Chilcot and Fifth Chambers

The Mail is good for two things.  One is its ability to tackle topics no other paper will, and the second is its photos.

One of those topics is the Chilcot failure to report:

  • Sir John Chilcot under increasing pressure to release long-overdue report
  • Next week, inquiry will have lasted longer than British troops fought in Iraq
  • Tory’s Julian Thomas said he failed to give ‘straight answers’ over delay
  • John Miller, whose son Simon was killed in 2003, said: ‘What kind of conscience does Chilcot have?’

In Britain, there are quite a few examples of [alleged] corruption.  The Hutton Report for example, another was Leveson, Hillsborough, Diana, it goes on.  We are no strangers to [alleged] corruption over here.

In America, the one which amazed me, quite apart from Benghazi and Hillary’s emails, was that SCOTUS demanded that POTUS submit the birth certificate by a certain date and POTUS failed to.  Now whatever you think of the birth certificate issue, this thumbing of the nose at the judiciary was contempt.

People without agendas on these matters beyond wanting to know the truth, those of us who are dismayed by the overall level of corruption in the ability of the PTB to close down or influence inquiries and reports and on its ability to label with one word tags, e.g. birther, truther and let that stand in place of open debate – we’re indeed dismayed, though hardly surprised.

At this moment now, the trial of Amanda Knox on calumny charges is going ahead.  Her supporters should really look at their own statement that the Italian judiciary is too corrupt for justice to be done because it very much cuts both ways.

Interestingly, the side which supported the judiciary and the Supreme Court First Chambers acceptance of her guilt have defended the Italian justice system, even though it has twice let them down.

In no way am I going to discuss guilt or innocence here of the original parties but I am going to look at the justice system.  It is indeed corrupt and the very next question should be, in each case, on its merits: “Cui bono?”

Chilcot’s delay and the Leveson farce show clearly who was being defended by and benefiting from the outcome.

So who benefited from the corruption in Italy over the Knox/Sollecito matter?  Before answering that, there are other questions. Why would an entire judicial system even interest itself in a minor trial, though it did involve an American national?

If we can lift the eyes above the trial itself to how this whole thing blew way out of proportion, the inevitable answer is that big players became involved.  And why would they, in a minor matter?  Why would Berlusconi involve himself, lending his attack dog lawyer Bongiorno?  Why would that Bongiorno go to an Italian prison and bribe an inmate?

The court has also heard from a jailed Neapolitan mafioso, Luciano Aviello, who claimed his own brother had killed Ms Kercher during a burglary gone wrong.

A fellow inmate of Aviello, called by the prosecution, said Aviello had told him he had been offered €70,000 ($96,000) by Giulia Bongiorno, an Italian MP and lawyer defending Sollecito, to invent the story. Cosimo Zaccari – who is in jail for fraud, libel, criminal conspiracy and receiving stolen goods – said Aviello had confided that he was ”contacted to create confusion in the trial”.

Alexander Ilicet, who shared a cell with Aviello, claimed his cellmate had boasted of being offered €158,000 by Mr Bongiorno that he had planned to use for a sex change.

Then we come to the sudden and diametrically opposed judgments. We’re not speaking of differences of opinion on “beyond reasonable doubt”, we’re speaking of diametric opposite. Why would the judge appointed for the first appeal suddenly be moved aside so that a judge not versed in criminal law, connected with Berlusconi, could take over and acquit, well beyond his authority?

And when the Supreme Court First Chambers threw that out after an exhaustive process, Italian law requiring that Supreme Court decisions stand, and that was followed by the defence appeal in which the verdict was confirmed, why then did the Fifth Chambers, the last stage in the process, not a criminal court but more used to civil cases, see one of the judges, Bruno, open his remarks with Bongiorno’s line that the only thing that was certain was that a girl had died and that there was one killer?

That was stated by the judge before the hearings even began and is the very thing disputed by the Supreme Court First Chambers. You don’t need to be a student of law to know that you don’t open with the very thing you are judging is true or not.

Even were it true, that is not what the Supreme Court First Chambers and the subsequent appeal had concluded. That Bruno statement turned former judgments at the highest level in the land diametrically on their heads.

Still, here, I’m not going to comment on guilt or innocence of the original parties because to do so would mean people would trot out one thing, I’d have to trot out the other to fisk it and we’d be bogged down in something which is essentially over, which has gone.  It would go on forever, whilst all I’m looking at here is the justice system itself.

And if there are any independents, you would conclude that it really does look highly suspect, that one arm of a judiciary is saying diametrically opposite things to the other and exceeding its brief according to the law of that land.

And why is it actually over?  That is the real humdinger in the case.

There is legal recourse now in Italy to pursue supposedly wrongful SC decisions but none of it can proceed in this case, for one very simple reason – it depends on the Fifth Chambers tabling its report.  The law states that the lead judge had 90 days to table his report and that would have fallen in mid-April.

Upon the tabling of that report depended up to a dozen separate cases against the Supreme Court for its sudden reversal.

But there simply was no report.  No Fifth Chambers Report, no Chilcot Report.  One official connected with the office where the reports are tabled said the Fifth Chambers might be tabled by the end of the year.

Hang on, Fifth Chambers cannot decide that.  It is 90 days in Italian law, otherwise the judgment is re-evaluated.  But by simply doing nothing, both Chilcot and Fifth Chambers have rendered any subsequent action impossible.

That is simply wrong, on the simplest level.  And it’s not just the length of time it takes for any case to conclude but the involvement of the mafia which has vowed to upset and prevent the system from working.

And here is the explanation of the diametrically opposed judgments from what is supposedly the same body.  And to ask the simple question cui bono of the Knox trial, the defence has been the one at all stages who have benefited from Berlusconi’s interest.

Therefore, the trial really had little to do with Knox, it was Sollecito or some third party who stood to lose, necessitating the bringing in of the big guns.  I do have my 3rd idea of the killer[s] now but am not going to come out with it.

However, a close look at how the system has operated and that question – cui bono – should lead you there as well.

As for Chilcot, it’s really quite simple – he can’t table it. They clearly want it to go away.  Now why would that be?  One really need not be a genius to supply and answer to that.

10 comments for “Chilcot and Fifth Chambers

  1. Voice of Reason
    August 14, 2015 at 11:47 pm

    Which SCOTUS case would that be? I just read https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama_presidential_eligibility_litigation , and couldn’t find it.

    There was a case in Alabama, whose chief justice is a notorious scofflaw with regard to the Constitution.

  2. August 15, 2015 at 5:32 am

    Two points before we even begin. The question is couched in such a way that somehow it never happened because someone on the Left “can’t find it”. As in three wise monkeys. Second is that there have long been issues over the Wiki editorship and which articles are allowed through, which not:
    http://www.conservapedia.com/Examples_of_Bias_in_Wikipedia#List_of_examples_of_liberal_bias_in_Wikipedia

    In answer to the immediate charge that conservapedia is no authority, the answer is a question – would left wing Wiki ever bring this up itself? I just wrote that the issue has been around for ages, which it has, just like the BBC.

    It’s got to the point that, on any political issue, who would look at Wiki and think: “Oh dear, it ain’t in Wiki, gosh, it can’t exist in real life?”

    Even when searching, googling “obama defies federal judge”, even before getting to the certificate, brought up a range of Obama’s misdoings.

    And of course, seconds later, here it is in the very first look:

    http://pamelageller.com/2008/11/scotus-souter-t.html/

    So I feel one is entitled to suggest we have an issue here of true intent by my very dear old friend V of R to find, versus one quick, cursory search and oh dear, it can’t exist. Took me seconds to find, before going to my old blog from 2008, where it was written up at length in late 2008.

  3. Voice of Reason
    August 16, 2015 at 1:29 am

    James;

    I would suggest that you not be so smug. Just because someone says something which appeals to your beliefs does not make it so.

    We have this blog item which questions the facts: http://mitchell-langbert.blogspot.com/2008/11/is-phil-bergs-souter-writ-of-certiorari.html

    and the actual Supreme Court documents: http://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx?FileName=/docketfiles/08-570.htm

    In short, the actual evidence indicates that the claim is false.

    • James Higham
      August 16, 2015 at 3:17 am

      Greatest respect but … bollox.

      It was international news at the time and Souter was quoted over and over. It was not a one off, it went on for weeks. Had he been misquoted, he’d have taken action. He had already denied one petition from Berg.

      Again, here it is:

      http://www.patheos.com/blogs/warrenthrockmorton/2008/11/10/berg-vs-obama-response-to-supreme-court-due-december-1/

      You can’t cherrypick one SCOTUS paper and say that disproves another. How many are there in the history of SCOTUS? This is precisely the point in the previous comment – non-inclusion of evidence because you didn’t look at the sources containing it.

      Souter himself is interesting and a read all by himself. The manner of his retirement was interesting.

      Now, to that Langbert link. This a leftwing history professor asserting Berg is not genuine. That’s not proof of anything.

      As for that SC order of business, that’s all it is – an order of proceedings.

      However, to play fair, one left liberal site claimed that though Souter did set December 1st, 2008 as a final date, it was a only final date if Barry would like to, out of the kindness of his heart.

      This, at a time when the whole issue was red hot?

      Again, assertion, no back up. This is the tricky-dickery the left and the RINOs get up to the whole time.

      Another is the removal of evidence after the fact, especially from the net. An example was an article on the Valdez principles, in which I provided three links, all of which now say the page no longer exists or it is just a dead link.

      So that makes me out a liar but I point to the thousands of links I’ve provided in my ten thousand odd posts. The majority of links going dead are when pitched at something, e.g. Valdez, subsequently taken up by government.

      I’ve been fighting this dishonesty for a long time now.

  4. Voice of Reason
    August 16, 2015 at 6:03 pm

    James – I cannot count the number of discussions in which my respindent has posted cites which prove the exact oppostie of the claim that they have made. Following your most recent on, we have: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/warrenthrockmorton/2008/11/13/berg-vs-obama-update-and-current-status/ which includes
    “Because the Supreme Court docket 08-570 indicated that the defendants had until December 1 to respond to Berg’s application, some bloggers have erroneously proclaimed that Obama has until December 1 to produce his birth certificate. Not so. He might respond but then again he could choose not to do so.

    Yesterday, I spoke with Patricia Estrada, spokeswoman for the Supreme Court, who filled in some additional details. She clarified that none of the defendants are required to file a brief in response.”

  5. Sackerson
    August 16, 2015 at 8:27 pm

    Is there a confusion between SCOTUS and the Alabama Supreme Court? Reportedly the latter made a ruling back in March this year:

    http://americannews.com/breaking-supreme-court-finally-makes-a-ruling-on-obamas-birth-certificate-in-landmark-decision/

    http://mrconservative.com/2014/04/39027-supreme-court-rules-on-obamas-birth-certificate-in-landmark-decision/

    Seems like all the attempts at Federal level have been refused hearing, a number of them for lack of standing:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama_presidential_eligibility_litigation#Federal

    And James, this Left/Right thing: it’s a label you throw around far too easily. I struggle to understand how you, as a Christian, have any leanings to the American Right, who seem to me to be at the vicious end of the eighteenth-century Tory spectrum. I think that if you lived among them you would be appalled; “Conservative” has far different meanings on either side of the Atlantic.

    • August 17, 2015 at 5:48 am

      It’s been pretty clearly laid out on many occasions, by many pundits, what “left” represents and when it comes to labels, they are the masters of the flung label.

      If it weren’t appropriate, I’d not do it. Also, it’s not flung but specifically applied, with example.

      The current expression is Social Justice Warrior. In the end, the label is irrelevant but the things a group of people do is quite relevant in its destructiveness.

      Update

      I’m going to run a post at my place, not at OoL, on Tuesday, specifically on your comments, Sackers:

      http://theylaughedatnoah.blogspot.com/

      … in an attempt to answer and explain. Can’t today as have to get out to build.

      • Voice of Reason
        August 18, 2015 at 1:44 am

        James – given your comment above, and the fact that it was you who introduced political ideology into a discussion, the only consistent conclusion is that your interpretation of ‘left’ is equivalent to ‘factually correct.’

        • August 18, 2015 at 9:38 am

          Interesting that you bring this up because I am in the middle of a megapost right now on this very question, in answer to Sackerson.

          Hold fire because it is taking time, with many diagrams which are having to be made via Drawpad and GIMP and the big issue is cutting it down to a length anyone is going to read.

          His question and yours deserve proper responses, even though the fate of the world is not resting on them.

          • Voice of Reason
            August 18, 2015 at 3:19 pm

            Already read and replied to.

Comments are closed.