Wednesday, January 27

About That Oath

Much like in the case of the PSU 3, the critical evidence supporting AG Kane's perjury charges is of questionable origin.

By
Ray Blehar

The PA Corruption Network's Playbook, (December 29, 2015) outlined how corrupt prosecutors use dubious evidence to make cases against targets.  


For the PSU 3, it was emails of dubious provenance that provided the (alleged) evidence of perjury and other crimes.  


Ferman's smoking gun will be undone
For Pennsylvania Attorney General (AG) Kane, it was an oath of similarly dubious provenance that is now being portrayed by the Corruption Network as the smoking gun evidence against Kane.

Let's rewind the clock and see how that went down.

On August 6, 2015, then Montgomery County District Attorney, Risa Ferman threw more than her fair share of admiration toward the investigators and prosecutors -- who regurgitated much of the evidence from the grand jury --to craft the initial Kane charges.

"The investigators and prosecutors alike, they were meticulous. They were thorough. They were detailed, and this investigation was as comprehensive as any we've ever done."


According to the August charging documents, Kane had allegedly committed perjury and false swearing regarding four things she stated under oath (see below).




The evidence supporting the allegations was mostly based on the testimony of Bruce Beemer, James Barker, and Adrian King -- all of whom seemingly have motivations to take down AG Kane.  

As is typically the case with prosecutor's documents, evidence in favor of the prosecutor's version of events (e.g., Kane is lying and leaked information to get back at Fina) is included while the evidence against is excluded.  

But no matter how much the charging documents talk around the subject of who leaked the grand jury information,  the fact is that Ferman admitted she couldn't directly link AG Kane to the documents released.  

After that, all the rest is bluster.

That's why Ferman needed something else.

Ferman's investigators and prosecutors weren't as thorough as she said they were

   


The Secrecy Oath

On September 17, 2015, Ferman's "meticulous" gang of investigators made a visit to an undisclosed office in Strawberry Square and allegedly found an oath that they had not previously found in their other (meticulous and thorough) forays into the AG's office. 
  
To be fair, the investigators were probably searching for a document that looked somewhat official and were likely thrown off by the very unofficial secrecy oath document.  

The allegedly official "SECRECY OATH" document is about as official looking as Saddam Hussein's "Baby Milk Plant" sign that was fabricated and planted after his chemical weapons facility was bombed.







Prior to the stunning discovery of the oath, the "meticulous" investigative team was seemingly content to use the  grand jury testimony (page 15) of James Barker to allege Kane lied about not being covered by secrecy regarding the Mondesire grand jury.

Barker,who was called to testify on three occasions, stated that there is an implied ongoing obligation to keep grand jury information secret even after the grand jury is no longer in session.  




Consistent with Barker's testimony,  Kane testified that she had all of those newly hired by her office sign grand jury secrecy oaths for ongoing grand juries but not oaths for prior grand juries.  




Six weeks later, the Ferman investigators got a tip to take another look into they previously searched.  

Anonymous tip.  Where have we heard that before?

After finding the oath, King, among others, corroborated the meeting took place and oaths were signed.  The actual language in the presentation, however, is deceptive because neither King nor anyone else made any specific reference to signing oaths pertaining to previous grand juries.  

Given the PA Corruption Network's history with the PSU 3 case, it's not going out on a limb to float the idea that the oath document and related information were fabricated and planted.   


Kane and Shargel: Didn't crumble when
faced with dubious evidence about oath
Part of the Network's playbook is to present surprise evidence to the unsuspecting targets (and their  attorneys), who believe that their legal adversaries are actually playing by the rules. In that moment, the network's attorneys hope that the target or his/her legal counsel believe they have been caught red-handed and opt for a plea deal.

That didn't happen with Kane, just like the "flip" -- that Fina hoped for  -- didn't happen in the PSU 3 case.

The 2009 oath is hardly a smoking gun -- it's more like a boomerang.


A boomerang that will eventually come back and strike Judge Risa Vetri Ferman. 





10 comments:

  1. Even if this Oath wasn't fabricated (and I'm not saying it was not), it specifically says "I will keep secret all that transpires in the jury room, all matters occurring before the grand jury, and all matters and information concerning this grand jury..." TRANSPIRES, not transpired; matters OCCURRING before the grand jury, not matters having occurred; and THIS grand jury, not all previous grand juries -- I simply don't see how these charges can possibly hold up in Court. This clearly does not imply anything about previous grand juries.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. A document expert should be able to tell if it was altered. Doesn't the notary who signed it also keep a copy or other records?

      The subtitle text isn't centered properly so it's a slipshod job whether it is an official document or an altered one.

      It seems odd that Kane would have been asked to sign a document for past grand juries and one for current and future ones. It would have been very easy to make one document to cover them all.

      Delete
  2. Also, obviously, I would say the "subtitle" was probably, certainly, added after the fact.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Shari,
      Thanks for your comments. The language in the document is especially telling.

      There are other things about the evidence that are also tells. But I won't share them publicly. I don't want to give Judge Vermin, or her understudy Kevin Steele any advance notice on how they might defend their forged/planted evidence.

      Delete
    2. Ray, Risa truly is vermin. But with the title of "Judge" before "Vermin", she demands our respect even though she has completely corrupted our justice system and hoodwinked the PA public for so long.

      Has anyone else noticed just how theatrical all of Risa Ferman's photos, press conferences, biographical videos, etc. seem to be? There's an air of unreality to all of it. It's as if she is a contrived character in a bad b-grade movie. For example, just look at her photos you have printed here with this article--Hollywood? The disgusting pose she makes with the machine gun, and the absurd self-righteous glory-bound gaze she puts on for the camera as she poses with her "cabinet" of complicit treasonists. And these contrived and unlawful attacks on Cosby, Kane, Mr. Terance Healy and others seem to be the sum ideological concept of terror against an imagined enemy. It's clear that Ms. Risa Vetri Ferman has been groomed for this for quite some time. Just search her name and see the amazing amount of Hollywood-like propaganda centered around her that comes up over the past ten years.

      And this Bruce Castor seems to be a major player in creating the "iconic" surface image of Risa Ferman. And I believe Ms. Ferman's brother is someone of note in Hollywood. And if this is so, it would seem possible that she is a puppet of some larger anti-social organization that is trying to illegally manipulate our laws to suit whatever their criminal agenda may be.

      Delete
  3. Ray, What is the time frame for the truth about this too come out? My thought is the state senate is just playing games and has no intention of going though with this.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. William,
      Thanks for your comment. I don't share your optimism about the State Senate and/or the PA Government in general. I believe they see Kane as a threat to be eliminated.

      Timelines are difficult to predict, however, I would think that if Kane is prosecuted, then the truth will eventually come out. Ironically, that's what a lot of people said about the case of PSU officials back in 2011.

      Now, I would imagine the consensus is that the PSU 3 case will never go to trial. Don't be surprised if Kane never makes it trial.

      Delete
    2. Thanks for sorting all this out Ray. It seems obvious to me that this is a set-up orchestrated by people who fear that Kane may reveal their dirty secrets. Why are her own assistants colluding to bring her down. Do they want her job?

      Delete
    3. If Kane wins reelection, criminals proceedings continue. If she loses primary or general election, surprise, charges fade into the sunset and Senate action becomes moot.

      Delete
  4. My guess is the senate will not do anything with it until after the November election cycle. In it's current state they will use it to tar all Democrats (same reason Wolfe want her to quit now). If they tried to move forward with removal now, it could blow up in their faces the way Planned Parenthood did in Texas.

    Hasn't this brand of political attack been occurring since at least Bud Dwyer? Dwyer's major accuser recanted his testimony ex post.

    ReplyDelete