Nake nula wauŋ welo! Flying Tiger Comics - comics, graphic novels and books for the new Aeon
Monday, June 30, 2014
Saturday, June 28, 2014
Thursday, June 26, 2014
Saturday, June 21, 2014
Mrs. GIllard gets the shits over victorian premier telling the truth
Tim Mathieson goes “bang” | Herald Sun Andrew Bolt Blog
Tim Mathieson has threatened Victorian Premier Denis Napthine with
legal action in a furious phone message that ends with him saying
“Bang!” ...
In a 32-second message, Mr Mathieson complains the Premier, who worked
as a veterinarian before entering politics, had mentioned him in
Parliament in connection with rogue MP Geoff Shaw’s misuse of his
taxpayer-funded car.
“Of course you’re busy because you’ve been bullshitting all day in
Parliament,’’ Mr Mathieson said. “So, if he mentions the Prime
Minister’s partner one more time, one more time, there will be a legal
action against Denis The Vet.
“You hear me? One more time against the ex-Prime Minister’s partner
there will be a lawsuit against him so long — I am not, I am not,
anything to do with Geoff Shaw, in any way shape or form. So, if he
mentions me one more time, I am telling you right now. OK? That’s it.
Bang !”
Friday, June 20, 2014
The Vanishing: Christian Cult’s Airport Disappears | MadCow Morning News
The Vanishing: Christian Cult’s Airport Disappears | MadCow Morning News
“Law
enforcement always follows the drugs, because that leads to drug thugs
no one cares about,” according to one former Federal official familiar
with the case. “Following the money, which is much more effective, is
discouraged, because it leads to the suits—bankers, politicians, law
enforcement types—people with social and political clout.”
“Law
enforcement always follows the drugs, because that leads to drug thugs
no one cares about,” according to one former Federal official familiar
with the case. “Following the money, which is much more effective, is
discouraged, because it leads to the suits—bankers, politicians, law
enforcement types—people with social and political clout.”
Who let these terrorists into our country? | Herald Sun Andrew Bolt Blog
Who let these terrorists into our country? | Herald Sun Andrew Bolt Blog
Thank you Malcolm Fraser. He's the one who let this lot infest the country.
Thank you Malcolm Fraser. He's the one who let this lot infest the country.
Tuesday, June 17, 2014
News - TODAY THE COUNCIL VOTES ON THE BENDIGO MEGA MOSQUE - The Pickering Post
News - TODAY THE COUNCIL VOTES ON THE BENDIGO MEGA MOSQUE - The Pickering Post
It will be a sad day for Bendigo and its rich Aussie heritage if the
local Bendigo council defies the will of the local people and caves into
the Bendigo Bank and local newspaper promoted mega mosque.
Apart from the financial skulduggery of the Bendigo Bank, and the
fact that it closed the accounts of opponents of the mosque, Victoria as
a whole will cringe in shame if this disastrous proposal is passed.
The selfish cult of Islam has nothing to offer Australia.
***
where's girlyman of the people andrew bolt on this one? where's bigmouth aussie ray hadley? NOWHERE, that's where. Fucking gatekeeper scum.
It will be a sad day for Bendigo and its rich Aussie heritage if the
local Bendigo council defies the will of the local people and caves into
the Bendigo Bank and local newspaper promoted mega mosque.
Apart from the financial skulduggery of the Bendigo Bank, and the
fact that it closed the accounts of opponents of the mosque, Victoria as
a whole will cringe in shame if this disastrous proposal is passed.
The selfish cult of Islam has nothing to offer Australia.
***
where's girlyman of the people andrew bolt on this one? where's bigmouth aussie ray hadley? NOWHERE, that's where. Fucking gatekeeper scum.
Monday, June 16, 2014
pot kettle black
Daily Mail bars News Corp journalist from Cannes event | The Australian
Good to see the least trusted most debased people in our society turning on each other like this.
Good to see the least trusted most debased people in our society turning on each other like this.
Cleta Mitchell to the IRS: Answer this | Power Line
Cleta Mitchell to the IRS: Answer this | Power Line
RE: TTV v. IRS et al, 1:13-cv-00734 (D.D.C.), Litigation Hold – Preservation of Responsive Evidence
Dear Counsel:
As you know, True the Vote (“TTV”) filed its lawsuit in the
above-referenced matter on May 21, 2013. By the time TTV filed its suit,
the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) and its employees and officials
were on notice of the commencement of several congressional
investigations. The House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform
(“Oversight”), the House Committee on Ways and Means (“Ways and Means”)
and the Senate Finance Committee (“Senate Finance”) (collectively, “the
Committees”) have each provided notice to the IRS of their ongoing
investigations into the IRS, and specifically, Defendant Lois Lerner and
her activities related to the issues involved in the TTV litigation for
over a year now.
Late Friday, the IRS apparently advised the Ways & Means
Committee that the IRS has “lost” Lois Lerner’s hard drive which
includes thousands of Defendant Lerner’s e-mail records. However,
several statutes and regulations require that the records be accessible
by the Committees, and, in turn, must be preserved and made available to
TTV in the event of discovery in the pending litigation. Those statutes
include the Federal Records Act, Internal Revenue Manual section
1.15.6.6 (which refers to the IRS’s preservation of electronic mail
messages), IRS Document 12829 (General Records Schedule 23, Records
Common to Most Offices, Item 5 Schedule of Daily Activities), 36 C.F.R.
1230 (reporting accidental destruction,) and 36 CFR 1222.12. Under those
records retention regulations, and the Federal Records Act generally,
the IRS is required to preserve emails or otherwise contemporaneously
transmit records for preservation.
Therefore, the failure for the IRS to preserve and provide these
records to the Committees would evidence either violations of numerous
records retention statutes and regulations or obstruction of Congress.
Federal courts have held, in the context of trial, that the bad faith
destruction of evidence relevant to proof of an issue gives rise to an
inference that production of the evidence would have been unfavorable to
the party responsible for its destruction. See Aramburu v. The Boeing Co.,
112 F.3d 1398, 1407 (10th Cir. 1997). The fact that the IRS is
statutorily required to preserve these records yet nevertheless publicly
claimed that they have been “lost” appears to evidence bad faith. 18
U.S.C. § 1505 makes it a federal crime to obstruct congressional
proceedings and covers obstructive acts made during the course of a
congressional investigation, even without official committee sanction.
See, e.g., United States v. Mitchell, 877 F.2d 294, 300–01 (4th Cir. 1989); United States v. Tallant, 407 F. Supp. 878, 888 (D.N.D Ga. 1975).
Further, by letters dated September 17, 2013, TTV provided notice to
counsel for the individual IRS Defendants in this litigation. The
“Individual Defendants” are: Steven Grodnitzky, Lois Lerner, Steven
Miller, Holly Paz, Michael Seto, Douglas Shulman, Cindy Thomas, William
Wilkins, Susan Maloney, Ronald Bell, Janine L. Estes, and Faye Ng. TTV’s
September 17, 2013 correspondence reminded you and your clients of the
Individual Defendants’ obligation “not to destroy, conceal or alter any
paper or electronic files, other data generated by and/or stored on your
clients’ computer systems and storage media (e.g. hard disks, floppy
disks, backup tapes) or any other electronic data, such as voicemail.”
We identified the scope as encompassing both the personal and
professional or business capacity of your clients and involving data
“generated or created on or after July 15, 2010.” See Attached Letters
to Ms. Benitez and Messrs. Lamken and Shur.
As the D.C. District Court has found, “[a] party has a duty ‘to
preserve potentially relevant evidence . . . “once [that party]
anticipates litigation.”’” Zhi Chen v. District of Columbia,
839 F. Supp. 2d 7, 12 (D.D.C. 2011) (internal citations omitted). In
fact, “[t]hat obligation ‘runs first to counsel, who has a duty to
advise his client of the type of information potentially relevant to the
lawsuit and of the necessity of preventing its destruction[,]’” and
“also extends to the managers of a corporate party, who ‘are responsible
for conveying to their employees the requirements for preserving
evidence.’” Id. (internal citations omitted).
By letter dated September 25, 2013, Ms. Benitez acknowledged receipt
of our “litigation hold” letter, and vociferously objected to our having
the temerity to send such a letter, “rejecting” our characterization of
documents to be preserved. Indeed, Ms. Benitez, you indicated that you
took great offense at having been put on notice to preserve and maintain
documents related to the issues of this litigation. You further advised
however, that you would continue to advise “your clients as appropriate
and, as always, will abide by my legal and ethical obligations.”
Attached Response of Ms. Benitez.
The public reports released late on Friday, June 13, 2014 stated that
the IRS now claims to have “lost” the emails of defendant Lois Lerner.
These reports are particularly astonishing in light of your
representations, Ms. Benitez, that [you] would “advise your clients, as
appropriate, and [would] abide by your legal and ethical obligations.”
The “lost” emails, from press reports, appear to cover a time period
from January 2009 to April 2011. See Press Release, Committee on Ways
and Means, IRS Claims to Have Lost Over 2 Years of Lerner Emails (June
13, 2014), available at
http://waysandmeans.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=384506.
We are deeply troubled by this news and are concerned about the
spoliation of information and documents pertaining to this case and the
apparent failure on your part to (a) protect and preserve all
potentially relevant information and (b) to advise us of such failure
and spoliation when you first learned of it. We are even more concerned
after receiving your assurances that you would “abide by your legal and
ethical obligations.”
Accordingly, we hereby request that you advise us of the following:
1. What steps did each of you, as counsel for the Defendants, each of
them, take to ensure that any and all documents as described in the
litigation hold letter and as required by federal law were, in fact,
preserved?
2. When did you learn that the destruction, loss or spoliation of emails of Defendant Lois Lerner had occurred?
3. What steps have you, each of you, taken to restore Ms. Lerner’s “lost” emails?
4. Were the “lost” emails from Ms. Lerner’s computer at the IRS or her home computer?
5. Are there documents or records, as described in the Litigation
Hold letter or the subpoenas issued to the IRS from any of the
Committees, belonging to other defendants that have been “lost”?
We are most disturbed to learn this information from media reports
and, in particular, after being chastised by Ms. Benitez regarding the
fact that she “will abide by her legal and ethical obligations.” To Ms.
Benitez in particular, were you aware of and/or did you participate in,
authorize or otherwise sanction the destruction or “loss” of the Lois
Lerner emails?
In addition to seeking responses to the questions in this letter, we
also seek your consent to immediately allow a computer forensics expert
selected by TTV to examine the computer(s) that is or are purportedly
the source of Ms. Lerner’s “lost” emails, including cloning the hard
drives, and to attempt to restore what was supposedly “lost,” and to
seek to restore any and all “lost” evidence pertinent to this
litigation.
We also seek access to all computers, both official and personal,
used by any and all of the Defendants from and after July 1, 2010, in
order to ensure preservation of the documents of all Defendants in this
action.
We wish to resolve our concerns amicably but, absent your consent, we
will file such motions as deemed necessary and appropriate asking the
Court to require that you respond to the questions contained in this
letter, and to permit such forensic examination described herein and for
such other relief as may be appropriate for this egregious breach of
legal authority and professional ethics.
Due to the time-sensitive and urgent nature of this request, please respond by noon on Wednesday, June 18, 2014.
Sincerely,
/s/ Cleta Mitchell
Cleta Mitchell
William Davis
Michael Lockerby
Mathew Gutierrez
Foley & Lardner LLP
Kaylan Phillips
Noel Johnson
ActRight Legal Foundation
Counsel for True the Vote
RE: TTV v. IRS et al, 1:13-cv-00734 (D.D.C.), Litigation Hold – Preservation of Responsive Evidence
Dear Counsel:
As you know, True the Vote (“TTV”) filed its lawsuit in the
above-referenced matter on May 21, 2013. By the time TTV filed its suit,
the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) and its employees and officials
were on notice of the commencement of several congressional
investigations. The House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform
(“Oversight”), the House Committee on Ways and Means (“Ways and Means”)
and the Senate Finance Committee (“Senate Finance”) (collectively, “the
Committees”) have each provided notice to the IRS of their ongoing
investigations into the IRS, and specifically, Defendant Lois Lerner and
her activities related to the issues involved in the TTV litigation for
over a year now.
Late Friday, the IRS apparently advised the Ways & Means
Committee that the IRS has “lost” Lois Lerner’s hard drive which
includes thousands of Defendant Lerner’s e-mail records. However,
several statutes and regulations require that the records be accessible
by the Committees, and, in turn, must be preserved and made available to
TTV in the event of discovery in the pending litigation. Those statutes
include the Federal Records Act, Internal Revenue Manual section
1.15.6.6 (which refers to the IRS’s preservation of electronic mail
messages), IRS Document 12829 (General Records Schedule 23, Records
Common to Most Offices, Item 5 Schedule of Daily Activities), 36 C.F.R.
1230 (reporting accidental destruction,) and 36 CFR 1222.12. Under those
records retention regulations, and the Federal Records Act generally,
the IRS is required to preserve emails or otherwise contemporaneously
transmit records for preservation.
Therefore, the failure for the IRS to preserve and provide these
records to the Committees would evidence either violations of numerous
records retention statutes and regulations or obstruction of Congress.
Federal courts have held, in the context of trial, that the bad faith
destruction of evidence relevant to proof of an issue gives rise to an
inference that production of the evidence would have been unfavorable to
the party responsible for its destruction. See Aramburu v. The Boeing Co.,
112 F.3d 1398, 1407 (10th Cir. 1997). The fact that the IRS is
statutorily required to preserve these records yet nevertheless publicly
claimed that they have been “lost” appears to evidence bad faith. 18
U.S.C. § 1505 makes it a federal crime to obstruct congressional
proceedings and covers obstructive acts made during the course of a
congressional investigation, even without official committee sanction.
See, e.g., United States v. Mitchell, 877 F.2d 294, 300–01 (4th Cir. 1989); United States v. Tallant, 407 F. Supp. 878, 888 (D.N.D Ga. 1975).
Further, by letters dated September 17, 2013, TTV provided notice to
counsel for the individual IRS Defendants in this litigation. The
“Individual Defendants” are: Steven Grodnitzky, Lois Lerner, Steven
Miller, Holly Paz, Michael Seto, Douglas Shulman, Cindy Thomas, William
Wilkins, Susan Maloney, Ronald Bell, Janine L. Estes, and Faye Ng. TTV’s
September 17, 2013 correspondence reminded you and your clients of the
Individual Defendants’ obligation “not to destroy, conceal or alter any
paper or electronic files, other data generated by and/or stored on your
clients’ computer systems and storage media (e.g. hard disks, floppy
disks, backup tapes) or any other electronic data, such as voicemail.”
We identified the scope as encompassing both the personal and
professional or business capacity of your clients and involving data
“generated or created on or after July 15, 2010.” See Attached Letters
to Ms. Benitez and Messrs. Lamken and Shur.
As the D.C. District Court has found, “[a] party has a duty ‘to
preserve potentially relevant evidence . . . “once [that party]
anticipates litigation.”’” Zhi Chen v. District of Columbia,
839 F. Supp. 2d 7, 12 (D.D.C. 2011) (internal citations omitted). In
fact, “[t]hat obligation ‘runs first to counsel, who has a duty to
advise his client of the type of information potentially relevant to the
lawsuit and of the necessity of preventing its destruction[,]’” and
“also extends to the managers of a corporate party, who ‘are responsible
for conveying to their employees the requirements for preserving
evidence.’” Id. (internal citations omitted).
By letter dated September 25, 2013, Ms. Benitez acknowledged receipt
of our “litigation hold” letter, and vociferously objected to our having
the temerity to send such a letter, “rejecting” our characterization of
documents to be preserved. Indeed, Ms. Benitez, you indicated that you
took great offense at having been put on notice to preserve and maintain
documents related to the issues of this litigation. You further advised
however, that you would continue to advise “your clients as appropriate
and, as always, will abide by my legal and ethical obligations.”
Attached Response of Ms. Benitez.
The public reports released late on Friday, June 13, 2014 stated that
the IRS now claims to have “lost” the emails of defendant Lois Lerner.
These reports are particularly astonishing in light of your
representations, Ms. Benitez, that [you] would “advise your clients, as
appropriate, and [would] abide by your legal and ethical obligations.”
The “lost” emails, from press reports, appear to cover a time period
from January 2009 to April 2011. See Press Release, Committee on Ways
and Means, IRS Claims to Have Lost Over 2 Years of Lerner Emails (June
13, 2014), available at
http://waysandmeans.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=384506.
We are deeply troubled by this news and are concerned about the
spoliation of information and documents pertaining to this case and the
apparent failure on your part to (a) protect and preserve all
potentially relevant information and (b) to advise us of such failure
and spoliation when you first learned of it. We are even more concerned
after receiving your assurances that you would “abide by your legal and
ethical obligations.”
Accordingly, we hereby request that you advise us of the following:
1. What steps did each of you, as counsel for the Defendants, each of
them, take to ensure that any and all documents as described in the
litigation hold letter and as required by federal law were, in fact,
preserved?
2. When did you learn that the destruction, loss or spoliation of emails of Defendant Lois Lerner had occurred?
3. What steps have you, each of you, taken to restore Ms. Lerner’s “lost” emails?
4. Were the “lost” emails from Ms. Lerner’s computer at the IRS or her home computer?
5. Are there documents or records, as described in the Litigation
Hold letter or the subpoenas issued to the IRS from any of the
Committees, belonging to other defendants that have been “lost”?
We are most disturbed to learn this information from media reports
and, in particular, after being chastised by Ms. Benitez regarding the
fact that she “will abide by her legal and ethical obligations.” To Ms.
Benitez in particular, were you aware of and/or did you participate in,
authorize or otherwise sanction the destruction or “loss” of the Lois
Lerner emails?
In addition to seeking responses to the questions in this letter, we
also seek your consent to immediately allow a computer forensics expert
selected by TTV to examine the computer(s) that is or are purportedly
the source of Ms. Lerner’s “lost” emails, including cloning the hard
drives, and to attempt to restore what was supposedly “lost,” and to
seek to restore any and all “lost” evidence pertinent to this
litigation.
We also seek access to all computers, both official and personal,
used by any and all of the Defendants from and after July 1, 2010, in
order to ensure preservation of the documents of all Defendants in this
action.
We wish to resolve our concerns amicably but, absent your consent, we
will file such motions as deemed necessary and appropriate asking the
Court to require that you respond to the questions contained in this
letter, and to permit such forensic examination described herein and for
such other relief as may be appropriate for this egregious breach of
legal authority and professional ethics.
Due to the time-sensitive and urgent nature of this request, please respond by noon on Wednesday, June 18, 2014.
Sincerely,
/s/ Cleta Mitchell
Cleta Mitchell
William Davis
Michael Lockerby
Mathew Gutierrez
Foley & Lardner LLP
Kaylan Phillips
Noel Johnson
ActRight Legal Foundation
Counsel for True the Vote
Child brides and forced marriages less offensive than a wink? | Herald Sun Miss Judgement Blog
Child brides and forced marriages less offensive than a wink? | Herald Sun Miss Judgement Blog
Wouldn’t it be wonderful if feminists were as outraged about forced
marriages, child brides, female genital mutilation and honour killings
as they are about a Prime Ministerial wink?
How much more useful would the movement be if it actually focused on
real cases of sexism and misogyny instead of obsessing about trivial or
imagined offences?
The same women who took to the streets of Melbourne in the ludicrous “Slutwalk” protests seem nonplussed about Australian girls being brutalised in the name of religion.
I’ve had more than one member of ‘the sisterhood’ tell me that the
barbaric practise of FGM is not that different to Western women opting
for labiaplasty. Seriously.
Wouldn’t it be wonderful if feminists were as outraged about forced
marriages, child brides, female genital mutilation and honour killings
as they are about a Prime Ministerial wink?
How much more useful would the movement be if it actually focused on
real cases of sexism and misogyny instead of obsessing about trivial or
imagined offences?
The same women who took to the streets of Melbourne in the ludicrous “Slutwalk” protests seem nonplussed about Australian girls being brutalised in the name of religion.
I’ve had more than one member of ‘the sisterhood’ tell me that the
barbaric practise of FGM is not that different to Western women opting
for labiaplasty. Seriously.
John Liggett and Lois Liggett - Page 2 - JFK Assassination Debate - The Education Forum
John Liggett and Lois Liggett - Page 2 - JFK Assassination Debate - The Education Forum
JOHN LIGGETT and the murder of LBJ look-alike, JAY BERT PECK
On Tuesday, March 27, 1974, 44-year-old Dorothy A. Peck of 1202 Melrose
in Garland, Texas, staggered from her home and asked a neighbor to
summon police and firemen. She had been brutally beaten and a fire had
been started from clothing stuffed beneath her bed. Her bed had been
destroyed and her bedroom scorched before firemen doused the flames.
She had been left for dead, but she survived to identified her
assailant. From her hospital bed, she identified John Melvin Liggett as
the man who had accompanied her home from a bar the night before,
attacked her with a hammer, and set fire to her bed.
Curiously, approximately 5 years earlier on July 5, 1969, Jay Bert Peck,
of the same Garland address and presumably Mrs. Peck husband (although
he was nearly 30 years her senior), was murdered at the same location.
Mrs. Peck heard a shot in the bedroom, rushed in and found Peck in bed
with a bullet wound in his head. He was rushed to Parkland Hospital
where he died 12 hours later. Peck, a cousin of Lyndon Johnson, and an
LBJ look-alike, achieved a certain degree of notoriety impersonating the
president. He made appearances at parties and political functions. He
even had a small part in Dean Martin’s Matt Helm movie, The Wrecking
Crew, in which he appeared as the president.
After Liggett’s arrest, police started looking into possible Liggett
involvement in several unsolved murders. Susan Thompson Payne, a
41-year-old women was found dead in a fire-gutted North Dallas apartment
on February 10, 1974. Her body had been mutilated and sexually abused.
There were several other fire-related murders in the Dallas area in the
early 70s and Liggett was a prime suspect.
All of the above information is in the public domain, in Harrison
Livingstone’s book, “Killing Kennedy”, in contemporary newspaper
accounts (Dallas Morning News), and in Nigel Turner’s TV show. Here are
some unanswered questions:
· Was John Melvin Liggett part of a witness elimination program as claimed by Harrison Livingstone in “Killing Kennedy”?
· It seems very likely the Liggett did try to kill Mrs. Peck. Did he
also murder Jay Bert Peck? Did Peck know something and was that what got
him killed? Did he tell his wife and was that the reason an attempt was
made on her life? Is there any significance to the fact the Peck was a
relative of LBJ? Or is this just another one of those coincidences that
keep cropping up in this case?
· What did the other murder victims know?
· As reported by Livingstone, Larry Howard of the Assassination
Information Center was looking into this case in 1993 when he had two
strokes and died. Is there a connection?
· What does Billie Sol Estes know about this case? He’s been shopping the story around.
Thanks to Walt Brown for providing several key leads.
Here are some photos that may be of interest to readers of this forum:
Jay Bert Peck appeared in the Dean Martin Matt Helm film, “The Wreaking
Crew.” He was paid $1,000 for this brief appearance and is credited in
the Internet Movie Database (imdb.com) as J.B. Pick. Even though it’s
only a shot from the rear, the resemblance is quite striking.
[attachment=2151:attachment]
Here is a publicity shot for the film. This picture appeared in
Newsweek, August 5, 1968. The lovely lady on the left is Elke Sommer,
one of the stars of the film.
[attachment=2152:attachment]
This is a photo of Jay Bert Peck that was printed with his obituary in the Dallas Morning News, July 6, 1969.
[attachment=2153:attachment]
Here’s a picture of John Melvin Liggett printed in the Dallas Morning
News on March 31, 1974 after his arrest for the attempted murder of
Dorothy Peck.
[attachment=2154:attachment]
JOHN LIGGETT and the murder of LBJ look-alike, JAY BERT PECK
On Tuesday, March 27, 1974, 44-year-old Dorothy A. Peck of 1202 Melrose
in Garland, Texas, staggered from her home and asked a neighbor to
summon police and firemen. She had been brutally beaten and a fire had
been started from clothing stuffed beneath her bed. Her bed had been
destroyed and her bedroom scorched before firemen doused the flames.
She had been left for dead, but she survived to identified her
assailant. From her hospital bed, she identified John Melvin Liggett as
the man who had accompanied her home from a bar the night before,
attacked her with a hammer, and set fire to her bed.
Curiously, approximately 5 years earlier on July 5, 1969, Jay Bert Peck,
of the same Garland address and presumably Mrs. Peck husband (although
he was nearly 30 years her senior), was murdered at the same location.
Mrs. Peck heard a shot in the bedroom, rushed in and found Peck in bed
with a bullet wound in his head. He was rushed to Parkland Hospital
where he died 12 hours later. Peck, a cousin of Lyndon Johnson, and an
LBJ look-alike, achieved a certain degree of notoriety impersonating the
president. He made appearances at parties and political functions. He
even had a small part in Dean Martin’s Matt Helm movie, The Wrecking
Crew, in which he appeared as the president.
After Liggett’s arrest, police started looking into possible Liggett
involvement in several unsolved murders. Susan Thompson Payne, a
41-year-old women was found dead in a fire-gutted North Dallas apartment
on February 10, 1974. Her body had been mutilated and sexually abused.
There were several other fire-related murders in the Dallas area in the
early 70s and Liggett was a prime suspect.
All of the above information is in the public domain, in Harrison
Livingstone’s book, “Killing Kennedy”, in contemporary newspaper
accounts (Dallas Morning News), and in Nigel Turner’s TV show. Here are
some unanswered questions:
· Was John Melvin Liggett part of a witness elimination program as claimed by Harrison Livingstone in “Killing Kennedy”?
· It seems very likely the Liggett did try to kill Mrs. Peck. Did he
also murder Jay Bert Peck? Did Peck know something and was that what got
him killed? Did he tell his wife and was that the reason an attempt was
made on her life? Is there any significance to the fact the Peck was a
relative of LBJ? Or is this just another one of those coincidences that
keep cropping up in this case?
· What did the other murder victims know?
· As reported by Livingstone, Larry Howard of the Assassination
Information Center was looking into this case in 1993 when he had two
strokes and died. Is there a connection?
· What does Billie Sol Estes know about this case? He’s been shopping the story around.
Thanks to Walt Brown for providing several key leads.
Here are some photos that may be of interest to readers of this forum:
Jay Bert Peck appeared in the Dean Martin Matt Helm film, “The Wreaking
Crew.” He was paid $1,000 for this brief appearance and is credited in
the Internet Movie Database (imdb.com) as J.B. Pick. Even though it’s
only a shot from the rear, the resemblance is quite striking.
[attachment=2151:attachment]
Here is a publicity shot for the film. This picture appeared in
Newsweek, August 5, 1968. The lovely lady on the left is Elke Sommer,
one of the stars of the film.
[attachment=2152:attachment]
This is a photo of Jay Bert Peck that was printed with his obituary in the Dallas Morning News, July 6, 1969.
[attachment=2153:attachment]
Here’s a picture of John Melvin Liggett printed in the Dallas Morning
News on March 31, 1974 after his arrest for the attempted murder of
Dorothy Peck.
[attachment=2154:attachment]
Saturday, June 14, 2014
Michael Smith and Bob Kernohan: the union scum royal commission is THEIR victory. Trust NO ONE In the lapdog media.
Michael Smith News
Very few in the media came to my aid. The Saturday immediately prior News Limited reported on its CEO John Hartigan and his accommodation of Ms Gillard's demands. Ms Gillard's apparent extortion leading to News Limited's reports that week warrants close examination by police.
My lawyer Bruce Burke and I had arranged for the Federal Court files
including 2082/96 to be delivered to the Federal Court's Brisbane
Registry for inspection - that was before the court files disappeared.
After 2UE banned any Fairfax staff from assisting me to examine the
files I asked a journalist friend from another organisation to attend at
the court as my agent and inspect the files. He did.
On 17 September 2011 The Australian published this story.
That story was quoted in the Fairfax actions against me and by Ms
Gillard in the parliament. It was not helpful in uncovering the truth.
One week before I lodged the formal complaint with Victoria Police
that led to Operation Tendment I sent this further question to Prime
Minister Gillard. She did not respond.
Very few in the media came to my aid. The Saturday immediately prior News Limited reported on its CEO John Hartigan and his accommodation of Ms Gillard's demands. Ms Gillard's apparent extortion leading to News Limited's reports that week warrants close examination by police.
My lawyer Bruce Burke and I had arranged for the Federal Court files
including 2082/96 to be delivered to the Federal Court's Brisbane
Registry for inspection - that was before the court files disappeared.
After 2UE banned any Fairfax staff from assisting me to examine the
files I asked a journalist friend from another organisation to attend at
the court as my agent and inspect the files. He did.
On 17 September 2011 The Australian published this story.
That story was quoted in the Fairfax actions against me and by Ms
Gillard in the parliament. It was not helpful in uncovering the truth.
One week before I lodged the formal complaint with Victoria Police
that led to Operation Tendment I sent this further question to Prime
Minister Gillard. She did not respond.
For the public record please Prime Minister
Success has many fathers. Failure is an orphan.
Wednesday, June 11, 2014
Marvel Relaunches Books Because You Demand It and Other Lies Spread by the Comics Media
Marvel Relaunches Books Because You Demand It and Other Lies Spread by the Comics Media
Follow-up question: why? Why is it going to "rock the world of the title
characters?" Why does every single Marvel event shake the universe to
its very foundations? In what ways is the Marvel Universe never going to
be the same again? Marvel's hyperbolic banalities about changing the
"Marvel Universe forever" is bordering on self-parody at this point.
Just once, I'd like to hear someone actually explain what the fuck this
bullshit means.
Follow-up question: why? Why is it going to "rock the world of the title
characters?" Why does every single Marvel event shake the universe to
its very foundations? In what ways is the Marvel Universe never going to
be the same again? Marvel's hyperbolic banalities about changing the
"Marvel Universe forever" is bordering on self-parody at this point.
Just once, I'd like to hear someone actually explain what the fuck this
bullshit means.
Tuesday, June 10, 2014
Faine is right to raise the question. But let’s not pretend he’s unbiased | Herald Sun Andrew Bolt Blog
Faine is right to raise the question. But let’s not pretend he’s unbiased | Herald Sun Andrew Bolt Blog
How do gangsters get their payoffs? Through intermediaries.
Whose house was it?
gillard's.
Whose money was it?
gillard's. Transferred to her account or given to her at her house, or paid to her worker slaves with her knowledge.
Proof it was done with her knowledge (and consent)? She didn't make any alternative arrangements for accomodation, paying bills or arranging invoices for payment for the work done or the house purchased (she attended the house purchase anyway).
She is criminal scum.
How do gangsters get their payoffs? Through intermediaries.
Whose house was it?
gillard's.
Whose money was it?
gillard's. Transferred to her account or given to her at her house, or paid to her worker slaves with her knowledge.
Proof it was done with her knowledge (and consent)? She didn't make any alternative arrangements for accomodation, paying bills or arranging invoices for payment for the work done or the house purchased (she attended the house purchase anyway).
She is criminal scum.
Thursday, June 5, 2014
Woody Box: Associated Press changed story about Kadyrbayev testimony
Woody Box: Associated Press changed story about Kadyrbayev testimony
Whichever DISC alumni or that CIA parachuted in woman who was running FEMA in Boston if it was her idea is really going to catch it in the neck for deciding against using hypnotised patsies for the Boston Bombing.
Using non-hypno subs for this sort of false flag is just too hippie and organic wholefood for the black ops world.
Whichever DISC alumni or that CIA parachuted in woman who was running FEMA in Boston if it was her idea is really going to catch it in the neck for deciding against using hypnotised patsies for the Boston Bombing.
Using non-hypno subs for this sort of false flag is just too hippie and organic wholefood for the black ops world.
MURPHY’S LAW | Daily Telegraph Tim Blair Blog
MURPHY’S LAW | Daily Telegraph Tim Blair Blog
Thought it was Bernard Murphy we were going to talk about- from slater and gordon to the bench in one easy gillard assisted leap.
But on the other hand who better to judge the merits of chicken theft than a fox?
Thought it was Bernard Murphy we were going to talk about- from slater and gordon to the bench in one easy gillard assisted leap.
But on the other hand who better to judge the merits of chicken theft than a fox?
Andrew "girlyman" Bolt's favourite subject: Andrew Bolt
Yet another Turnbull interview to kick along the leadership talk | Herald Sun Andrew Bolt Blog
Andrew Bolt and Lord Wentworth the member for Goldman Sachs - two non-conservatives swinging their handbags at each other is like jew brothers the Goldwyns arguing over the Lord's Prayer.
Andrew Bolt and Lord Wentworth the member for Goldman Sachs - two non-conservatives swinging their handbags at each other is like jew brothers the Goldwyns arguing over the Lord's Prayer.
Monday, June 2, 2014
Same-Sex Marriage: Not Over Yet | RicochetRicochet
Same-Sex Marriage: Not Over Yet | RicochetRicochet
The governmental process by which same-sex marriage has been foisted on
us could hardly have been less democratic; this is the epitome of a case
in which the elite have strong-armed ordinary people into relinquishing
their views and way of life. Isn’t that something that should have us
up in arms? Meanwhile, we’re told that same-sex marriage is now socially
accepted, primarily because young people tend to have no problem with
it. Because allowing your most ignorant and least experienced
citizens to determine the future of society’s most central institution
is generally the path of wisdom, right?
The governmental process by which same-sex marriage has been foisted on
us could hardly have been less democratic; this is the epitome of a case
in which the elite have strong-armed ordinary people into relinquishing
their views and way of life. Isn’t that something that should have us
up in arms? Meanwhile, we’re told that same-sex marriage is now socially
accepted, primarily because young people tend to have no problem with
it. Because allowing your most ignorant and least experienced
citizens to determine the future of society’s most central institution
is generally the path of wisdom, right?
Australian Broadcasting Corp. whitewashes drug bust of Islamic Council head : Jihad Watch
Australian Broadcasting Corp. whitewashes drug bust of Islamic Council head : Jihad Watch
Australian Broadcasting Corp. whitewashes drug bust of Islamic Council head
Robert Spencer May 30, 2014 at 8:57am Australia, journalistic bias 10 Comments
WA Islamic Council 2This story from ABC.net.au says that the arrested people had so much methylamphetamine on them that clearly they were major dealers. It identifies them by name as Ziad and Rabih Jneid, but doesn’t identify them further. However, an earlier version of the story that now resolves to the link below had a very different headline: “WA Islamic Council president Rateb Jneid among those charged over drugs, guns seizure.” Now all mention of Rabih Jneid’s connection to the Western Australian Islamic Council has been removed from the story.
And quite rightly, you may say, for the connection is only incidental; even though we have seen the jihadists of the Taliban and al Qaeda fund their jihads by means of drug trafficking, the WA Islamic Council is moderate, and anyway police haven’t given a hint of any possibility that Rabih Jneid was funding jihad activities by dealing drugs,
Maybe so, but if Rabih Jneid were the Roman Catholic Bishop of Perth, or a leading rabbi in Western Australia, would the Australian Broadcasting Corporation not find the discovery that he was a major drug trafficker newsworthy in connection with his position? Would it show a similar concern for the reputation of the institution involved, so as to scrub all mention of it from its coverage of the drug bust?
I doubt it.
Australian Broadcasting Corp. whitewashes drug bust of Islamic Council head
Robert Spencer May 30, 2014 at 8:57am Australia, journalistic bias 10 Comments
WA Islamic Council 2This story from ABC.net.au says that the arrested people had so much methylamphetamine on them that clearly they were major dealers. It identifies them by name as Ziad and Rabih Jneid, but doesn’t identify them further. However, an earlier version of the story that now resolves to the link below had a very different headline: “WA Islamic Council president Rateb Jneid among those charged over drugs, guns seizure.” Now all mention of Rabih Jneid’s connection to the Western Australian Islamic Council has been removed from the story.
And quite rightly, you may say, for the connection is only incidental; even though we have seen the jihadists of the Taliban and al Qaeda fund their jihads by means of drug trafficking, the WA Islamic Council is moderate, and anyway police haven’t given a hint of any possibility that Rabih Jneid was funding jihad activities by dealing drugs,
Maybe so, but if Rabih Jneid were the Roman Catholic Bishop of Perth, or a leading rabbi in Western Australia, would the Australian Broadcasting Corporation not find the discovery that he was a major drug trafficker newsworthy in connection with his position? Would it show a similar concern for the reputation of the institution involved, so as to scrub all mention of it from its coverage of the drug bust?
I doubt it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
