by Kate Dixon » Thu Nov 26, 2009 11:12 am
I am going to try to respond to the points you raised. I will quote some of of material, as -- you say in "Quotes:" with my point in response. You know point by point, collegially.
I do not have a "position" although you seem to think I have one. i mean I have not been contacted by law enforcement or by Jimmy Hughes and I have not reviewed any court files, which I am sure will be subject to a sealing fight. This case is about 28 years old so it is very hard to research -- many witnesses are not available or deceased or will not talk or simply can't recall.
You can read my article, "when is case too old to try" on NMN and see that the courts are throwing out cases for being too old to try. Age in a case also can lead to other due process problems. So I do not have a "position" about the whole case, but I do have a position about the issue of immunity, which I am expressing.
YOU SAID: "First of all, as far as I know, starting with the arrest of Jimmy Hughes in connection with a notorious triple homicide that appears to be rife with deep political and organized crime associations, and going forward, nobody thinks or has been tenaciously, tyranically and unaccountably superficial enough to suggest that it was about Rachel Begley. Not excluding Rachel Begley herself, actually, from what I've seen of her demeanor and conduct." MY RESPONSE: I agree with you that there are deep political and organized crime associations in this case, but there are these considerations in many many cases. In fact all prosecutions are tinged with political considerations. And organized crime, well it is organized, you have to say that. You forget though that the Hughes case is tinged with what is referred to these days as "national security" considerations. Back in the day, one could simply say the CIA was all over the case. Or that the President was all over the case. If you take this Alvarez triple execution to the status of "national security", above and beyond mere politics and organized crime, then of course, Hughes can pull out the so-called national security card -- and assert the case can't be tried without revealing classified information, thus he can't be tried. But I see you comments and those of Begley and Powers -- the main if only sources of info from the prosecution never mention "national security", just focus on organized crime and politics. Oh well....
I do not know who you are, but I don't mind responding to anonymity -- it has its place. I must say though that you are in error, in stating that the case is not about Ms. Begley. Yes, Yes it is about her. Why? First, it was her father who was murdered -- important point, and Second, she is the means by which the prosecutor will attempt to overcome Hughe's grant of immunity -- by establishing that they have a case independent of that old immunity grant, based on new fresh information, generated by Begley, at least in part, and by Powers. Without Begley, the prosecution cannot overcome the immunity problem. She is in position here --- not the first time law enforcement used someone. Wait until she finds out she was used as a mere tool.
YOU SAID: "Apart from yourself and Virginia McCullough, both of newsmakingnews, which -- as I understand it -- appears to be your shop."
MY RESPONSE: You are right if you think I am the exclusive owner of Newsmakingnews (NMN). Virginia McCullough runs her own shop and always has and always will. I have nothing to do with what she writes. I publish it if I want to. If Ms. Begley sent me an article, I probably would publish that too.
YOU SAID: "And for some reason that's presumably known to you even if it isn't to me, since the get, your shop and/or its representatives have given every appearance of repeatedly attempting to impugn Rachel Begley's character, both explicitly and implicitly, via a series of pretexts that either don't seem to justify the slurs on a prima facie basis, or for which you're not offering any proof other than your word, or that later appear to be contradicted by facts that you yourselves don't challenge. Or all three. Why? What's up with that? I do not understand it at all. That's my A#1 question, therefore. Why, why, why do you not trust Rachel Begley? Why?"
MY RESPONSE: I don't know Ms. Begley. She never contacted me. I am not involved in impugning her. I realize she like everyone wants to maintain credibility. I also realiize that the entire reputation of the Attorney General and Riverside Sheriff and Rod Pacheco is resting upon the integrity of her as a witness -- as one of the main witnesses who will take them past the grant of immunity -- they hope, so they can prosecute Hughes, despite this immunity. So, the credibility of Begley goes way beyond what one person thinks about her -- law enforcement has a stake in her future and her future testimony. She is their pawn. I am interested in her in that I am intrigued as to how she is being used. I have no personal feelings about her except that I regret she lost her father and lost him at a young age.
YOU SAID: "Because while it may be clear to you, I assure you: It's absolutely baffling from a third-party perspective. You appear, for all the world, to be rooting for Hughes, what with stuff like the posting of an address to which supporters can write."
MY RESPONSE: I am not rooting for Hughes. This forum has a degree of intellectual inquiry into the facts. I am not the one who raised this legal issue. Begley and Powers raised it on television -- the TV show was linked to this thread a few posts ago. When they raised the issue of Hughes' immunity, I simply researched the issue, thought about it and expressed some points. You must know that law is pro and con, and Lincoln said, the job of a lawyer is to spend 99 percent of his time thinking about what the other guy is thinking, (paraphrase of his statement). So to look into what Hughe's defenses might be is simply logical. Not to do so, is simply stupid unless one take the extreme right wing position that defendants should have no defense and no rights and no right to defend themselves.
YOU SAID: "Or, as above, all of a sudden and out-of-the-blue, taking an uncompromising and principled stand on defendant's rights, when it:
(a) represents a 180-degree turn in editorial policy wrt to the defendant in question;
(b) represents a 180-degree turn in editorial policy wrt the general legal implications of advocating on principle for the absolute inviolability of transactional immunity in the context of grand jury investigations, as if your newest and bestest friend were Dick fucking Cheney or something, especially in the context of California state saw, for pity's sake; and
(c) actively obscures the two most fucking obvious legal meanings that Rachel Begley's statement about the immunity having been contingent on the testimony panning out could possibly fucking have in the state of California.
Which are, as I'm sure you know: (1) that he did have transactional immunity, which doesn't protect him from being prosecuted for perjury, and that they do have rock solid evidence that he perjured himself; or (2) that the DA's office had enough on Jimmy Hughes back when to get him to agree to testify in exchange for limited immunity.'
MY RESPONSE: I think you are right that a person who has transactional immunity can be prosecuted for perjury. In fact, I am surprised that the complaint against Hughes does not consist of a perjury charge. It does not. Why? Does law enforcement think he did not perjure himself? I say, if he lied, prosecute him for perjury -- wouldn't that be logical. I guess they don't have a case for perjury. Instead they just ignore his immunity, which you seem to know is "transactional", and charge him with murder 1. I don't know if Hughes had a plea bargain connected to his immunity, in other words, he has a reduced plea for some lesser charged based on his giving true testimony, and which allows the reduced plea to be revoked and then allow him to face charges on the original complaint. I don't know that he ever served any time regarding the triple execution or pled to anything regarding it -- I believe the media would have picked that up and it would be a public record if he actually pled to something in regard to the execution. I haven't seen that. So, it appears to me that Begley and Powers are saying that Hughes perjured himself during grand jury testimony during which he was granted transactional immunity, therefore his immunitiy is somehow "revoked". How stupid can they be? Immunity is never "revoked" by abracadabra it is revoked --- no. It is revoked after perjury is proven in a court of law, unless it was contingent on a plea deal.
Hughes' immunity remains in place and Powers and law enforcement can't revoke it by saying it is revoked.
My question to you is, if Hughes testified before the grand jury about his role and testified presumably about the role of others, then why were those other people not charged in the past and not charged now. Ooops I forgot, John Philip Nichols is mentioned as a conspirator re: murder in the current complaint, but oops, he is dead. Oh well, ooops, the Riverside sheriff and Indio police and Riverside D.A. for whom Pacheco worked during those long years, were unable to make a case against JPN before he died. Ooops ooops ooops. Looks like they can't make a case against anyone else but Glen, but oooops, they are not arresting Glen, not explaining his deal or his immunity, but just accusing him of Murder 1 and letting him walk around a free man. Ooops, oops, oops. The idea of this prosecution is just that Jimmy Hughes must be charged -- forget all the rest of it. So, come on, everyone, have you ever seen a situation like this one? This one takes the cake? No one one God's green earth can believe in the integrity of this complaint and the investigation behind it, when the issue of Glen going free and JPN not being prosecuted for during his lifetime, are not addressed squarely and honestly. Instead, all we hear about is the story of Rachel Begley and John Powers, as if they are characters in a novel, wearing white hats and riding for "justice". Oh, come on, give me a break. The only coverage that I know about in the media other than the work by Virginia McCullough that addressed any of these matters was the TV show cited in this thread. Even Nathan Baca missed the immunity issue. Nathan, where are you?
YOU SAID: "Furthermore, while it is, of course, possible that Jimmy Hughes had transactional immunity and that Begley and Powers (and/or anyone on God's green earth, for all you know) did somehow manage to beat the very formidable odds against putting together a bringable case against someone for crimes related to testimony he gave under conditions of transactional immunity, as you "can easily see," from where the fuck are you getting the undercover-wire-tap-by-Rachel-Begley part of your hypothesis? Do you have any reason to believe that such wire-tapping occurred? And if so, that it was done by Rachel Begley? In which case it would almost certainly be not so much "undercover" as it would "illegal and inadmissible in court," not to mention "pretty close to libel per se for you to suggest without so much as a nod in the direction of due diligence"?"
MY RESPONSE: Well I view Begley's conduct, of apparently, and correct me if I am wrong, of apparently going to a meeting Hughes had in Fresno with some religious people, and confronting him about the death of her father.
Now with that I have no issue -- I think anyone can confront anyone about the death of one's father. However, Begley was recording this audio and visual. And doing this without Hughe's knowledge. To me that is a wiretap, i.e. she was wearing a wire and tapping without someone"s knowlege. I guess you are offended by the word "wiretap", but it has legal implications. Usually persons who law enforcement designate as "informers" wear wiretaps, and often law enforcement even provides the little microphones. So the issue here, is whether Begley was in fact working for Powers when she tapped Hughes -- was she law enfordcement's informant, or a mere private person, a citizen sleuth? There are so many issues here, one could write a book about it. Obviously if one is a wired informant for law enforcement there are questions about the legality of the tap. If one is a mere private citizen doing a wire tap, the questions are different. I guess I just view Begley as an informant wearing a wire for law enforcement. Correct me if I am wrong? Wasn't she all involved with John Powers when she went tapping?
YOU SAID: "Also, has it ever occurred to you that as a plain logical proposition, if you're correct in assuming that Begley and Powers have put together enough evidence from independent sources to overcome a grant of transactional immunity, you can't be correct in assuming that they "wriggled around" the law to get it? And vice versa? Because Hughes does have an attorney, you know. And Begley isn't actually in a position to rule on probable cause as an individual and non-aligned actor, all by herself. As I certainly fucking hope you know, usually that's only done by judges. Whom you typically find in courtrooms, possibly asking questions like: "Who authorized this wiretap? Elves?" MY RESPONSE: I think you are right that judges will be ruling away in this case. I can only add that many rulings will involve the investigation and tap done by Begley as she is law enforcement's tool to try to get around the transactional immunity of Hughes, which apparently exists, per the TV show cited in this thread.
YOU SAID: "As you really and truly must know, full knowledge of every damn detail of the high-stakes poker game that prosecutors looking for bigger fish routinely play with comparatively small-fry suspects is a stone impossibility, for both legal and common sense reasons, 99.9 per cent of the time or oftener. So on what grounds, exactly, is the scenario that you so easily see premised? Do you have any evidence of any kind that supports your point of view? And if so, don't you think it's massively irresponsible of you so completely to ignore your obligation to at least take a shot at presenting it to your readers?" MY RESPONSE: I am not going to buy into the game that prosecutors are somehow working hard behind the scenes to get bigger fish and therefore we should have faith in prosecutors. I don't know what "scenario" you are talking about? I am interested in who actually commited the triple exeuctions. I would like to know their names, living or dead, and what they did in regard to the executions. I would like to see this proven in a court of law and proven openly without sealing every bit of testimony and ever document. If the President of the United States or head of the CIA authorized the hit, I would like to see them named in a complaint and see the case pursued. I personaly do not have any evidence in my possession about this case, if you mean testimony or documents. I have tried to study it by reading about it but much info on the internet and in print is really disinfo. The public is really relying on this current prosecution to deliver the truth and so far we have one man dead, JPN, and Glen, walking around a free man, and one man who had transactional immunity.
Where's the beef?
YOU SAID: Or are you just speculating? And if so, why are your speculations all conditional on the inherent no-goodness of Rachel Begley?
MY REPONSE: I really don't know Ms. Begley. As far as I am concerned she is a tool of law enforcement at this point, as I have described above. Law enforcement put her on the front line to soldier on for them. I have seen other people in this position in my life and remember the outcome. I remember one guy who soldiered on for law enforcement for years in court and before the media, and when the case was over, I saw him in the hall and try to talk to one of the chief inspectors on the case, like he had in the past, so nice and friendly, lovey-dovey, and guess what the inspector just smiled and turned away from him. The guy was a nothing. His use over. Frankly these law enforcement guys are mostly interested in retiring, getting their fat pensions and working for some high level security type firm, preferably Wackenhut. Ooops. That's a good one. What was the role of Wackenut in the triple executions?
YOU SAID: "Thanks in advance for your attention to these questions. Please let me know if I was unclear in some way or can otherwise be of any assistance to you in answering them. I very much appreciate your consideration and look forward to hearing your responses at your earliest convenience. MY RESPONSE: It was nice going point by point with you because you are smart.
YOU SAID: PS: FYI -- Casting aspersions on the character and motivations of random strangers who have no formal power or authority, aren't public figures, and who arent, as far as the eye can see, doing anything that might make them appear to be dishonest or malicious in some way -- ie, by maybe withholding information, or shifting goalposts, or telling inconsistent stories, or being excessively secretive for no apparent reason, or consistently directing attention to some minor side issue, or, I don't know...maybe just vaguely giving the impression that they might be acting in the furtherance of some undisclosed interest simply by displaying a bunch of small behavioral or structural or ideological anomalies that could very well have a perfectly innocent explanation that just isn't easily perceptible or could (but usually aren't) very well be signs that they might be engaged in some enterprise of a potentially conspiratorial nature -- isn't actually really that good of a fit with any of the primary interests by which RI posters are so passionately if irritably united. Although I can totally see how you might have gotten the idea that it was. So no big thing, really. It's strictly a point of information," MY RESPONSE: I am not casting asperions on anyone. This prosecution is not making its position clear about the entire case, it is, rather, just putting Ms. Begley out there, as its quasi-spokesperson. So, anyone who looks at this case, can only learn about it from her press releases and what she says, backed always by Mr. Powers, who makes it seem she is speaking for law enforcement, at least to some extent, and at this time. Really, this prosecution needs to have a good solid press conferencde and clear the air about their case. END.
