Vanguard News Network
VNN Media
VNN Digital Library
VNN Reader Mail
VNN Broadcasts

Old July 27th, 2011 #2041
Donald E. Pauly
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 4,130
Smile Steele's Disbarred Lawyer Pontificates

This is part of the jury selection by Steele's scumbag now disbarred lawyer. He stole money from a female client of his in 2004 and she had to sue him. This cost him two years of probation and having to attend an ethics class. A month before this trial he knew that he was being disbarred for stealing $100,000 from another client. It is interesting to listen to him lecture a juror about stealing a candy bar.

Quote:
http://www.free-edgar-steele.com/wp-...ay-1-FINAL.pdf
JUROR NO. 24: I stole a candy bar once, and they did accuse me of that and I confessed, so --(Laughter.)
MR. McALLISTER: All right. Honesty is always the best policy.
 
Old July 27th, 2011 #2042
Donald E. Pauly
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 4,130
Default Too Good (Sex, Lies and Audiotape Part III)

Too Good
(Sex, Lies and Audiotape Part III)
by Edgar J. Steele
July 27, 2011

They say that something is too good to be true if it looks much better than one normally would expect in a given situation; if it is not what it appears to be.

Too Good

There are many things about my recent trial that simply were “too good,” albeit with different twists on the old adage “Too good to be true.”
First, of course, are those two recordings of conversations the government alleges took place between Larry “the Idahun Hit Man” and myself. Truly, they are a prosecutor’s dream, because they have it all: confession, smoking gun, motive, corroboration, method, alibi and, perhaps most importantly, wording calculated to inflame a listener to be outraged. Never, in the history of wiring confidential informants, has the FBI gotten recordings so complete… so condemning… so inflammatory.

Think about it for a moment. Think back over all the real incriminating recordings you ever have heard, whether made in person or by telephone. Usually, it is a stretch to see the government’s case against the recorded speaker(s). Not in my case, however, and that is the biggest tipoff of all. “My” recordings quite simply are so over the top… so complete and so inflammatory, that they literally are too good to be true.
Too Perfect

Just on their face, “my” recordings had to have been scripted because nothing real could have been so perfect. And, of course, that is the case – they were manufactured and cobbled together from actual recordings of me speaking, sometimes to the erstwhile “hit man” (but at other times and in other contexts).

As one of my retained experts ascertained, there are 351 different anomalies on just one of the recordings produced by the government, anomalies of just the sort produced by editing (cutting, splicing, dubbing, inserting etc.) Most of the anomalies cannot be heard, but must be identified via wave-form analysis. That expert also determined, again through wave-form analysis, that in many places on both recordings it is not even my voice! Another’s voice was used and then “morphed” to sound like mine. 351 anomalies.

An “extraordinary” number , that forensic audio expert said – the most he ever had seen on a single recording in his over 20 years of analyzing such recordings. Enough to remove all possibility that the recordings were genuine. Keep in mind that only one such defect is enough to justify excluding a recording at a trial. Not my trial, though.
The Gunslinger

It needs to be said that my lead trial lawyer was too good to be true, as well. Robert McAllister is a natural-born trial lawyer – a gunslinger is what I call such a lawyer. He rides into town, fires a few perfectly-aimed shots and then leaves like Clint Eastwood: always the hero.

The problem with a natural gunslinger is that he is so good that he never has been stretched enough so as to learn that there are some trials that require full and comprehensive preparation of the sort that he never has had to do before. Mine was such a trial, which is why I got convicted. Besides, McAllister secretly was seriously distracted by his bankruptcy and then-pending disbarment (more on this later).

Were there other reasons for his seriously-incompetent handling of my case (more on this in a future installment I call “Thrown Under the Bus”)? I hope not, but I do not believe in coincidence. Too paranoid, you say? Just because I might be paranoid doesn’t mean they aren’t out to get me. Believe me… they are.

Though I later will give a great many reasons why my defense was grossly inadequate, for now, let me leave you with the four biggest:
1) my forensic audio experts were forced out of the courtroom and
I had no time to find others;
2) I didn’t take the stand, against my better judgment, to testify
in my own behalf;
3) I was denied the ability to work on my own defense; and
4) I never was allowed to talk with most of my lawyers in private, without the federal prosecutor listening in.
Those are the prime reasons I was convicted.
It Doesn’t Matter What the Truth Is

Less than a week after I was arrested, a US Marshal, while driving me to the Federal District courthouse for my arraignment, made the following prescient observation: “It doesn’t matter what the truth is,” he told me, “what matters is what you are able to prove to a jury.” The hair on the back of my neck stood up when he said that and now I know why!

Previous: Sex, Lies and Audiotape (Part II)
Next: How (Part VII)

Copyright ©2011, Edgar J. Steele
Forward as you wish. Permission is granted to circulate this article and its related audio file among private individuals and groups, post on all Internet sites and publish in full in all not-for-profit publications. Contact author for all other rights, which are reserved.
 
Old July 27th, 2011 #2043
-JC
Doesn't suffer fools well
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 5,740
-JC
Default Too Good (Sex, Lies and Audiotape Part III) [as received]

Too Good
(Sex, Lies and Audiotape Part III)by Edgar J. Steele
July 27, 2011

They say that something is too good to be true if it looks much better than one normally would expect in a given situation; if it is not what it appears to be.

Too Good

There are many things about my recent trial that simply were “too good,” albeit with different twists on the old adage “Too good to be true.”

First, of course, are those two recordings of conversations the government alleges took place between Larry “the Idahun Hit Man” and myself. Truly, they are a prosecutor’s dream, because they have it all: confession, smoking gun, motive, corroboration, method, alibi and, perhaps most importantly, wording calculated to inflame a listener to be outraged. Never, in the history of wiring confidential informants, has the FBI gotten recordings so complete… so condemning… so inflammatory.

Think about it for a moment. Think back over all the real incriminating recordings you ever have heard, whether made in person or by telephone. Usually, it is a stretch to see the government’s case against the recorded speaker(s). Not in my case, however, and that is the biggest tipoff of all. “My” recordings quite simply are so over the top… so complete and so inflammatory, that they literally are too good to be true.
Too Perfect

Just on their face, “my” recordings had to have been scripted because nothing real could have been so perfect. And, of course, that is the case – they were manufactured and cobbled together from actual recordings of me speaking, sometimes to the erstwhile “hit man” (but at other times and in other contexts).

As one of my retained experts ascertained, there are 351 different anomalies on just one of the recordings produced by the government, anomalies of just the sort produced by editing (cutting, splicing, dubbing, inserting etc.) Most of the anomalies cannot be heard, but must be identified via wave-form analysis. That expert also determined, again through wave-form analysis, that in many places on both recordings it is not even my voice! Another’s voice was used and then “morphed” to sound like mine. 351 anomalies. An “extraordinary” number , that forensic audio expert said – the most he ever had seen on a single recording in his over 20 years of analyzing such recordings. Enough to remove all possibility that the recordings were genuine. Keep in mind that only one such defect is enough to justify excluding a recording at a trial. Not my trial, though.

The Gunslinger

It needs to be said that my lead trial lawyer was too good to be true, as well. Robert McAllister is a natural-born trial lawyer – a gunslinger is what I call such a lawyer. He rides into town, fires a few perfectly-aimed shots and then leaves like Clint Eastwood: always the hero.


The problem with a natural gunslinger is that he is so good that he never has been stretched enough so as to learn that there are some trials that require full and comprehensive preparation of the sort that he never has had to do before. Mine was such a trial, which is why I got convicted. Besides, McAllister secretly was seriously distracted by his bankruptcy and then-pending disbarment (more on this later).

Were there other reasons for his seriously-incompetent handling of my case (more on this in a future installment I call “Thrown Under the Bus”)? I hope not, but I do not believe in coincidence. Too paranoid, you say? Just because I might be paranoid doesn’t mean they aren’t out to get me. Believe me… they are.

Though I later will give a great many reasons why my defense was grossly inadequate, for now, let me leave you with the four biggest:

1) my forensic audio experts were forced out of the courtroom and
I had no time to find others;

2) I didn’t take the stand, against my better judgment, to testify
in my own behalf;

3) I was denied the ability to work on my own defense; and

4) I never was allowed to talk with most of my lawyers in private, without the federal prosecutor listening in.

Those are the prime reasons I was convicted.

It Doesn’t Matter What the Truth Is

Less than a week after I was arrested, a US Marshal, while driving me to the Federal District courthouse for my arraignment, made the following prescient observation: “It doesn’t matter what the truth is,” he told me, “what matters is what you are able to prove to a jury.” The hair on the back of my neck stood up when he said that and nowI know why!

Previous: Sex, Lies and Audiotape (Part II)
Next: How (Part VII)

Copyright ©2011, Edgar J. Steele Forward as you wish. Permission is granted to circulate this article and its related audio file among private individuals and groups, post on all Internet sites and publish in full in all not-for-profit publications.Contact author for all other rights, which are reserved.

Last edited by -JC; July 27th, 2011 at 09:16 PM.
 
Old July 27th, 2011 #2044
Donald E. Pauly
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 4,130
Angry JC Never Learns

You NEVER learn. Your post of the Steele piece follows mine. You clearly are not reading these threads. This makes me think that none of your posts are worth reading. Kindly delete your duplicate post and stop this insane behavior.
 
Old July 27th, 2011 #2045
April
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Montana
Posts: 1,763
April
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Heather Blue View Post
Donald, what is the purpose of all this stuff about Ed Steele?

What people do in their personal lives is no business of ours. Personally, I do not believe he would kill the mother of his children. Divorce is easier than murder. If anyone kills or tries to murder an individual - or two- he will forever be dogged by suspicion, feelings of guilt, loss of respect…

Ed Steele is not a stupid man. He is a white man who stuck his neck out for a white group and has been in the Jew's crosshairs ever since. If it were not for that I might believe you, but the whole business stinks of a railroad job. It is just too coinincidential that the ADL has him on their list and suddenly, he's in prison over some murder plot. Don't believe it, so why don't you stop smearing the man?
"Ed Steele is not a stupid man." Exactly.....I know he is not stupid enough to send letters like that to a "fake" gf while he is in jail and facing a trial for the murder of his wife. That makes me pretty certain that he had to be under the influence of something pretty heavy to put him out of his goard enough to write that letter, knowing that everything he sent out would be scrutinized and used against him. The argument that he was still trying to run his " bride scam" investigation just is not enough of an excuse for me.

Donald is not smearing Ed, he is simply trying to show everyone concerned why this happened and giving the only reasonable defense for our friend Ed.
__________________
Come Home to the Pacific Northwest

http://kalispellple.blogspot.com/
 
Old July 28th, 2011 #2046
Donald E. Pauly
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 4,130
Angry Juror Examination

This examination of a juror by Steele's now disbarred scum bag lawyer shows his incompetence. He comes across to me as saying:"My client is quilty but the government didn't quite prove it, so you should acquit him.". The least that he could have done is say:"My client was framed and it is all circumstantial evidence against him.". McAllister didn't even attempt to justify the $120,000 that he stole from Steele supporters.
========
http://www.free-edgar-steele.com/wp-...ay-1-FINAL.pdf

JUROR NO. 24: I stole a candy bar once, and they did accuse me of that and I confessed, so --(Laughter.)

MR. McALLISTER: All right. Honesty is always the best policy. When you talk to patients or clients, don't you always ask them for their story, their side of it, their opinion? Don't you always do that?

JUROR NO. 24: I do.

MR. McALLISTER: Well, why is it that a defendant, the accused, doesn't have to say or do anything under our system of law?

JUROR NO. 24: Because we have to try to maintain that presumption of innocence. And it's a different story when I'm trying to work with somebody in a counseling process, for example, than somebody that may be accused of something, and we have no idea whether they did it or not. So we're not asking the same kind of thing when we're trying to look at that. Somebody telling their story helps me a great deal to be able to help them. In a court of law, an individual doesn't -- especially if he is a defendant, didn't volunteer to be there, and so he should not have to, or she should not have to, try to explain their innocence, because our court system, based on justice, as we try to base it, would not work if we didn't have the presumption of innocence.

11 MR. McALLISTER: Now you used the word "innocence" twice. And is that a diffeence, in your mind, than being found not guilty?

JUROR NO. 24: I think we use the terms interchangeably.

MR. McALLISTER: Okay. Judge Winmill explained this, that the government has the burden of proving a defendant guilty, and they have to do it by proving every element of each of the charges. And I take it you agree with that?

JUROR NO. 24: I do agree with that.

MR. McALLISTER: What would you do if you got into -- you got on the jury and you were back in the jury room and you had listened to what the judge had given to you in terms of the legal instructions, heard the witnesses, and you said to yourself, "I kind of feel like the defendant's guilty, but the government didn't prove it"? What would you do at that point?

JUROR NO. 24: Having been in that situation once or twice, I know for myself that -- that I would go with the reality that -- that the facts had not been proved. And if they haven't been proved, then a person can't go with their own -- their feeling that, "Yeah, we ought to do it anyhow," or whatever. A person has to -- in a court of law, the facts have to be demonstrated
and proved to, I think, a good satisfaction that is -- has been demonstrated, or else we can't accept them as facts.

MR. McALLISTER: Okay. What I'm trying to get at is, there is a difference between being innocent and being found not guilty. Would you agree with that?

JUROR NO. 24: I think that was kind of the same question you asked before, but --

MR. McALLISTER: I agree it is, in a different form.

JUROR NO. 24: Reflecting on that, I can buy into that theorem that -- that you've just espoused, because I guess we could be in a situation where the accused was the only one that really knew whether they had done something or not, but if the -- and if the facts didn't demonstrate completely that that person had done that situation, then we can't accept that as a fact.

MR. McALLISTER: And what about if he didn't testify, or he or she didn't say anything?

JUROR NO. 24: Well, that's always their privilege. And it comes down to a real difficult situation, because in our federal -- in our court process, we go through the process of determining guilt or innocence, or guilt or not guilty. And in our process today, a person has that right but almost never will exercise that right, and that's what's going on here in this -- this trial that we're going to go into. Because Mr. Steele, I'm sure, would like to be able to say, "I don't have to prove anything." But in the system that -- where we are, since he has been accused, he doesn't have the luxury, really, of saying, "I'm not going to do anything about it. I'm not going to try to put my case forward." And so we may be far afield from what
your answer was, but a person has the right to not have to demonstrate their innocence; but in the real world, it becomes necessary.

Last edited by Donald E. Pauly; July 29th, 2011 at 08:38 AM. Reason: typo
 
Old July 28th, 2011 #2047
Hadding
Senior Member
 
Hadding's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Florida
Posts: 3,247
Hadding
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Donald E. Pauly View Post
You NEVER learn. Your post of the Steele piece follows mine. You clearly are not reading these threads.
Of course they aren't reading. If they were reading, they would be arguing much less. There is no real dialogue with the hardcore conspiracy-believers.
 
Old July 28th, 2011 #2048
Donald E. Pauly
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 4,130
Smile Dialog with Conspiracy Nuts

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hadding View Post
Of course they aren't reading. If they were reading, they would be arguing much less. There is no real dialogue with the hardcore conspiracy-believers.
While you are correct, the trial transcript seems to have scared most of them off. The ones that are left are nowhere near as brave as they used to be.
 
Old July 30th, 2011 #2049
Donald E. Pauly
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 4,130
Smile Where Are the Steele Cheerleaders?

Instead of -JC and Kennewickman posting duplicates and triplicates of Steele's latest Nickle Rants, they might help me analyze the transcript. There are 1,500 pages to go thru. I have to warn them that it is not all copy and paste like they are used to. It is work.

Crazy John Liberty might post something a little more sane based on the transcript as well. It would be a refreshing change. I would love to see him spin Steele's steamy love letters to his sweetie Tatyana. He might also come up with some good theories about what Steele did with the $45,000 from cashing in the same amount of silver that Fairfax supposedly stole. Inquiring minds want to know.

Last edited by Donald E. Pauly; July 30th, 2011 at 10:01 AM. Reason: typo
 
Old July 30th, 2011 #2050
Donald E. Pauly
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 4,130
Default Federal Prosecutor Examines the Jury

For those not familiar with jury selection, the judge initially questions the jury and consults with both the defense and prosecution. He excuses jurors for hardship or obvious prejudice. Then the prosecution does the same thing. The prosecution may protest any juror because (for cause) they seem to be prejudiced. The defense then does the same thing. Finally the prosecution eliminates 10 jurors without needing to show cause and the defense does the same. The judge picks 14 out of the remaining bunch including two alternates.

The defense examination of the jury is posted previously here. The prosecutor took far longer than the defense and asked far more intelligent questions than Steele's now disbarred scumbag lawyer. Neither the defense or prosecution eliminated any jurors for cause.
========
MS. WHELAN: Thank you, Your Honor. Good afternoon. Anybody this morning nervous when you were heading into the courtroom or as you were getting called up? If you were nervous, raise your hand, will you? Lawyers get nervous, too. Some of the things may be, "What type of case? What kind of questions are they going to ask me?" Some of the things that make lawyers nervous are what I want to talk to you about during this brief time I have to talk to you. And one of those is jurors'expectations. Now there is a lot of TV right now that has to do with the criminal justice system and courtroom dramas. And, I mean, you can plainly tell, I mean, I am no Julianna Margulies from "The Good Wife" or Demi Moore from "A Few Good Men." And with all due respect to my co-counsel, who are no Sam Waterston or Fred Thompson. And that's because they're actors, and this is real life. But sometimes jurors expect what goes on here to be like what they see on TV, and that's something that makes us nervous.

And so, just by a show of hands, who regularly watches things like "CSI" or one of the umpteen million "Law & Order" things that they have on? Anyone? Nobody? Okay. Has anyone seen the TV show "CSI" Okay. That gets a response. And "in CSI," they do all sorts of things. I've seen it a couple times. They get fingerprints off dollar bills, or they solve everything within minutes. Is that right? Does anyone here on the panel -- and it's okay if you do; we're here to figure out what's what -- think that that even remotely resembles real life?

JUROR NO. 13: I do. I think some of it does.

MS. WHELAN: Okay. And you are 13? Do you want to maybe expound on that a little bit? What do you think resembles real life?

JUROR NO. 13: I think that in the crime lab -- and I'm not a regular watcher of that, but just from what I understand with law, that I think some of the tests that they do in the crime lab would be similar to what we really do.

MS. WHELAN: Okay. Would you -- I just want to follow this up a little bit with you, if that's okay.

JUROR NO. 13: Yeah.

THE COURT: Would you agree that some of it might be a little bit enhanced for TV?

JUROR NO. 13: Yes.

MS. WHELAN: And it's based upon -- it can be based in fiction, too; correct?

JUROR NO. 13: Yes. I'm just talking about their methods, or the way that they would process their paperwork.

MS. WHELAN: Okay. Has anyone ever seen, I think it was a Tom Cruise movie, called "Minority Report"? It was out a long time ago. Okay. We have got a couple hands. We have one in the back row. Mr. -- No. 1. Sorry. I almost used your name. Do you remember that movie?

JUROR NO. 1: Yes.

MS. WHELAN: And in that, he was moving a bunch of things around on a screen; is that correct?

JUROR NO. 1: Yeah.

MS. WHELAN: Again, is that fiction for the movies and not necessarily real life?

JUROR NO. 1: Yes.

MS. WHELAN: Does everybody understand a little bit about what I'm saying here, in that what we deal with in the courtroom is real life, not made-for-TV movies? And I can tell you in almost 20 years of experience, I have never had a Perry Mason moment. Nobody from the gallery ever said, "I did it." And we want to make sure, in jury expectations, that sometimes court can be boring. But it's putting out the facts. So is there anyone, as you sit there today, that have certain expectations about what lawyers should do or what you should be seeing, that you worry if we don't meet, you're going to hold it against us? No hands? We all agree that we're going to deal with real life; correct? Another thing that makes some lawyers nervous, and the judge has touched on it -- I don't intend to repeat what he said, but just delve into it -- is confusion over what everyone's roles are.

Now, the judge gives you the instructions, and he has told you that he provides the instructions. Does anyone have a concern about that, and think that the jury should decide what the law is? Another concern is what we call hidden biases. And the judge has asked you questions about if you know anybody or if you have certain leanings one way or another, but there can be
hidden bias that we just didn't even know we had. For instance, does everyone agree that what we're looking at is what the facts of the case are, that that's the juror's job, to decide the facts? And, for instance, one time I had a lawyer -- or I had a trial and there were a bunch of people set up on one side of the courtroom, kind of like a wedding, you know. And afterwards, a juror said, "I didn't think it was fair there were so many people sitting on one side." Now, can we agree that we're not looking out here? What we're concerned with is what happens here. And Juror No. 9, I appreciated what you talked about with the Tax Commission. And just following up on that, although you may feel there is corruption in some organization, it's not with the United States; is that correct?

JUROR NO. 9: I guess -- what do you mean by that question, "it's not with the United States"? I'm not clear for sure what you're asking there.

MS. WHELAN: As I understood, you had a problem with the State Tax Commission, not the United States tax commission -- or IRS.

JUROR NO. 9: That is correct.

MS. WHELAN: So as you sit there today, do you have any bias against the United States Government?

JUROR NO. 9: No.

MS. WHELAN: Okay. Now I come from up north, from Coeur d'Alene, and some of the hidden bias that we deal with there are ones where people, because of things that have happened there, have a bias against the federal government in general, and didn't realize it. I mean, it's not something you think about it. So, again, asking that you sit there, and as you sit there today, can you think of any bias where you've had a bad experience, be it with ATF or FBI or Border Patrol, where you would hold that against the United States? Okay. No hands.

Now, we have no husbands and wives on the jury. But I missed, I couldn't see all the hands. Does anyone know anybody else on the jury, or think you might know them? Yes, sir. You are Mr. -- 22. 22, who do you know, sir

JUROR NO. 22: I know Cliff Diffendaffer.

MS. WHELAN: That would be 28?

JUROR NO. 22: Yes.

MS. WHELAN: And Mr. 28, do you know Mr. 22?

JUROR NO. 28: Yes, I do.

MS. WHELAN: Anything about that relationship between the two of you that would make it hard for both of you to serve on the jury?

JUROR NO. 22: Not that I'm aware of.

MS. WHELAN: So -- if you'll stay standin just one moment.

So, 28, if 22 said, "I think this is it," would you hold to your own opinions, or would you feel swayed by 22?

JUROR NO. 28: I would hold to my own opinions

MS. WHELAN: Same thing for you?

JUROR NO. 22: Yes, ma'am.

MS. WHELAN: Okay. Thank you very much.

Somebody else raised their hand, I thought. Just the two of you? Okay. So just taking a chance and looking round, nobody knows anybody else? Juror No. 2, you said something earlier, and I didn't understand what it was. You work with EBE children?

JUROR NO. 2: EBD, emotionally behaviorally disturbed children.

MS. WHELAN: Thank you. I appreciate that. I didn't know what it was. Juror 24, I want to ask you a couple of follow-up questions. You don't have to stand up for me, sir, but you can do it however you want. Would you --

THE COURT: Just a moment. Let's pass the microphone.

MS. WHELAN: Would you agree with the general proposition that we want a jury made up of people from all sorts of backgrounds?

JUROR NO. 24: I would. Yes, I would.

MS. WHELAN: And so your background might be different from, say, 38's or 7's background; is that right?

JUROR NO. 24: Yes, it is.

MS. WHELAN: And again, based upon what you do for a living, will that lead you to a certain conclusion?

JUROR NO. 24: No, it would not.

MS. WHELAN: And then if you could pass the mic up to Mr. 28, I would appreciate it. Juror 28, you worked for a long time in law enforcement.

JUROR NO. 28: Fourteen years.

MS. WHELAN: Did you enjoy your job, sir?

JUROR NO. 28: Yes, I did.

MS. WHELAN: And you knew your badge number.

JUROR NO. 28: Yes, ma'am.

MS. WHELAN: Now, just because you used to work in law enforcement, do you think that should preclude you from ever sitting on any criminal case?

JUROR NO. 28: No, I don't think so.

MS. WHELAN: Okay. Do you agree with that statement, that we need people of diverse backgrounds on a jury?

JUROR NO. 28: Yes, ma'am.

MS. WHELAN: Is there anything about your experience in law enforcement that would cause you, if you were the defendant in this case, not to want to have a juror like you sitting here?

JUROR NO. 28: No.

MS. WHELAN: And you're confident or -- let me rephrase that as a question. Are you confident that you can take the law that the judge gives you and apply it to the facts?

JUROR NO. 28: Yes, ma'am.

MS. WHELAN: Thank you very much. The judge asked a question earlier and he asked if anybody had anything to do with explosives or audiotapes. It made me think of the "Mission Impossible" episodes, where the audiotapes would explode. (Laughter.) MS. WHELAN: So I wanted to break that question down a little bit and ask it separately. Does anyone on this panel -- have you had any experience, you directly or a very close friend, with explosives? Yes, ma'am, Juror 25. If you could pass the mic to her. Oh, I'm sorry. You're 15. Sorry about that.

JUROR NO. 15: That's okay. Call me any number you want. I did have experience working with a demolition expert on a construction site in California, back in -- a lot of years ago.

MS. WHELAN: Were you doing the demolition?

JUROR NO. 15: I was actually helping to put the caps on, to put the fuses on, and to help place them in the drill holes, yes.

MS. WHELAN: I'm sorry, to help place them in the --

JUROR NO. 15: The drill holes.

MS. WHELAN: So you have maybe a little bit more experience than the average person.

JUROR NO. 15: I have enough to know I don't want to play with it.

MS. WHELAN: If there were testimony in this case about explosives, could you listen to that impartially and take that testimony?

JUROR NO. 15: Yes, I could. Because basically what I did with -- what I was doing with it was following directions.

MS. WHELAN: Okay.

JUROR NO. 15: You know, it's not like I went out and looked to see how I could do this stuff on my own. You tell me what to do; I'll shut up and do it.

MS. WHELAN: Anything about that experience that would cause you to question more strongly, maybe, somebody who works in that area or has experience in that area?

JUROR NO. 15: No.

MS. WHELAN: Did anyone else have association -- Mr. 28. Sorry. I don't know why I called you "Mr. 28." Twenty-eight?

JUROR NO. 28: Diffendaffer, ma'am.

MS. WHELAN: I know, but we're not supposed to use your name. Right behind you, sir, the microphone.
JUROR NO. 28: Part of my responsibility in working with the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration was that I would perform compliance reviews of what's called hazardous material haulers, which deals with explosives and their compliance with the HMR under 49 CFR (Code of Federal Regulations). And basically it's the classification of the material and safe transportation of that material in interstate commerce.

MS. WHELAN: So you were doing inspections --

JUROR NO. 28: Yes, ma'am.

MS. WHELAN: -- of hazardous material.

JUROR NO. 28: Compliance review of the carriers' compliance with the hazardous material regulations under 49 CFR.

5 MS. WHELAN: Do you know how to create explosive devices, based -- I'm sorry -- based upon your experience?

JUROR NO. 28: No, ma'am.

MS. WHELAN: Would anything about your experience in working that particular emphasis cause you to have -- be unable to listen impartially --

JUROR NO. 28: No.

MS. WHELAN: And let me finish because I -- no, I stopped. It wasn't you.

-- impartially to testimony about explosives?

JUROR NO. 28: No.

MS. WHELAN: Okay.

Anybody else, as to the explosives part of that question? Yes, 10, please.

JUROR NO. 10: Well, in my work experience in heavy construction, we did a lot of -- I was involved in a lot of underground work. Any of that that involved hard rock, we used explosives quite extensively. My actual involvement in that was somewhat limited. Being in management, I usually deferred to people that I thought knew a lot more about it than I did.

MS. WHELAN: Sir, the same question I had for the other two is: Would anything about that experience cause you to feel that you couldn't impartially listen to evidence about possible explosives?

JUROR NO. 10: No, I don't believe so.

MS. WHELAN: Okay. And the judge talked to us a little bit about using words like "believe" and "feel," and I know it's difficult, but are you confident that you could listen the --

JUROR NO. 10: Oh, yes. I think so. I believe that anyone that is testifying as to the use of explosives probably has much more experience with respect to explosives and knowledge of explosives than I personally have.

MS. WHELAN: Okay. Thank you, sir. Anybody else have experience with explosives? Okay.

I'm going to move to the next part of the question, then, which has to do with, I think it was "audio engineering" is how the court put it. Does anybody have any experience with audio engineering? I know we have some software engineers and some people who work IT. Has that ever entered into -- audio engineering -- into part of your work? Five, you raised your hand. Could you, sir, pass the microphone to No. 5.

JUROR NO. 5: So, it's been a long time, but about 25 years ago I worked for a government agency and was trained in the National Security Agency to decipher electronic information that was emitted, and to check facilities to make sure they were secure.

MS. WHELAN: Sir, I don't know what -- I'm getting older, apparently, because I can't hear as well. Is this something that you can discuss -- all I heard, really, was "National Security." Is it something you can discuss as you sit there, or do we need to do it at the sidebar?

JUROR NO. 5: I can discuss it, just in very general terms.

MS. WHELAN: Okay. And I'm going to put the mic a little closer.

JUROR NO. 5: Okay.

MS. WHELAN: So, what did you do?

JUROR NO. 5: So what I did is I was trained by the National Security Agency to decipher electronic emissions from secure processing facilities. And so I'm trained in how to do that. And I used to go out and test facilities for the government.

MS. WHELAN: And when you did that, did you have to authenticate the messages, or just interpret them?

JUROR NO. 5: Essentially, had to see if I could independently ascertain information from unintentional emissions.

MS. WHELAN: Okay. Background noises,things like that?

JUROR NO. 5: Uh-huh.

MS. WHELAN: And, sir, you said that was about 20 years ago, 25?

JUROR NO. 5: Yeah, 25, about.

MS. WHELAN: Is there anything about that experience that would cause you any problems maybe listening to recordings or hearing testimony about recordings?

JUROR NO. 5: No.

MS. WHELAN: Do you feel confident about that?

JUROR NO. 5: I do feel confident about that.

MS. WHELAN: Anybody else on the panel in any of the four rows have anything to do with electronics, audio engineering? Oh, I'm sorry. I'm going to get the mic back, so they can hear you. You would be Juror 27, correct?

JUROR NO. 27: I am 27.I do not personally have any association -- well, I have association with an individual who does that kind of work, as an entertainment vehicle. So as an audio engineer -- I mean, I live with an audio engineer, a person who does that for a living.

MS. WHELAN: And when you say "entertainment," what are we talking about? Like DJ mixing or --

JUROR NO. 27: Performing sound reinforcement in the Morrison Center at the university. I believe -- I thought that you said you had been with that person maybe 10 years?

JUROR NO. 27: Mm-hmm. Yes.

MS. WHELAN: Do you regularly talk about his work?

JUROR NO. 27: No.

MS. WHELAN: Or the technical aspects of his work?

JUROR NO. 27: No.

MS. WHELAN: Okay. Thank you very much. I'm sorry I didn't see your hand earlier. Anybody else, as to the engineering? Okay. I would like to follow up on one thing here, if you'll give me just a second. I know what it was. Juror No. 1, when you introduced yourself and you said what you did, I got that you worked at a gravel -- sand and gravel place, but what is it that you do?

JUROR NO. 1: I'm a grade checker slash heavy equipment operator.

MS. WHELAN: What does that mean?

JUROR NO. 1: Like checking the grade of the ground, to make sure it's the right level for them to pave asphalt over it.

MS. WHELAN: Thank you.

Judge, may I have just one moment?

THE COURT: Yes.

MS. WHELAN: Thank you. (Pause.)

Thank you, Your Honor. We would pass the panel for cause.
 
Old July 30th, 2011 #2051
Donald E. Pauly
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 4,130
Default Where is Our Resident Recorder Expert?

Contumacyman is missing in action and I am having to fill in for him. Here is what they were using:

2-343-16

A. The FBI uses a device, along with other law enforcement agencies, made by ADS. It's a device that the FBI provides to me. It has proprietary software. To my understanding, it has hash marks in the software that doesn't allow it to be tampered with.

Q. Now, is it a tape recorder?

A. It's not like the tape recorder you would buy at, like a Best Buy. It's a digital recorder, but it's in a different type of look, so it's not -- doesn't look like a tape recorder.
=======
The companies website appears to be http://adstranscription.com/aboutus.aspx . This recorder is downloaded to a disk so that it can be reused and the data is stored in a .wav file. The recorder can only be stopped or started thru a multiple pressing of several keys on it. It is perfectly normal to destroy the original so that the recorder can be reused.
 
Old July 31st, 2011 #2052
Donald E. Pauly
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 4,130
Default More on Recorder

Contumacyman is still missing in action and I am having to fill in for him. The recorder is disguised as a keychain fob and downloads its file thru a USB port to a host computer. It is normal procedure to delete the file after it has been downloaded so that the recorder can be reused.

Steele's scumbag lawyer makes a fool of himself thru his ignorance of digital technology. A tenth generation copy of a digital file may be better in all respects than the so called original. As long as the file can be read without error, all copies are EXACTLY the same. The original analog to digital converter changes the sound to a sequence of ones and zeros. These are stored in on the recorder's semiconductor memory that has no moving parts.

2-389-16 denotes 2nd trial day, page 389, line 16 on the transcript
========
2-389-16

BY MR. McALLISTER:

Q. Agent Sotka, you placed a recording device or like a microphone that could record sound on Mr. Fairfax; correct?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. All right. And that device did not transmit the conversation to you; correct?
A. No, sir.
Q. So nobody could hear the conversation; it was just being recorded, correct, sir?
A. Yes, sir.

2-390-1

Q. All right. So you listened to it after the fact, later that evening, June 9th; correct?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And I think you said that you took the recording -- and I'm assuming it was on a disk or a CD?
A. The recording was on the device.
Q. Okay. It was on the device. You took it from the device and put it into a computer; correct?
I plug it into a USB adapter that goes into this device.
Q. Okay. So you're transferring to a computer; correct?
A. I'm not sure if it's transferred to the computer or directly to the disk. I'm not really sure.
Q. Okay. Your intent is to put it on another disk, to make a copy; correct?
A. To make the original download, yes.
Q. Okay. And then you erase the original conversation that was recorded; correct?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Before listening to it; correct, sir?
A. I'm not sure if I listened to it first.

2-391-1

I would have assumed I listened to it, to make sure there was something on the disk. So I believe I listened to it first. Once I confirmed there was a transfer of data to the disk, I deleted it.

Q. Okay. And so, therefore, no one is able today to listen to or examine the original recording; correct?
A. What the FBI considers the original recording is the first download. So that can be examined.
Q. Agent Sotka, I don't know if you understood my question, but it was: The defense doesn't have an opportunity to listen to or examine the original recording; isn't that correct, sir?

A. To answer your question, the way I understand it, the original recording is a download. We don't listen to it from the device. So the original recording is available.

Q. Well, actually, a copy is available; correct, sir?
A. I have to answer how I understand it. The original disk is sent down to our office in Salt Lake City and kept in an L-sure, and that is considered the original copy.
Q. But it's not the original, is it? It's a copy.

MS. WHELAN: Your Honor, objection. Asked and answered.

THE COURT: Counsel -- you know, I think we're somewhat arguing semantics, but I think counsel is entitled to go ahead and make sure the jury understands what happened. And perhaps I'll give you one more stab at it. There may be just a disagreement as to how you characterize a copy versus the original, but I think counsel is entitled to some leeway. Go ahead.

Q. What you sent to your Salt Lake FBI office, you called just now an original copy; correct?
A. We call it the original. It's stamped that. Copies are everything after that point.
Q. Okay. But it's not the original. The original was in the recording device; correct, sir?
A. I have to disagree with you on that, because we call that the original.

Last edited by Donald E. Pauly; July 31st, 2011 at 12:28 PM.
 
Old July 31st, 2011 #2053
-JC
Doesn't suffer fools well
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 5,740
-JC
Default Some links to other sources of information and opinion on Ed Steele...

http://en.wordpress.com/tag/edgar-steele-news/
_______________________________________
http://billwhitetrial2.wordpress.com/2011/06/
Archive for June, 2011

« Older Entries
Edgar Steele Update, June

June 29, 2011

Updated on July 7, 2011.
Ed Steele is writing for himself now from his jail cell, and he has a lot to say.

Free Edgar Steele Blog


Meanwhile, the Edgar Steele thread on VNN forum has degenerated into Donald E. Pauly and Hadding running their mouths like Asperger’s Syndrome geeks for the prosecution when they should just shut up. They have no pertinent knowledge of the alleged crime itself and they aren’t helping Edgar, who maintains that he is innocent. Hadding has a known propensity for kicking people locked up in ZOG prison cells and Donald E. Pauly seems to take sadistic pleasure in Edgar Steele’s pain.

American Free Press covers the Steele case -
http://www.americanfreepress.net/html/ed_steele_237.html

Steeles’ former lawyer Robert McAllister will be disbarred for stealing from his clients -
http://www.spokesman.com/blogs/sirens/2011/jun/09/edgar-steeles-lawyer-disbarred-colo/


Steele gets a new lawyer, Wesley Hoyt – http://www.kxly.com/news/28293791/detail.html


The Defense asked for more time to file motion for a new trial -
http://www.spokesman.com/blogs/sirens/2011/may/23/document-details-steeles-trial-request/


Reasons for the new trial –

1) Newly discovered evidence regarding Jeff Buck and the viability of the explosive device (from Fairfax’s sentencing);

2) Defense was unable to secure the attendance of Dr. George Papcun to testify;

3) Contention that the Court erred in excluding the testimony of Dennis Walsh;

4) Alleged violation of attorney-client communication privilege;

5) Alleged untimeliness of production Fairfax’s “fictional book” notes;

6) Alleged error in allowing cross-examination of Cyndi Steele using the petition for divorce from 2000;

7) Alleged error of admitting the video tape deposition of Tatyana Loginova;
Alleged error in sustaining objections to testimony of Bob Stoll, DVM;

9) Allegations of error in sustaining Government objections during cross-examination of Larry Fairfax; and

10) Allegation of error in instructing the jury as to the second question of the jury during deliberations.

The sealed motion filed last week apparently was not an actual motion for anew trial – it asked for more time to file that motion.

Prosecutors objected to that request, saying the fact that the defense was able to list 10 reasons for a new trial seven days after the verdict was proof they didn’t need more time.

But U.S. District Judge B. Lynn Winmill gave the defense until June 30 to file final post-trial motions. Steele is scheduled to be sentenced Aug. 22; he faces at least 30 years in prison.

Nice comment from chompers:
Chompers on May 24 at 7:30 p.m.
Posted in Edgar Steele News | Leave a Comment »

Comments on the VNN Forum’s “Edgar Steele” Thread

June 6, 2011


I am bored. That’s all. So, a few comments on the Edgar Steele thread on Vanguard News Network.


Pauly – I was glad to see the other posters turn on Pauly and call him names. Ever since he started calling Edgar Steele “crazy as a shit house rat” or “bat shit crazy”, or whatever, I have thought Pauly is not really on Edgar’s side. I wondered why they let him go on so long. I know, it was because he was very “helpful”.


Hadding – Hadding disgraced himself in the same way all through the Bill White trial thread as he did in the Edgar Steele thread.


And Hadding and Jim Giles together last summer on Radio Free Mississippi were WORSE than the mainstream press in the way they covered the Steele case. WORSE THAN THE MSM.


Mona Montgomery – I said a while back she didn’t seem so crazy to me now as she had last year. But since that post I went back and re-watched one of her videos. It was the one where she was combing her hair and she said Cyndi was a fat, old bag. Oh! I had forgotten how crazy she presented herself to be in those videos. Much, much too crazy for anyone to ever say she’s not so crazy. She’s crazy. (She could be faking it, but she does it very well.)


Edgar Steele – I don’t have any opinion on whether he is guilty or not, really. If he suddenly admitted that he DID plot to murder his wife, it wouldn’t bother me at all. (Although I would feel bad for all the people he misled.) As I said from the start, everything depends on whether the recordings were fake or not fake. For my money, this has not been determined satisfactorily, yet.

Posted in Edgar Steele News | Leave a Comment »

Last edited by -JC; July 31st, 2011 at 05:22 PM.
 
Old July 31st, 2011 #2054
-JC
Doesn't suffer fools well
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 5,740
-JC
Default Whoa... Even testimony that such a recording was uploaded timely to the ADS transcription service may not be enough...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Donald E. Pauly View Post

<snip>

2-343-16

A. The FBI uses a device, along with other law enforcement agencies, made by ADS. It's a device that the FBI provides to me. It has proprietary software. To my understanding, it has hash marks in the software that doesn't allow it to be tampered with.

Q. Now, is it a tape recorder?

A. It's not like the tape recorder you would buy at, like a Best Buy. It's a digital recorder, but it's in a different type of look, so it's not -- doesn't look like a tape recorder.
=======
The companies website appears to be http://adstranscription.com/aboutus.aspx . This recorder is downloaded to a disk so that it can be reused and the data is stored in a .wav file. The recorder can only be stopped or started thru a multiple pressing of several keys on it. It is perfectly normal to destroy the original so that the recorder can be reused.
Keep in mind that ADS is apparently not advertising that they will transcribe a recording of the actual wire tap but the law enforcement officer's notes regarding what was heard during a wire tap because my understanding is that the recording of even a permitted wire tap would not be inadmissible. No mention, other than "but not limited to," was made to actual surveillance audio. Given the current climate, it wouldn't surprise me if we're breaking new ground here, too. Here's what the ADS that Mr. Pauly says is the digital recorder manufacturer referred-to by the testifying FBI agent had to say on the page linked-to by Mr. Pauly, a few minutes ago here, http://adstranscription.com/aboutus.aspx:

Law Enforcement




AllScribe Digital Solutions helps to keep law enforcement agencies one step ahead of crime. The time police officers are writing reports is time they are tied to paperwork and not on the frontline. When you team up with ADS, your officers are able to free up their burden of paperwork and dedicate more time to being out in the field. This ultimately leads to a decrease in crime and an increase in safety. Anything from population growth to the certain seasons of the year can cause an increase in crime and an increase in the backlog of paperwork.




ADS also provides a solution to the age-old system of tape recorders. ADS will equip your department with digital recorders so that your officers can dictate remotely and securely. Everything is uploaded on a secure active-server page and returned to your department’s account within the time specified. ADS even offers same-day turnaround so that officers can have their work completed before the end of their shift.




The services ADS provides for law enforcement agencies ranges from criminal investigations to patrol reports. Services for criminal investigations can include, but not limited to, crime scene notes, interviews, testimonies, wire taps and medical examinations. Services for patrol reports provide your officers the opportunity to narrate as the incident occurs as well as providing the capability to integrate with your departments current patrol equipment and document management software.

Last edited by -JC; July 31st, 2011 at 02:40 PM.
 
Old July 31st, 2011 #2055
-JC
Doesn't suffer fools well
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 5,740
-JC
Default Defense objections were not made timely either...

2-343-16

A. The FBI uses a device, along with other law enforcement agencies, made by ADS. It's a device that the FBI provides to me. It has proprietary software. To my understanding, it has hash marks in the software that doesn't allow it to be tampered with.

Now, if I read the above statement correctly, that the software is proprietary, then the word "it" in the following sentence could plausibly refer to the software program containing tamper prevention code that allegedly prevents the software itself from being modified but not necessarily the digital content of whatever was remotely uploaded to the ADS system. I would have at least wanted to clarify what was being stated but experts at counsel's elbow would probably have noticed the need for such clarification, etc.

Last edited by -JC; July 31st, 2011 at 01:16 PM.
 
Old July 31st, 2011 #2056
Donald E. Pauly
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 4,130
Smile Backhoe Ed

Steele wasn't totally crazy. He didn't trust Fairfax very much. He failed to frisk him and find the recorder however. According to Fairfax he essentially threatened to bury him with his backhoe. Much of the interesting stuff in this trial was never published by the Judenpresse.
========
2-463-4

Fairfax being questioned by U.S. Attorney Wheelan:

Q. Were you afraid of the defendant?
A. Yes, I was.
Q. Why?
A. Because he was getting more agitated as this went along, because this was over a couple months. And so he kept doing things like frisking me and showing me his guns and, you know, telling me how he could bury a horse in 15 minutes with his backhoe.
 
Old July 31st, 2011 #2057
Donald E. Pauly
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 4,130
Default Recorder Appearance/Train Whistle

This tells us a bit more about the recorder. It was disguised in the form of a key fob. The business of the original recording is a red herring. Of course the recording could have been edited but there was NO testimony that it had been altered. Papcun never claimed as much.

We have the testimony of both Sotka and Fairfax that the recording was genuine. I don't think that Fairfax is smart enough to be a good enough liar to cover up an edited recording. The length of both recordings is consistant with the story of the FBI about their supervision of Fairfax.

Fairfax testifies about the train whistle on the tape being normal. Steele's daughter Kelsey was fool enough to deny that the train whistle was supposed to be there. The prosecutor produced a schedule of the train which matched the time of the train whistle on the tape precisely.

BTW, I am only about 25% of the way thru the 1500 pages of the transcript. The Steele cheerleaders could do something usefull and help me.
========
2-502-18
Q. Did you give Special Agent Sotka anything?
A. I gave him the -- my key ring.
Q. Okay. Did you give him the recorder?
A. Yes. It was on the key ring.

2-498-16

Q. In the background, there is a train sound. Did you hear that?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. Is there a train track near Sagle, Idaho?
A. Yes, there is.
Q. Is it unusual to hear trains when you're working at the Steele place?
A. No, it's not.
 
Old July 31st, 2011 #2058
-JC
Doesn't suffer fools well
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 5,740
-JC
Default Take a closer look at typical digital recorders used in law enforcement...

Since approximately 2005, I've owned both a SONY and an OLYMPUS-brand digital recorder, along with the black nylon & Velcro holster that would allow me to wear it on a regular belt and has a belt loop wide-enough for a cop to wear on a Sam Brown belt. Have a look at how they operate and download audio here: http://www.voicerecognition.com/solutions/digital_recorders/

Seems there would be something amiss with the testimony if there is no ADS manufacturing digital micro recorders. I'm not familiar with anything any more high-tech than the recorders I own but I'm sure there's something out there.

There are, of course, even video versions and in the shape of remote starters and car door openers but I believe the digital audio technology is essentially the same: http://www.eyespypro.com/products/Co...-Recorder.html.

Last edited by -JC; July 31st, 2011 at 03:08 PM.
 
Old July 31st, 2011 #2059
-JC
Doesn't suffer fools well
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 5,740
-JC
Default The reason I block Mr. Pauly's posts unless I hear from a friend to read one...

[Memo to Donald Pauly: You are disruptive and perhaps that is a surprise if you are not a troll. You have not convinced me that you are doing anything other that gratifying your personal emotional needs here even if its just venting your spleen.]

But I digress and suppose that is the point-- engagement-- something I'll not do here again. Back to "Ignore."

The reason I block Mr. Pauly's posts unless I hear from a friend to read one...

Self-important authority on what constitutes insanity, "Donald Pauly," the only "Nativist" anti-immigration activist without a photo in the SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW CENTER'S profiles. Some, you know, oppose immigration out of concern for backlash resulting from characteristic overreaching. And there are more sophisticated reasons for opposing all immigration considered by William Pierce, Ph.D. expressed through the following video,
and t
he paper Dr. Pierce discusses in the video, http://www.cis.org/ChangingDemography-JewishInterestImmigrationPolicy

Foremost however, its because, as I've said, the obvious attitude toward Ed Steele, his children (most recently calling one "fool enough"), anyone who seems at least neutral-- much less in the innocent until proven guilty corner-- is constantly, snidely pissed-on from the kind of perch I'd understand if we were hearing from the Jane Pauly on television. Try as I might, I don't feel there is an "we" here and instead that Mr. Pauly continues to comb the transcript for evidence to support his position and then preach on it. And so, rather than engage Mr. Pauly as he evidently needs (Look at ME!), I decided to see what was posted about him and see if there were anything about him to which I could relate. I found how the SPLC portrays him, not that I take it at face value but think it is food for thought.

Keep in mind that neoconservative Zionist and assassin of fellow Norwegians, Andres Breivk, claims to be anti-immigration.

And Michael Savage (Read Non-White Ashkenazi Jew “Michael Weiner”) is not only anti-immigration but also allegedly pro-White. The following explanation of such anti-immigration positions by leftists, Michael Savage in particular, is in the Who Do You Trust video at about 03L50:

_____________________________________________
http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-report/browse-all-issues/2008/spring/the-nativists?page=0,0
Intelligence Report, Spring 2008, Issue Number: 129

The Nativists

Profiles of 20 Anti-Immigrant Leaders

They're 25 to 81 years old. Their homes are scattered from California to Connecticut. Their occupations include auto dealer, Web designer, Baptist preacher, documentary filmmaker and full-time border vigilante. They agitate on behalf of policies ranging from mining the U.S.-Mexico border and placing government sniper teams in the desert to the forced sterilization of Mexican women and the immediate deportation of all Latino immigrants and Muslims, regardless of legal status or citizenship.

They are 20 of the most active and influential nativists among the looming second wave of anti-immigration activists, organizers and militants. Their rhetoric and tactics often make those of movement icons like Minuteman Project co-founders Jim Gilchrist and Chris Simcox seem tame by comparison. They are media savvy and exploit any medium they can to deliver their message of raging intolerance. Several have been repeat guests on CNN and Fox News. Others have their own radio shows or distribute propaganda videos online.

The net effect of their collective effort has contributed mightily toward darkening the skies of an already harsh political and social climate, with the tone of the national debate on immigration growing nastier by the day and with Latinos increasingly being subject to discrimination and violence. The most current FBI hate crime statistics suggest that hate crimes targeting Latinos in this country spiked 35% over the past four years, and a recently released Pew Hispanic Center study found that Latinos, whether American citizens for generations or undocumented, are feeling more and more vulnerable and discriminated against.

What follows are snapshots of these 20 new-wave nativists. Although this collection is not intended to be comprehensive, it provides insight into the attitudes, motivations and personalities of a still-growing fringe movement that regrettably wields more influence in our society now than ever.

Rusty Childress
Jerome Corsi
Robert Crooks
Michelle Dallacroce
Wiley Drake
Shawna Forde
"Buffalo" Rick Galeener
William Gheen
Dustin Gold
Bill Irwin
Kris Kobach
Greg Letiecq
Tom Macklin
Chelene Nightingale
Donald Pauly
Rosanna Pulido
Jason "J.T." Ready
Alberto Rodriguez
Vito Vaccaro
Brook Young

Donald E. Pauly, 64
Henderson, Nevada

Donald Pauly is a Holocaust denier and self-proclaimed "
Zionism Zionism
Rastafari_movement Rastafari_movement
[1]" who believes, among other things, that "all Jews should return to Israel" and "[a]ll Negroes should return to Africa." These days, though, Pauly is chiefly concerned with ridding the United States of Mexicans.

A self-employed electrical engineer, Pauly in 2002 formed the Emigration Party of Nevada, a single-issue political party that advocates the forced repatriation of all Latino immigrants residing in the United States, regardless of their legal status, and calls for the government to place snipers on the border with orders to "shoot to kill."

"Bring the closest Mexican consular officer out to collect the first carcass. The word will spread instantly all over Mexico," Pauly proposes. "Immigration would be halted within days." The Emigration Party platform also calls for the forced sterilization of all Mexican women living in Mexico after the birth of their first child. "The cost of spaying a cat is $100. Surely $400 would be enough for a Mexican," Pauly says.

"IQ is the other elephant in the living room besides immigration," Pauly told the Intelligence Report. "Mexicans and American Negroes both have the same IQ of about 85. The main difference is that Mexicans will work without being whipped."

Despite such inflammatory rhetoric, Pauly claims the Emigration Party isn't fueled by racial hatred, at least not when it come to Mexicans. "We positively love Mexicans in Mexico and are the best friend that Mexico has. We want to replace their corrupt government with one that takes care of their people," he said. "We would stop them from breeding like flies and provide them with jobs."

Pauly refused to discuss Emigration Party membership other than to say: "We have a female telephone company employee, a female taxicab radio dispatcher, a male college professor, a male construction foreman, and a male construction worker. All of these would likely face being fired by their illegal alien-loving employers if their involvement with our Party were made public."

In December 2006, Pauly helped organize a small Mexican flag-burning demonstration in front of the Mexican consulate in Phoenix. He told a crowd of anti-racist protesters that he wants all immigrants deported from the United States, regardless of their skin color. "We'd like anchor babies from Ireland to go home, too," he said. "We don't care. We want all immigrants gone."

"Wasn't this country founded on immigration?" one protester countered. "One hundred years ago," Pauly retorted. "America is full and we want to clean it up. I want room to go out and shoot my pistol, room to park."
____________________________________________________
Assessing the costs and benefits of mass deportation
by Edwin S. Rubinstein

Synopsis

In July 2005, the Center for American Progress published a report assessing the costs of arresting, detaining, prosecuting, and deporting illegal aliens. The study, Deporting the Undocumented: A Cost Assessment, estimated that the total cost of mass deportation would be between $206 and $230 billion over five years or an average cost of between $41 and $46 billion annually over a five year period. The following paper reviews the data on mass deportation. In reassessing the cost, the following analysis compares and contrasts what an amnesty would cost taxpayers in terms of social services, lost wages, health care subsidies, and educational expenditures. The author concludes that comparative estimates demonstrate “no matter how high the costs of deporting illegal aliens may seem, the costs of not deporting them are larger still.”

Excerpt:
A July 2005 study questions whether deporting illegal immigrants would be worth the costs. Deporting the Undocumented: A Cost Assessment is published by the Center for American Progress, a liberal think-tank. Its authors claim the study is the first-ever estimate of costs associated with arresting, detaining, prosecuting, and removing immigrants who have entered the United States illegally or overstayed their visas.

The cost of mass deportation?: $206 to $230 billion over five-years, depending on how many illegals leave voluntarily. That’s an average cost of $41 billion to $46 billion per year for five years. About 10 million illegals would be subject to deportation, according to the study.

Advocates for tougher immigration laws say the estimates are too high. Mark Krikorian of the Center for Immigration Studies argues, for example, that as many as 50 percent of illegals would leave voluntarily if the government were to initiate an aggressive deportation policy. By contrast, the study assumes only 10 to 20 percent would leave voluntarily.

Rep. Tom Tancredo (R.–CO) called the study “an interesting intellectual exercise” that is “useless…because no one’s talking about” mass deportation. Rather than deport individuals he would impose fines and impose sanctions on employers who employ illegals—something the government has stubbornly refused to do.

We believe that neither the pro- nor the anti-immigration groups are asking the right questions. Neither side has assessed the costs of maintaining the status quo, i.e., the annual costs of an immigration policy that refuses to either stem the influx of illegal aliens or deport illegals already here.

Illegal aliens are poorer than natives. They are eligible for welfare, medical assistance, and housing subsidies. Like all people, they enroll their children in school, drive on roads, and require police, fire, and sanitation services. They are also more likely to be incarcerated.
They also pay taxes. Even when working “off the books” illegal immigrants can’t avoid paying excise, sales and other taxes. So the fact that they receive public benefits does not necessarily mean they are a net drain.

Unfortunately, every study of the fiscal impact of immigration finds that the public expenditures attributable to illegal immigrants exceed their tax payments by a wide margin.

In addition there are indirect economic costs. Illegal immigrants reduce the incomes and employment opportunities of U.S.-born workers. Since the 1986 amnesty illegal aliens have become the largest contributor to U.S. labor force growth. Immigrant inflows—about one-third to one-half of which are comprised of illegal immigrants—accounted for almost half of U.S. labor force growth in recent years, and even more in certain areas and industries.

About 15 percent of U.S. workers were foreign born in 2004, up from 10 percent in 1990. Exactly how much of a reduction this has had on incomes of U.S. born workers cannot be known with certainty. A study by Harvard University Professor George Borjas concludes, however, that every 10 percent increase in the U.S. labor force due to immigration reduces wages of native workers by about 3.5 percent. If Borjas is right, the income lost by displaced native born workers is enormous and growing rapidly.

In this paper we will show that, no matter how high the costs of deporting illegal aliens may seem, the costs of not deporting them are larger still.

Illegals Hurt Government Finances

Illegal aliens receive more than $26.3 billion in federal services while paying only $16 billion in federal taxes, creating a net fiscal deficit of about $10.3 billion. The figures for 2002 are from a report published by the Center for Immigration Studies in 2004. These are conservative estimates…

Fall 2003 SPLC Intelligence Report on 40 to Watch on the radical right (Includes several who’ve been prosecuted)

[1]Marcus Garvey and Black Zionism</SPAN>

See also:
Alliance_of_Black_Jews Alliance_of_Black_Jews
and
Jews_and_Judaism_in_the_African_diaspora Jews_and_Judaism_in_the_African_diaspora
.
Zionist success in winning British support for formation of a Jewish National Home in Palestine helped to inspire the Jamaican nationalist
Marcus_Garvey Marcus_Garvey
to form a movement dedicated to returning Americans of African origin to Africa. During a speech in
Harlem Harlem
in 1920, Garvey stated: "other races were engaged in seeing their cause through—the Jews through their Zionist movement and the
Irish_people Irish_people
through their Irish movement—and I decided that, cost what it might, I would make this a favorable time to see the Negro's interest through."[68] Garvey established a shipping company, the
Black_Star_Line Black_Star_Line
, to allow Black Americans to emigrate to Africa, but for various reasons failed in his endeavour.

Garvey helped inspire the
Rastafari_movement Rastafari_movement
in Jamaica, the
Black_Jews Black_Jews
[69] and the
African_Hebrew_Israelites_of_Jerusalem African_Hebrew_Israelites_of_Jerusalem
who initially moved to Liberia before settling in Israel.

Last edited by -JC; July 31st, 2011 at 05:44 PM.
 
Old July 31st, 2011 #2060
-JC
Doesn't suffer fools well
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 5,740
-JC
Default U.S. Embassy in Kyiv Blog Post on Edgar Steele Case with footnote...

http://billwhitetrial2.wordpress.com/2011/05/22/edgar-steele-russian-bride-motive/

U.S. Embassy in Kyiv Blog Post on Edgar Steele Case

By americafarm

Posted under “Combating Human Trafficking”!
Click on the link for “Combating Human Trafficking” to read more blog posts about that, such as this one

http://usembassykyiv.wordpress.com/2010/12/09/combating-human-trafficking-awards-ceremony

Source: http://usembassykyiv.wordpress.com/
FBI-Ukraine Cooperation Helps Secure Conviction in U.S. Murder-for-Hire Case

Posted by usembassykyiv under Combating Human Trafficking, FBI, Human Rights | Tags: Department of Justice, FBI, FBI’s Legal Attaché’s office in Kyiv, Steele’s case, trial |1 Comment

Posted by: Daniel Cisek, Deputy Press Attaché

[FBI logo]

The FBI recently concluded a successful investigation and prosecution of U.S. citizen Edgar J. Steele for charges stemming from his attempts to hire a hitman to kill his wife in 2008. The FBI’s investigation determined Steele hired Larry Fairfax, a handyman, to place a bomb in Cyndi Steele’s vehicle. When the bomb failed to detonate, Steele discussed with Fairfax his desire for his wife to die in a car accident. Fairfax eventually brought the plot to the attention of local authorities and the FBI. Department of Justice prosecutors believed Steele’s motive for the plot involved his desire to have a new wife without losing portions of his assets in a divorce settlement. The FBI investigation determined Steele was looking for his new wife in Ukraine. Because of the case’s connection to Ukraine, U.S.-based investigators sought assistance from the FBI’s Legal Attaché’s office in Kyiv and the Legal Attaché’s contacts with Ukrainian law enforcement authorities.

As part of the evidence collected in the case, U.S.-based FBI agents recovered information that Steele was using on-line dating websites to find a new wife. When Steele’s dating interests appeared to include several women in Ukraine, the FBI’s Legal Attaché office in Kyiv worked with the Ministry of Internal Affairs (MVD) to identify and interview one of the women in contact with Steele. Working with little information, the Legal Attaché’s MVD contacts were able to locate and interview the woman who provided information corroborating the prosecution’s theory that Steele was actively seeking a new wife.

Following Steele’s indictment on charges related to the murder-for-hire plot, prosecutors determined a need to incorporate the Ukrainian citizen’s testimony in Steele’s trial. In March 2011, the Legal Attaché’s office, along with the Department of Justice’s Office of International Affairs, obtained unprecedented assistance from the Ukrainian General Prosecutor’s Office (GPO) to conduct a court authorized, video- link deposition with the court in Coeur d’Alene, Idaho. The GPO worked closely with the Legal Attaché’s office to obtain the witness’s cooperation, the witness’s transportation to the deposition site at the U.S. Embassy in Kyiv, and to provide Ukrainian legal support to the proceedings and to the witness in order to protect her rights under Ukrainian law. The GPO also supported the FBI’s efforts by negotiating with the witness for the release of letters she received from Steele to the FBI as evidence. The staff at the U.S. Embassy in Kyiv also successfully negotiated technological challenges to successfully support the effort to facilitate the deposition.

In April 2011, Edgar Steele was tried in Federal Court in Boise, Idaho for the plot to kill his wife. Ukraine-based Assistant Legal Attaché Brent A. Smith traveled to the trial to provide testimony surrounding the evidence collected with the assistance of the MVD and the GPO. According to the Assistant United States Attorney prosecuting the case, the evidence and testimony collected through the assistance of the Ukrainian government was pivotal in establishing and corroborating Steele’s motive for attempting to have his wife killed. Steele’s trial concluded with convictions on all four counts related to the murder-for-hire plot. Additionally, the cooperation in this case broke new ground for U.S. prosecutions with links to Ukraine through the successful completion of the first video-linked deposition that was deemed admissible by U.S. courts.


Wally D. Says:
May 18, 2011 at 8:44 am

Lots of married American men use Ukrainian dating services. That’s hardly enough evidence to convict the man.

This entry was posted on May 22, 2011 at 9:13 am and is filed under Edgar Steele News. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.


Combating Human Trafficking Awards Ceremony



Posted by usembassykyiv under Combating Human Trafficking | Tags: human trafficking, NGO | Leave a Comment

Ambassador Tefft presents anti-trafficking award to Mr. Pysarevskyi

Posted by: Erin Concors, USAID Communications Advisor

The Kyiv Academic Puppet Theatre felt enchanted on a recent snowy night, with brightly lit clock towers, snow-covered gardens and whimsical statues of children. Instead of taking in a child’s play with puppets moved about by the hands of actors, however, I experienced stories of “puppets” and “actors” of a very different kind – human beings being trafficked for profit and their captors. The International Organization for Migration (IOM)’s Fifth Annual Combating Human Trafficking Awards Ceremony, supported by the U.S. Agency for International Development, was a sobering experience. The trafficking awards were held on Dec. 2, the International Day for the Abolition of Slavery, and were designed to draw attention to the problem of human trafficking, and to reward the courage and dedication of individuals and organizations who take action to combat it.

According to IOM, Ukraine is a country of origin, transit, and increasingly – a destination for trafficking in men, women and children. More than 110,000 Ukrainians have become victims of trafficking since 1991, and anywhere between 800,000 and several million people have been trafficked worldwide, said IOM Chief of Mission in Ukraine Manfred Profazi.

Courtesy of Kseniya Simonova

In the darkened theater, with Ukrainian and international government officials, NGO leaders and other attendees, I watched artists, dancers and musicians express their interpretations of the toll human trafficking takes on relationships and the human body. Most moving for me were the amazing sand pictures drawn by artist
, winner of the Ukraine’s Got Talent competition. They depicted women, men and children caught in trafficking; the darkness and pain of being trapped in such a situation; and the powerful force that government and NGOs can become in partnering to fight the problem.


[i][i]U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine John F. Tefft and Andriy Olefirov, Director-General for Consular Services at Ukraine’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs, co-presented the first award For Bravery and Personal Contribution to Anatoliy Pysarevskyi, Second Secretary of the Consular Section of the Embassy of Ukraine, for his team’s work in freeing trafficking victims in Indonesia. The consular team responded rapidly to the plight of a 19-year-old Kyiv university student who thought she was applying for a “modeling” position but was in reality forced to work as a prostitute. The team’s courageous actions freed women from Ukraine, Russia, Uzbekistan and Moldova.

New forms of human trafficking are on the rise in Ukraine, including labor exploitation and the illegal trade of human organs, Profazi said. Now not only young women and children are being trafficked, but also elderly women and men.

The U.S. Government has supported counter-trafficking for more than 10 years in Ukraine. Its programs focus on raising awareness; technical and material assistance to law enforcement and NGOs; and the reintegration of victims, including job training and job creation. In that time, 125 former victims have started 105 businesses in such areas as agriculture, construction, education and more. Through a network of 30 NGOs, a total of 2,670 trafficked persons were identified, received aid and counseling, and were reintegrated into society.

Last edited by -JC; July 31st, 2011 at 08:08 PM.
 
Reply

Tags
edgar steele

Share


Thread
Display Modes


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:15 AM.
Page generated in 0.42864 seconds.