husband's hand, almost too anxious to speak. She hoped for the best, but feared the worst. The worst is what they got.
"Guilty as charged" – both Sanderses – not only for conspiracy, but also for aiding and abetting in the theft of the fabric. The audience gasped in disbelief. Even Judge Joanna Seybert looked stunned.
David Pitofsky beamed in delight. "The jury understood," he said, spinning nonsense even in victory, "that no responsible reporter would believe they could break into a place to get a story.'' At this sad moment of truth, as she wept softly, one thought flashed through Elizabeth's mind, "What will my mother think?"
The Justice Department now concedes that it "fabricated a defense where none existed" in earlier opposing the Sanderses' civil action. It also concedes there is no defense for the 32 counts of federal lawlessness committed in pursuit of destroying a journalist and his wife.
Today, as the Sanderses await Judge Seybert's summary judgment ruling, the major media have the opportunity finally to recognize the innocent, to rebuke the guilty and to avenge the dead. Whether they choose to tell it or not, this is a story that will not go away.
And with good reason: The NTSB has never issued an official cause for TWA800. They have only offered a theory, backed by the rather unique assistance of the Central Intelligence Agency.
A good civil lawyer (like the incomparable Gerry Spence) would certainly exploit this and Boeing would come out vindicated.
Not exactly, counselor. IF the movant has satisfied their initial burden on summary judgment of essentially showing by whatever means there is no genuine issue of material fact, it is then up to the non-movant to show discovered facts outside of the pleadings that prove there are sufficient material facts in question. While this is the federal standard (where this case is), state standards vary. In Texas, for example, there is no requirement on the part of the non-movant to even respond. The motion for summary judgment stands or falls on it's own.
Either way, it has nothing to do with "admitting" anything, only acknowledging whether there are or are not sufficient material fact issues. Summary judgment is a huge part of my practice, and I win the majority of mine. I would almost never recommend a non-movant not respond, but getting sloppy when it comes to burdens on either party can prove fatal -- either at that time or on appeal.
We already thrashed this issue out in posts 79 and 118. 56.1 is an EDNY Local Rule, not FRCP at all. So it wasn't the motion in its entirety, just the SMF that the government allegedly didn't respond to. That would go to the establishment of facts - not the granting of the motion - but only if certain other events did not occur. Since this is an interested party and not an independent reporter, and nobody has disclosed the pleadings or the government's response, the story really doesn't tell us what (if anything) the consequences will be.
Just like Texas, the Georgia Fed Districts (and the state courts, too) do not grant a MSJ simply because the opposing party does not respond. The movant still has to demonstrate that no disputed question of material fact exists and that he is entitled to judgment as a matter of law, with all inferences construed against him. Not always an easy task. And a plaintiff's MSJ is significantly more difficult to win than a defendant's MSJ.
In the deathless words of Topsy, "Somebody ain't tellin' all they knows."
When I was in private practice, my rule was never to file a MSJ if I wasn't pretty darned sure I could win it. I would settle the losers rather than file a useless motion, unless the plaintiffs weren't amenable to a reasonable settlement, in which case we took it to trial and either settled it on the courthouse steps or fought it out in front of the jury. (Surprising how many lawyers don't REALLY want to try a case, isn't it? :-D )
One unexpected side benefit of this practice was that after a few years the judges knew that I didn't file junk. They seemed to appreciate that. Did it tip a close case my way? Don't know. But making judges' lives easier is a good rule to live by!
You are just erecting a strawman to knock down.
No one with knowledge of the sequence of events is maintaining that the "massive fireball" was the explosion of the CWT. The Massive Fireball was the explosion of the fuel from the almost full wing tanks that had ruptured by the time the aircraft had descended from 13,800 feet (where the initiating event occured whether it be missile or CWT exposion) to under 8,000 where the Large Fireball was witnessed.
Exterminators! Keep Lincoln's old adage in mind: the best thing for the business of a small country lawyer in a small town is the appearance of another lawyer.
Our coming out of the woodwork on Freerepublic.com may not help our business (and I am in government in any event), but maybe some day we can get our TWP posts back.
I suspect I have read much more of the evidence and qualifications than have you. Enjoy your train trip.
I have... and posted the math here on FR. The math, based on radar returns and triangulation, shows that TWA-800 climbed a maximum of 200 feet (more likely less than 100) before beginning a ballistic fall that terminated in the Atlantic Ocean exactly where the math said it would in the time the math said it would.
The CIA scenario (~3000 foot climb in ~8 seconds) and the NTSB scenario (~1700 foot climb in ~8 seconds) REQUIRE an additional 8 seconds of FALL TIME from the peak altitude merely to return to the altitude of the initiating event... which adds SIXTEEN SECONDS to the time to fall from ~13,800 feet (the altitude of the initiating event)... time which cannot be accounted for in the radar returns! At least FOUR MORE radar returns would have been shown had either scenario occurred.
In addition, your argument about kinetic energy conservation holds no water. If TWA-800 had given up forward momentum for vertical climb, the parabola of the ballistic fall would have been much steeper (larger vertical radii, shorter horizontal radii). In other words, had there been any significant climb at all, the splahsdown location would have been MUCH closer to the position of the initiating event than it was. Since the radar returns and the splashdown location coincide almost exactly with a theoretical ballistic fall from the initiating event at ~13,800 feet, there was no climb.
Show me math from your "good aerodynamics book" that will allow a 747 to climb and fall 3000 feet adding an additional SIXTEEN SECONDS and still splash down when and where it actually did. You can't. And neither can the CIA or the NTSB.
OK, here are some of your eyewitness accounts. All describe something different. So which are right and which are BS?
EYEWITNESS Michael Wire, described by the CIA as a key eyewitness, saw what he at first thought was a "cheap firework" ascending from behind a house near the beach, arching over, speeding out to sea, and culminating in an explosion so powerful that it shook a 70-ton bridge on which he was standing.
EYEWITNESS Dwight Brumley, an excellent witness according to the CIA, was in a plane going north when he noticed a fast-moving light at a lower altitude also going north. Its flight ended with two explosions a short distance ahead. He said another passenger told him he had seen the cabin lights of eastbound TWA 800 before the explosions.
EYEWITNESS Richard Goss was on the porch of the Westhampton Yacht Club gazing over the ocean. He saw what he thought was a firework going straight up. It was very bright, almost pink. It arched over and went south out to sea, but it then made a sharp left turn. Two explosions followed, the second more to the east and larger, like something broke off and caught fire.
EYEWITNESS Paul Angelides, an engineer, from the deck of his beach house saw a red glowing object quite high in the sky. At first it moved slowly, leaving a short white smoke trail, but it picked up speed, streaking out to sea. He lost sight of it when it was about 10 degrees above the horizon. He then saw a series of flashes followed by a fireball falling into the ocean. He heard a prolonged boom like thunder followed by three loud bursts of sound, the last so strong that it shook the house.
EYEWITNESS Maj. Frederick Meyer was in an Air National Guard helicopter when he saw a streak of light 10 or 15 miles away for 3 to 5 seconds. He lost it for about a second, and then further to the left he saw two bright white explosions, which he identified as ordnance, followed by a fuel explosion that was bright orange.
EYEWITNESS William Gallagher was on his boat facing east 10 to 12 miles west of TWA 800 when he saw what looked like a red flare heading into the sky from the horizon from his right to his left, meaning that it was going toward the shore. He said it became a "big white ball of light, from which two orange streaks emerged. One went down and the other arched up a little before coming down," he said.
EYEWITNESS #649 was in Westhampton when he noticed an object from behind the trees in front of him. It was bright white with a reddish pink aura, rising vertically at moderate speed. It then veered southwest, out to sea, appearing to slow and "wiggle." It then speeded up. He noticed it was going toward what appeared to be stationary glittering object higher in the sky. It looked like it would miss that object, but in less than a second he saw a white flash followed by another farther east, and two objects arching upward, trailing smoke that turned into large balls of fire
All different, half say the missile came from shore, and not a single one resembles any of the missile firings that I've ever seen, and I personally witnessed over a dozen, both day and night. I've seen Standard missiles fired, Tarter missiles fired, I even saw them shoot off one of the old Talos missiles once, and they are all alike. The launch is marked by a brilliant flash of fire. The missile gives off a plume of smoke and flame that trails behind it for a hundreds of feet. None of these accounts sound anything like that. None of the accounts that I've seen from anyone sounds like that.
So I don't know what caused the plane to explode. I just know what it can't be, based on your 'evidence'. It wasn't a Navy missile.
Under different circumstances, and you have to admit that they did a bang up job of hushing that one up, too. </sarcasm>
But hey, far be it from me to piss all over your Post Toasties. You believe whatever you want to believe.
In some 30 years of litigation experience I have never seen the government fail to contest a summary judgment motion. Not only is this minor, it is an extremely significant breakthrough.
Please explain also how such a failure to contest by the government is something other than a fact?
The only question here is whether the assertion of the fact is true, which is a matter of public record.
I still remember a very early radio news item that mentioned the FBI questioned the owner of a boat rental operation. Never heard or read that again in the news.
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.