02-09-2008, 10:47 AM
(This post was last modified: 02-09-2008, 10:51 AM by Herbert Spencer.)
Ben Johnson Wrote:You aren't saying that the government, worried about its case, approached the Liberian government to remove St. Regis's accreditation? Wouldn't that be akin to manufacturing evidence? Couldn't be true. Could it?
That's an interesting thought. I would have supposed there was no case contemplated by the government until after the Liberian accreditation was confounded. On the other hand, it does seem like the pieces fell together very neatly once that happened. No case absent fraud, no fraud as long as there's accreditation, so remove accreditation and then yell fraud.
That's like waiting until the old lady is half way across the street, sandblasting the cross walk, then writing her a jay walking ticket.
Hard to believe anybody in government could concoct a diabolical plan like that. You would almost have to be a PhD or something......
Here's the order granting the depo motion:
depositions_preserve_testimony_granted.pdf (Size: 9 KB / Downloads: 5)
depos_preserve_conditions.pdf (Size: 24.26 KB / Downloads: 3)
Here's a new discovery motion filed by SRU today, which includes a request that the government identify confidential informants:
Quote:(14) Confidential Informant(s) and related information. It is requested that the government reveal the identity of any and all confidential informants who were percipient witnesses to the charges in this case and information regarding any promises made to the CI(s) and the information provided by the CI(s).
Wonder whose name will show up in response to this? Wonder if that same name will have any connection to the accreditation issue discussed above?
pete_schweda_discovery_motions.pdf (Size: 39.68 KB / Downloads: 4)