Flight 800: Breakthrough!

WorldNetDaily ^ | March 13, 2003 | Jack Cashill

[jim35]

I just picked the first thing that popped into my head. But no, I sure as heck haven't forgotten those FBI files. I'm tired of all those "level headed" people telling me that there's no such thing as a conspiracy. It's true that there some nuts who see a conspiracy around every corner, but that doesn't negate the fact that they do indeed exist.

[Quix]

PRAISE GOD!

ANSWER TO PRAYER!

SOCK IT TO EM, LORD!

MAKE DILLDO AND HER UNROYAL LOWNESS; HER HIDEOUS HEINOUS BWITCH SHRILLARY BE COVERED IN THE SLIME HE FORCED ON THE INNOCENT FOR PERSONAL AND EVIL BENEFIT IN ALL THIS, LORD.

AND ASAP, PLEASE!

[duk]

What happened to the bad Feds?
How involved was their leadership?

If the fruit is bad, so are the roots!!

[Spirited]

We have national insecurity and in the guise of "national security" Constitutional freedoms have been stolen. What has been constituted is a means of lying for any or no reason and a "right" for the elite to denegrate and incarcerate those who dare to look for truth, much less to expose it.

Bump for later read.

[DoughtyOne]

Thanks Jim. And I agree with you. Kooks are kooks. And denying conspiracies exist can make you a damned big kook in some instances.

[Steve Van Doorn]

”The fact that people who drive SUVs are losers has nothing at all to do with oil or gas. They are all just goofballs.” Across Posted 2/24/2003

”do you conspiracy freaks know how weird you are?” Across Posted 3/13/2003

Yes

[NEPA]

There's a good chance you're right and I'm wrong. My points are wishful thinking. I just get so fed up with the Bush admin having to take the heat for all the crap they inherited (economy, 9/11, lousy Justice and State dep'ts). Sometimes for the good of Bush's own reputation I wish he would take the gloves off. Showing the FBI/Reno Justice obstructed justice with a phoney investigation would help to show terrorists figured they had nothing to fear from the US and were emboldened to continue eventually leading to 9/11.

But again it's really just wishful thinking. My dream of seeing the Clinton's doing a perp walk for all their crimes will never happen.

[FBD]

ACross:"do you conspiracy freaks know how weird you are? "

Do you know how EVIAN, er... NAIVE you sheeeple types are?

YOU probably believe all the below, then?

#1 Clinton bombing Iraq in 97-98 had nothing to do with impeachment.
#2 There are no links terrorist links to Saddam.
#3 The FBI Director and Janet Reno never obstructed any investigation.
#4 The Carinivore program doesn't exist.
#5 Vince Foster's hard drive wasn't destroyed.
#6 Mena Arkansas airport never had cocaine run through it.
#7 There were no FBI files in the Clinton White house.
#8 Ruby Ridge - The FBI told the whole Truth, and nothing but the Truth.
#9 Clinton never sold military/nuclear technology to the Chi-Coms.
#10 WACO-Janet Reno did it to save the children!

</font. Yes, I suppose all the above are just Wacky Conspiracy Theories...

[PhilDragoo]

What the suit failes to expose again (at least by appearances), is that the perposterous "center fuel tank" fantasy was a fictional concoction from the get go, without a single thread of evidence or justification.

No evidence but CIA made a cartoon where the nose separated and chased the fuselage for 3,000 feet of vertical climb mimicking a missile.

The CIA which Deutch in Gertz' Breakdown admitted his intent was to "f--k 'em" [CIA].

A hundred witnesses saw the missile and the radar track showed the small, fast boat.

Now in public Hillary laments aloud our airports are not safe from Stinger-type missiles.

She and her American Muslim Council friends would know.

Arlen Specter's Magic Bullet Commission Exhibit 399 caused seven wounds in two men including two wounds in bone without losing but two grains of its 160-grain weight while emerging in perfect original form--a feat impossible to duplicate and never observed.

Those who "believe" the center fuel tank "believe" the Magic Bullet and are loud about it--after all, it's a job.

TWA Flight 800 just like OKCBomb was the tradecraft of Islamist terrorists.

John Doe #2 was an Iraqi army veteran and Timothy Nichols trained with Ramsey Youssef the nephew of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed.

The Clinton CoPresidency was not "inept" about discovering Islamist terrorism, it was complicit with it and remains so to this day.

[Cboldt]

I don't know anything about this case, and after reading this I still don't. I do know that there are other reasons not to respond to a motion.

In this case, it is a motion for summary judgement. Such a motion will be granted if there are no grounds for a trial. There are no grounds for a trial if there is no issue of material fact, and judgement is permitted by law. There is no need to re-assert that there are issues of material fact; and any facts in dispute must be given to the non-moving party in order to render a decision on the motion (i.e., take the government's side AS TRUE! and faced with that, conclude that the opponent wins anyway).

[M. Peach]

Do you or anyone else here know whatever happened to the guy who sued the FBI in the Vince Foster case? He had proof that they tried to cover that up - I can't remember all of the details - but he also had evidence of a cover-up and he was winning in court - I think his name was Patrick Knowles.

[Reborn]

This is great news!!! Thank you for posting it!

[the gillman@blacklagoon.com]

Patrick Knowlton was a witness at Fort Marcy Park.
Alan Favish was sueing to get the autopsy/photos released. He always seems to be almost there.

[PhilDragoo]

Patrick Knowlton was doing a book.

Allan J. Favish is still pursuing the crime scene photos and posts from time to time as ajfavish I believe.

[dansangel]

Also posted here:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/863520/posts?

[Cboldt]

I mispoke. The non-moving party has to produce (or have earlier produced!) evidence that there is an issue of material fact. The government may have already introduced evidence sufficient to meet the burden of the motion of summary judgement.

[tomswiftjr]

Here is the standard for a MSJ:

Summary judgment may be granted when the pleadings and evidence demonstrate that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. See FED. R. Civ. P. 56(c); Celotex Corp. v Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986); Diamond v. Atwood, 43 F.3d 1538, 1540 (D.C. Cir. 1995). Courts have defined a genuine issue as one that could change the outcome of the litigation. See Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986).

All evidence and inferences based on evidence must be considered in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. See Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587 (1986). Summary judgment must be granted if the movant "fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to that party's case, and on which that party will bear the burden of proof at trial." Celotex, 477 U.S. at 322. By pointing out the absence of evidence to support the nonmoving party's case, the movant can demonstrate that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact, therefore entitling it to summary judgment. See id. at 325.

Sounds like the movants have hit a home run if the govt does not oppose the motion. Remember, the atty for the govt can be sanctioned under FRCP 11 for filing a frivilous motion if he opposed the motion when it was both legally and factually true.

[Calpernia]

This is a good article supporting that theory too:

http://www.flight800.org/missile_threat.htm

[AnAmericanMother]

From the story, it looks like what the govt did not respond to was not the MSJ, but the "Rule 56.1 Statement" -

I am sitting here looking at my brand new Federal Rules book for 2003, just delivered last week. There IS no FRCP "Rule 56.1" - goes straight from Rule 56 to Rule 57. In Georgia, however, we have a Local Rule 56.l in the Northern District, which does lay out procedure for preparing a "statement of material facts not in dispute" and declares that "all material facts contained in the moving party's statement which are not specifically controverted by the respondent in respondent's statement shall be deemed to have been admitted." LR 56.1 (B) (2). I suppose the Eastern District of New York has a similar rule. But there is a follow-on provision that you can respond with "insufficient knowledge to admit or deny" when you have been unable to obtain affidavits to verify under FRCP 56 (f). It may well be that the government is heading in that direction, or it may be moving to strike the MSJ as inadequate in its entirety for some reason.

This article doesn't explain nearly enough for us to tell what they are talking about. A decent news story ought to explain any technical terms used and their significance. This one just says "Rule 56.1 statement" and then leaves us all wondering what on earth happened. Plus, the reporter ought to go down to the courthouse and read the pleadings, not just take a party's word for it (which appears to be what happened here.)

[thinktwice]

My point?

Beyond the ambiguity, take a look at evidence from professional aviators.