Bloody Fangs of the New World Order

[fastpat]

Begun by Clinton and continued by Bush, two peas in the worthless pod.

Bloody Fangs of the New World Order
Posted by Daniel McAdams at 08:35 AM

Today's apparent death of former Serbian president, Slobodan Milosevic bares the bloody fangs of the New World Order, a totalitarian construct of the United States and allies to fill in the post Cold War void:

"If we cannot convict you on our lies, we will at least make sure you don't get out alive."

Let us recall that Milosevic was captured -- kidnapped -- by the NWO shock troops in exchange for aid promised to a Serbia recently decimated by NATO bombs to halt a genocide that subsequent investigation proved a lie by the Clinton Administration and dutifully amplified in the lap-dog media.

The initial charges of genocide in Kosovo were so obviously trumped up -- there was the problem of a lack of bodies -- that the Hague kangaroo court was forced to drop that central part of its case. Chief prosecutor Carla del Ponte was herself quoted as saying that no genocide charges were brought against Milosevic, "Because there is no evidence for it."

The court then scrambled to find something else with which to charge Milosevic, all the while Milosevic rotted away in a jail cell convicted of nothing.

Milosevic's real crime in the eyes of the Hague was that he did not do what was expected: confess to all the crimes you can think of, bow to the authority of the court, accept your sentence. How DARE he question the authority of the Hague Tribunal?!? Like their moral and historical forebears the international tribunals are all set up with only one conclusion possible: conviction. Though perhaps the court did not get the conviction they wanted in the Milosevic case, I suppose in their eyes they did get the next best thing.
http://blog.lewrockwell.com/

[techweenie]

Anyone think Saddam will live to the end of his trial?

Anyone notice that the 'atrocities' sold to the Ameican people aren't among the charges he's being tried for?

The 'gassing the Kurds' charge may just fade away like the 'throwing babies out of incubators' charge did in the Desert Storm era.

[tabs]

OHHHH and we think that this is something new...what a fool you are....in all of human history the Victor usually chops off the head of the vanquished leader. Thats the price U pay for losing...

[RallyJon]

Anyone notice that the 'atrocities' sold to the Ameican people aren't among the charges he's being tried for?

Kinda like Al Capone.

They just picked a few killings that had really obvious SH fingerprints on them to make for a quick conviction. Worked great, huh?

[techweenie]

Originally posted by RallyJon
Kinda like Al Capone.

They just picked a few killings that had really obvious SH fingerprints on them to make for a quick conviction. Worked great, huh?

I'm actually hoping that's the strategy. It does seem pretty cut and dried, and presumably the penalty would be as great as an 'atrocity trial' penalty, but I can't see how it would be sold as "justice" to the Kurds. And right now, every faction needs to feel its being considered.

As for the in-courtroom antics, they make Ito look like he was a control freak.

But back to Milosovic. I heard that $1 billion had been spent on his trial... that's gotta sting.

[RallyJon]

I'm sure someone has studied the symbolic value of a formal trial. It must be worth it, otherwise why bother? Maybe it really does help victims of these people find some sort of closure and get on with their lives. One can make the argument that society triumphed over anarchy that way--important when we're trying to sell the whole rule of law concept to them. A well-deserved bullet in the back of the head upon their capture would give closure, but you'd be no closer to civilization.

[nota]

Milosovic was a pig
and we are better off with him dead
to bad there was no legal way to kill him

but the NEW WORLD ORDER BS is so wrong
BTW there are NO BLACK CHOPPERS eathor
the UN is a debaiting club and toothless
I worry more about BuSh2 and his gang
then any external threats inc the terrorests

[fastpat]

Originally posted by RallyJon
Kinda like Al Capone.

They just picked a few killings that had really obvious SH fingerprints on them to make for a quick conviction. Worked great, huh?

Al Capone was never convicted of murder. In fact the crime for which he spend time in jail until his death was federal tax evasion. Capone died of tertiary syphillis, which the feds refused to treat.

[RallyJon]

That was my point in bringing up Capone. It's common to ignore the obvious--but hard to prove--crimes and prosecute for whatever you can make stick to get the scumbag (or unfairly persecuted noble humanitarian, if you'd rather) behind bars.

[fastpat]

Originally posted by nota
Milosovic was a pig

Actually he was a socialist, much like Bush, but killed fewer people.

and we are better off with him dead

Ibid.

to bad there was no legal way to kill him

There is one for Bush; charging him with mass murder, trying him for the same, and carrying out the sentence.

but the NEW WORLD ORDER BS is so wrong

No, it's quite true. Bush's father used that very term.

BTW there are NO BLACK CHOPPERS eathor9sic0

Yes, in fact there are black helicopters. Take a look at the 160th Aviation Regiment based in Fort Campbell, Kentucky. They use a special version of the IR absorbant paint for their birds that is black.

the UN is a debaiting club and toothless

They're worse than that.

I worry more about BuSh2 and his gang
then any external threats inc the terrorests

Quite true.

[fastpat]

Originally posted by RallyJon
That was my point in bringing up Capone. It's common to ignore the obvious--but hard to prove--crimes and prosecute for whatever you can make stick to get the scumbag (or unfairly persecuted noble humanitarian, if you'd rather) behind bars.

When you allow government to disobey the law, what you get is much worse than if a scumbag like Al Capone had gone free.

All of Capone's operations were carried out with the blessing of corrupt government officers and from government creating a business climate ripe for exploitation by gangsters. Modern drug prohibition is doing exactly the same thing.

[RallyJon]

If you want to argue that angle, you'll get a lot more agreement if you avoid megalomaniac genocidal war criminals and stick to the abuses our own justice department perpetrates on relatively minor offenders. Like Martha Stewart and Scooter Libby.

[fastpat]

Originally posted by RallyJon
If you want to argue that angle, you'll get a lot more agreement if you avoid megalomaniac genocidal war criminals and stick to the abuses our own justice department perpetrates on relatively minor offenders. Like Martha Stewart and Scooter Libby.

Those are all pieces of the overall crime.

[Hugh R]

gotta agree, a number of years ago, the Los Angeles Police raided a guys place near Malibu on suspicions of drugs, it eventually turned out to be a force "eminent domain" type of thing. no drugs, fabricated evidence, etc. This goes back 15-20 years, so I'm a little fuzzy on the specifics.

[techweenie]

Originally posted by Hugh R
gotta agree, a number of years ago, the Los Angeles Police raided a guys place near Malibu on suspicions of drugs, it eventually turned out to be a force "eminent domain" type of thing. no drugs, fabricated evidence, etc. This goes back 15-20 years, so I'm a little fuzzy on the specifics.

Yeah, I posted about that last year. Something like 34 law enforcement types descended on the guys ranch operating on an aerial observation that he was growing pot.

They shot the guy dead. No pot was found.

Here's the story on that:

------------------------
Sunday, January 23, 2000
ARMED AND DANGEROUS
Ranch-coveting officials
settle for killing owner
Five police agencies staged
bogus drug raid on rich eccentric
to acquire 200-acre spread

By Paul Ciotti
© 2000 WorldNetDaily.com

Recent revelations about rampant police perjury have made Los Angeles juries so mistrustful of law enforcement that attorneys for Los Angeles County are in some cases offering plaintiffs multi-million dollar settlements, rather than risking the possibility of far larger damage awards should the cases ever go to trial.

In one of the more infamous instances of alleged law enforcement misconduct -- the killing of the reclusive Malibu millionaire and rugged anti-government individualist Donald Scott in his ranch house by Los Angeles sheriff's deputies in 1992 -- county and federal government officials tentatively agreed last week to pay Scott's heirs and estate a total of $5 million in return for their dropping a wrongful death lawsuit.

Furthermore, they made the settlement despite the deep conviction, says deputy Los Angeles County Counsel Dennis Gonzales, that the deputy who shot Scott was fully justified and -- even though the sheriff was never able to prove it -- that the heavy-drinking Scott was growing thousands of marijuana plants on his remote $2.5 million Malibu ranch.

Early on the morning of Oct. 2, 1992, 31 officers from the Los Angeles Sheriff's Department, Drug Enforcement Administration, Border Patrol, National Guard and Park Service came roaring down the narrow dirt road to Scott's rustic 200-acre ranch. They planned to arrest Scott, the wealthy, eccentric, hard-drinking heir to a Europe-based chemicals fortune, for allegedly running a 4,000-plant marijuana plantation. When deputies broke down the door to Scott's house, Scott's wife would later tell reporters, she screamed, "Don't shoot me. Don't kill me." That brought Scott staggering out of the bedroom, hung-over and bleary-eyed -- he'd just had a cataract operation -- holding a .38 caliber Colt snub-nosed revolver over his head. When he pointed it in the direction of the deputies, they killed him.

Later, the lead agent in the case, sheriff's deputy Gary Spencer and his partner John Cater posed for photographs arm-in-am outside Scott's cabin, smiling and triumphant, says Larry Longo, a former Los Angeles deputy district attorney who now represents Scott's daughter, Susan.

"It was as if they were white hunters who had just shot the buffalo," he said.

Despite a subsequent search of Scott's ranch using helicopters, dogs, searchers on foot, and a high-tech Jet Propulsion Laboratory device for detecting trace amounts of sinsemilla, no marijuana --or any other illegal drug -- was ever found.

Scott's widow, the former Frances Plante, along with four of Scott's children from prior marriages, subsequently filed a $100 million wrongful death suit against the county and federal government. For eight years the case dragged on, requiring the services of 15 attorneys and some 30 volume binders to hold all the court documents. Last week, attorneys for Los Angeles County and the federal government agreed to settle with Scott's heirs and estate, even though the sheriff's department still maintained its deputies had done nothing wrong.

"I do not believe it was an illegal raid in any way, shape or form," Captain Larry Waldie, head of the Sheriff's Department's narcotics bureau, told the Los Angeles Times after the shooting. When Scott came out of the bedroom, the deputies identified themselves and shouted at him to put the gun down. As Scott began to lower his arm, one deputy later said, he "kinda" pointed his gun -- which he initially was holding by the cylinder, not the handle grip -- at deputy Spencer who, in fear for his life, killed him.

Although attorneys for Los Angeles County believed Scott's shooting was fully justified, they weren't eager to see the case go to trial. Recent widespread revelations of illegal shootings, planted evidence and perjured testimony at the Los Angeles Police Department's Rampart Division were making the public mistrust the police.

"I've tried four cases (since the Rampart revelations)," said Dennis Gonzales, a deputy Los Angeles County counsel. And in each case, he said, jurors have told him that the possibility that police officers were lying was a factor in their vote.

"You have to be realistic as to public perceptions," he said.

Nick Gutsue, Scott's former attorney and currently special administrator for his estate, put it more bluntly: "(Gonzales) saw he had a loser and he took the easy way out."

Ironically enough, the county might have had a better chance of winning a court battle if it had allowed the case to go to trial when Scott's widow and four children first filed their lawsuit back in 1993. The county blew it, says Gutsue. It adopted a "divide and conquer strategy." It prolonged the lawsuit's resolution with a successful motion to throw legendarily aggressive anti-police attorney Stephen Yagman off the case. Then it filed a time-consuming motion to dismiss the estate from the lawsuit.

In the process, says Gutsue, new revelations of police misconduct began appearing so frequently that the public's attitude toward law enforcement began to change. "It was one scandal after another," says Gutsue. "(County attorneys) stalled so long that the (Rampart scandal) came along and their stalling tactics backfired."

Although county officials still maintain that Scott was a major marijuana grower who was just clever enough not to get caught, his friends and widow maintain that his drug of choice was alcohol, not marijuana. As a young man, Scott lived a privileged life, growing up in Switzerland and attending prep schools in New York. Later he lived the life of a dashing international jet setter who was married three times, once to a French movie star, and who had gone through two bitter and messy divorces by the time he moved to his Malibu ranch, called Trail's End, in 1966.

Although well-liked and generous to friends, Scott drank heavily, could be cantankerous and deeply mistrusted the government, which he suspected of having designs on this ranch, a remote and nearly inaccessible parcel with high rocky bluffs on three sides and a 75-foot spring-fed waterfall out back.

"You know what he used to say," his third wife, Frances Plante, told writer Michael Fessier Jr. in a 1993 article for the Los Angeles Times magazine, "He'd say, 'Frances, every day they pass a new law and the day after that they pass 40 more.'"

To Los Angeles County officials, the fact that Don Scott got killed in his own house during a futile raid to seize a non-existent 4,000-plant marijuana farm is just one of the unfortunate facts of life in the narcotics enforcement business. It doesn't mean that sheriff's deputies did anything wrong.

"Sometimes people get warned and we don't find anything," Gary Spencer, the lead deputy on the raid and the one who shot Scott, told an L.A. Times reporter in 1997, "so I don't consider it botched. I wouldn't call it botched because that would say that it was a mistake to have gone there in the first place, and I don't believe that."

Someone who did believe that was Ventura County District Attorney Michael Bradbury. Although Scott's ranch was in Ventura County, none of the 31 people participating in the massive early morning raid, which included officers from the Los Angeles Sheriff's Department, the DEA, the National Park Service, the California National Guard and the Border Patrol bothered to invite any Ventura County officers to come along. Furthermore, once Scott was shot, Los Angeles County tried to claim jurisdiction over the investigation of Scott's death, even though the shooting occured in Ventura County.

To Bradbury, it was easy to see why. L.A. County wanted jurisdiction. In a 64-page report issued by Bradbury's office in March of 1993, Bradbury concluded that the search warrant contained numerous misstatements, evasions and omissions. The purpose of the raid, he wrote, was never to find some evanescent marijuana plantation. It was to seize Scott's ranch under asset forfeiture laws and then divide the proceeds with participating agencies, such as the National Park Service, which had put Scott's ranch on a list of property it would one day like to acquire, and the Los Angeles Sheriff's Department, which heavily relied on assets seized in drug raids to supplement its otherwise inadequate budget.

For something written by a government agency, the Bradbury report was surprisingly blunt. It dismissed Spencer's supposed reasons for believing that the Scott ranch was a marijuana plantation and accused Spencer of having lost his "moral compass" in his eagerness to seize Scott's multi-million dollar ranch. As proof of its assertions, the report pointed to a parcel map in possession of the raiding party that contained the handwritten notation that an adjacent 80-acre property had recently sold for $800,000. In addition, the day of the raid, participants were told during the briefing that Scott's ranch could be seized if as few as 14 plants were found.
(continued in next post)

[techweenie]

(continued)

In order to verify that the marijuana really existed, at first Spencer simply hiked to a site overlooking Scott's ranch. Discovering nothing, he subsequently sent an Air National Guard jet over the area to take photographs of the ranch. When this also failed to reveal anything, he dispatched a Drug Enforcement Administration agent in a light plane to make a low level flight.

The DEA agent, whose name was Charles Stowell, said he saw flashes of green hidden in trees which he believed were 50 marijuana plants. At the same time, Stowell was uncertain enough about his observations -- which he had made with the naked eye from an altitude of 1,000 feet -- to warn Spencer not to use them as the basis for a search warrant without further corroboration.

In an effort to confirm the marijuana sighting -- Spencer by this time had decided that Scott was growing marijuana in pots suspended under the trees -- Spencer asked members of the Border Patrol's "C-Rat" team to make a night-time foray into the ranch. Despite two separate incursions, they failed to find anything except barking dogs. The following day a Fish and Game warden and Coastal Commission worker went to the ranch to investigate alleged stream pollution and do a "trout survey" on the dry stream bed. They too failed to see any marijuana. Two days after that, a sheriff's deputy and National Park ranger visited the ranch again, this time ostensibly to buy a rottweiler puppy from Scott. The Scotts were friendly and gave them a tour of the ranch. Once again no one saw any marijuana.

This lack of confirmation notwithstanding, four days later Spencer filed an affidavit for a search warrant saying that DEA Special Agent Charles Stowell, "while conducting cannabis eradication and suppression reconnaissance ... over the Santa Monica Mountains in a single engine fixed wing aircraft ... noticed that marijuana was being cultivated at the Trails End Ranch 35247 Mulholland Highway in Malibu. Specifically Agent Stowell saw approximately 50 plants that he recognized to be marijuana plants growing around some large trees that were in a grove near a house on the property."

To attorneys with a lot of experience with warrants, Spencer's affidavit didn't look like much. "On a scale of one to ten," says former district attorney Longo, "I would give it a one."

Despite the affidavit's deficiencies -- among other things, Spencer didn't mention that none of the people participating in any of the previous week's incursions had reported any marijuana -- Ventura Municipal Court Judge Herbert Curtis III issued a search warrant which, in the words of the Bradbury report, became Scott's "death warrant." After Scott's death, a helicopter hovered over the area in which the marijuana plants were believed to have been growing. There were no pots, no water supply, no marijuana. There was only ivy and even that wasn't in the location where the marijuana was supposed to be.

Larry Longo, a friend of Scott whose children used to play with Scott's children, says it's absurd to think that Scott had marijuana plants hanging from the trees.

"I went up there right after the shooting. The trees were 200- or 300-year-old oak trees. The leaves under them hadn't been raked in a hundred years." If Scott had been growing marijuana under the trees, the leaves would have been disturbed and the tree bark broken. "There wasn't a single mark on the trees. There was no water supply."

Besides, says Longo, "Donald might have been a lot of things, but he would never be so dumb as to cultivate marijuana on his property." If for no other reason, he didn't need the money. Any time he needed cash, all he had to do was call New York and they'd withdraw whatever was necessary out of his trust fund. At the time of Scott's death, there was $1.6 million in his primary trust account.

The Bradbury report caused a huge ruckus in Los Angeles County. Sherman Block, the sheriff at the time, denounced it and issued a report of his own which completely cleared everyone, and California Attorney General Dan Lungren criticized Bradbury for "inappropriate and gratuitous comments."

Cheered by his apparent exoneration by Sheriff Block and Attorney General Lungren, sheriff's deputy Spencer subsequently sued Bradbury for libel, slander and defamation. After a long and bitter fight, including allegations that Bradbury suppressed an earlier report which concluded that Spencer was innocent after all, a state appeals court declared that Bradbury was within his 1st Amendment rights of free speech when he criticized Spencer. The court also ordered Spencer to pay Bradbury's $50,000 legal fees, a development that caused Spencer to declare bankruptcy. According to press reports, the stress from all this caused Spencer to develop a "twitch."

Spencer wasn't the only one affected by Scott's killing. Scott's wife, Frances, was so strapped for cash, she subsequently told a judge, she considering eating a dead coyote she found on the side of the road. According to her attorney, Johnnie Cochran, as quoted in the Los Angeles Times, she is currently living on the property while she holds off government claims to seize it for unpaid taxes. In 1996, the massive Malibu firestorm destroyed Scott's ranch house and the outlying buildings. As a result, Frances Scott currently lives in a teepee erected over the badminton court, albeit a teepee with expensive rugs and a color TV.

Scott's old friend and attorney Nick Gutsue recently said he had mixed feelings about the settlement. While he was glad that Scott's widow and children didn't have to go through the horror of reliving Scott's death in a jury trial, at the same time was disappointed that he never got a chance to clear Scott's name.

"I asked for an apology and exoneration of Scott," said Gutsue. "I never got one. I was told it was against their policy." That's one reason, said Gutsue, he always wanted a jury trial. In a settlement, no one has to admit any guilt.

"Of course," said Gutsue, "$5 million is a pretty good sized admission."

[fastpat]

Originally posted by Hugh R
gotta agree, a number of years ago, the Los Angeles Police raided a guys place near Malibu on suspicions of drugs, it eventually turned out to be a force "eminent domain" type of thing. no drugs, fabricated evidence, etc. This goes back 15-20 years, so I'm a little fuzzy on the specifics.

You're thinking of the Donald Scott murder by government, a smaller, lesser known version of Ruby Ridge.

[tabs]

PFSSST...aand U all think malefeasence in office is something new...I call recall a guy name Sejanus back in the day...

[jorian]

Didn't read the whole thing but, wasn't that part of the infamous 'Rampart' squad?

[fastpat]

Originally posted by jorian
Didn't read the whole thing but, wasn't that part of the infamous 'Rampart' squad?

No, the team that murdered Donald Scott came before the Rampart crimes, which was by men of the LAPD if memory serves.