To correspond with the posting yesterday regarding the murder on February 28, 1905 of Jane Stanford as in fact the first U.S. political assassination, we post today this Commentary by Dr. William F. Pepper on his court actions regarding the “The Actual Innocence of Sirhan Sirhan”. In Dr. Pepper’s statement as follows he concludes with this: “We proceed for Justice, and for the realization that following the political assassinations of the 1960’s our Republic has never been the same.” Indeed so, and as it may be seen that those assassinations all had a common purpose to insure war profiteering, most particularly by the bankers and shareholders of that private bank called The Federal Reserve Bank.
We have now called for a Constitutional Convention with its need in part to be based on the now-evident great ease with which the First Republic was thoroughly undermined and corrupted by the John D. Rockefeller interests in creating the Federal Reserve Bank for their private profit. The complete Timeline of their great crimes to do so commenced in 1905 with their conduct of the Jane Sanford murder/assassination and proceeded through the passage of the Federal Reserve Act in 1913, which was based on the $100 million bribery by Rockefeller on Theodore Roosevelt (an accomplice in Jane Stanford murder) in order to election-rig the 1912 election by splitting the vote to insure Woodrow Wilson winning and then, as also arranged, signing the Federal Reserve Act. This then allowed unlimited bribery from then onward to the present by the principles, including Rockefeller, of the Federal Reserve Bank in being able to issue, without any restraint or controls, of any amount of thus-untraceable Federal Reserve Notes as bribes for criminal operations by those banking interests.
The assassinations of the 1960s are easily seen to be just such criminal operations by the bankers and had a common pattern in their selection and use of “patsies” as the alleged assassins to take the blame for the real assassins who were in the employ of the war-profiteers. The war-profiteers, above all, are represented by the Central Bankers who most profit by the interest paid — often by both sides of any conflict — on the funds lent to their national governments by the bankers. Any Constitutional Convention must now include close focusing on the similarities of the 1960s assassinations: the MO of the war-profiteers and their bankers. Dr. William Pepper has demonstrated these common features in his Martin Luther King case in Memphis in 1999, and now more recently with his Sirhan Sirhan case in which Sirhan was also, like James Earl Ray and Lee Harvey Oswald, also a contrived patsy.
Our Call for Constitutional Convention will be most effectively sought by focusing on the 1905 to 1913 crimes to establish the Federal Reserve Bank as based on murder, fraud, election rigging and bribery. The Federal Reserve Bank has thus never been a legal and valid entity, but rather an inherently criminal private corporation that went on after its criminal founding to organize very many other crimes for the benefit of its private shareholders and directors.
It must be seen that the only way of averting many such assassinations as those of the 1960s — and such great crimes as 911 — and all wars-for-profit is to eliminate the ability of banking criminals to create unlimited money without detection for the vast payments of bribes to the greatest of our world’s criminals to conduct these ultimate crimes. We may therefore read William Pepper’s commentary as follows on the “patsy” Sirhan Sirhan who was engineered to insure that Robert Kennedy would not stop the war-profiteering in Vietnam, the same motive as occurred in the Martin Luther King assassination after his mass protest efforts against that war began.
And: http://www.greatgoldgrab.com/Rockefeller_Meltdown_Has_Begun.pdfTHE ACTUAL INNOCENCE OF SIRHAN B. SIRHAN
IN THE ASSASSINATION OF
SENATOR ROBERT F. KENNEDY
©W.F. Pepper / Stanford Reconsidered
For forty four years, Sirhan Sirhan has been in prison for the assassination of Robert Kennedy. During all of that time he has never had a hearing in which all of the evidence of his
actual innocence could be heard. At his original Trial he was represented by Grant Cooper, a Los Angeles criminal attorney, who, himself, was under a Federal indictment throughout the Trial.
When Cooper successfully obtained a guilty verdict against his client that indictment went away.
That verdict was the result of no challenge being made to fabricated ballistics evidence, the suppression of eye witness testimony, which clearly indicated that Sirhan was always in front of the
Senator who was shot from the rear at powder burn range, and Cooper convincing Sirhan – who had no memory of the actual event - that he was guilty and should confess in order to avoid the
death penalty. In fact, he received the death penalty, which Statue was later declared to be unconstitutional.
From 1969, to the present, the case has been enmired in procedural issues used to prevent any evidentiary hearing where the miscarriage of Justice would emerge.
The current Habeas Corpus proceeding is before Magistrate Judge Wistrich and he proposes to issue a recommendation to the Federal Judge, Snyder, that the Petition be denied. His arguments have a double focus: once again, procedural defects, resulting from prior Counsel’s failure to file in a timely fashion; and a rejection of the new evidence as not being adequately convincing of Sirhan’s actual innocence. The problem faced by the State and the Magistrate is that the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals (the case jurisdiction) ruled in the case of Lee v. Lampert, that credible evidence of actual innocence must override any procedural defects. The strength of the evidence is, of course, determinative.
So, what is some of this evidence, that was either not available or not introduced at Trial forty four years ago?
Twelve eye witnesses have given statements that Sirhan was always in front of the Senator at the time of the shooting. They differ with respect to the distance with estimates varying from 1.5 feet to 5, or more feet, but uniformly they confirm that he was in front of the Senator at all relevant times. The Senator was shot at four times (being hit by three of the bullets) at powder burn range in an upward angle indicating that the shooter was likely kneeling just behind the Senator.
Six eye witnesses gave statements that Sirhan’s hand was pinned to the steam table after he fired twice and though he continued in robot like fashion to pull the trigger with his hand pinned down he had no control over the direction of the firing and certainly could not have gotten off four shots at the rear of the Senator.
A high technology analysis of a tape recording of the sounds of the shots in the pantry - the technology has only recently become available - indicated that thirteen shots were fired. Sirhan’s
gun only had eight bullets. Clearly there was a second shooter.
There was no ballistics match, with Sirhan’s gun, of the only recovered bullet from the Senator – one which lodged in the Senator’s neck.
There is a strong indication that the bullets introduced at the Trial (taken from other victims and the Senator’s neck) were not the actual bullets recovered. This emerged from the work of an investigating commission in 1973.
The reason for Sirhan’s previous inability to remember the immediate events of the shooting and the fact that he was hypno programmed over a two week period, when he was strangely missing, emerged from the seventy plus hours of interviews conducted by Dr. Daniel Brown, a Harvard University psychologist and mind control specialist. Even the facility used appears to have been identified during the interviews which were conducted using both free recall and hypnosis.
Aside from the conflict of interest of Sirhan’s defense counsel, resulting in the denial of his Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel, this is only some of the evidence which
deserves to be tested in open Court. It is our intention to push the envelope all the way across the table to the Justices of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals if we are denied an evidentiary hearing
at the District Court level.
I did not take on this case lightly. As a young man, I was Bob Kennedy’s Citizen Chairman when he ran for the Senate in New York. When approached, after the death of the previous
defense counsel, Larry Teeter, I had to be convinced of Sirhan’s actual innocence. On the basis of what was then available, I went forward. In light of what we have been able to develop since then,
my opinion is ever more firm.
We proceed for Justice, and for the realization that following the political assassinations of the 1960’s our Republic has never been the same.
William F. Pepper
March 3, 2013
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.