Comments (47)

chathaway wrote on May 22, 2007 5:32 PM:

wasn't she seeking immunity?

Peter wrote on May 22, 2007 5:33 PM:

The committee should just have an exercise in public humiliation for someone who has taken money for years of public service, and now refuses to talk about what she's done. Who cares what she might plead. Let her actually do it.

The threat of fith should not be a vacination agaist showing up.

Peter wrote on May 22, 2007 5:34 PM:

The committee should just have an exercise in public humiliation for someone who has taken money for years of public service, and now refuses to talk about what she's done. Who cares what she might plead. Let her actually do it.

The threat of fith should not be a vacination agaist showing up.

Richard L. Adlof wrote on May 22, 2007 5:34 PM:

Supeona her. Let her plead the Fifth a hundred times during TELEVISED hearings. Remand her to custody and publicly turn her case over to Justice on every news station but the FAUX Opinioncast Network THEN supeona Rove(r) . . . Wash, rinse, repeat.

knoxymama wrote on May 22, 2007 5:40 PM:

Agreed.

Get her in front of Congress with a television camera.

THEN give her immunity.

I also thought the immunity deal already happened...

Leedsichthys wrote on May 22, 2007 5:41 PM:

You folks don't understand. Since the days of McCarthy, we don't put people under hot lights to make them look foolish and criminal while pleading the fifth. The threat of damage done to those people's reputations by using this tactic was often enough to cause them to cooperate.

We're better than that now.

Salad days wrote on May 22, 2007 5:41 PM:

It will make the day that Abramoff met Bush - and a photo captured that special moment (http://www.citizensforethics.org/node/27078) - seem so, so far away...

a wrote on May 22, 2007 5:42 PM:

Ralston would have been first on my list.

she was jackoff's girl friday
and Turd's girl mon - thru

bill wrote on May 22, 2007 5:43 PM:

During Watergate I thought the forced, endlessly repeated public invocations of the 5th most effective. One had lots of time to think about the people on the stand.

Anonymous wrote on May 22, 2007 5:46 PM:

Not acceptable. Please subpoena her NOW. Don't wait two months. Do it now. The delay tactics of these scumbags is so obvious and yet the Dems play right into their hands. Put some fear into this bitch.

Anonymous wrote on May 22, 2007 5:47 PM:

This is what immunity is for. Ralston is a small fish. Keep your eye in the big prize.

Odessa Dale wrote on May 22, 2007 5:50 PM:

Why not force her to testify the administration way: via waterboarding. Since it's not torture according to the Republican party then it should be all right to use it to extract the truth from this nice lady. She should have the same rights we have afforded our enemy combatants.

Michael Stevens wrote on May 22, 2007 5:56 PM:

Her plans to plead the 5th actually came to light last week.

Her friends have said she has nothing damaging to say about Karl Rove. But I don't see how she could testify about White House wrongdoing *without* hurting Rove. So if what her friends say is accurate, either she doesn't have any dirt on the White House, or isn't willing to dish any dirt on the White House.

Before working for Rove, Ralston worked for Abramoff. So maybe the only criminal violations she's aware of are from when she worked for Jack. If she's only willing to talk about Jack's criminal conduct, Big Deal. Jack is in jail and has been cooperating with the FBI. I can't imagine she knows anything that Jack doesn't know.

She's already given a deposition, so if she knows about White House wrongdoing the Congress will probably give her immunity. But if she only has dirt on Jack Abramoff, they may let her swing. Her dirt on Abramoff is probably nothing the FBI doesn't already have.

subtle wrote on May 22, 2007 6:01 PM:

"This is what immunity is for. Ralston is a small fish. Keep your eye in the big prize."

Oliver North was small fish too. He used immunity to get off scott-free and be hailed as a conservative hero while doing so.

gcs wrote on May 22, 2007 6:04 PM:

"We're better than that now."

Sorry but the Republicans aren't. They'd do it, and do it with glee. I say we roast every one of these sumbitches under hot lights until someone talks. Unless you think the survival of American democracy isn't worth a few ruined careers.

I say screw 'em. You lie down with dogs, you wake up with fleas. It's about damned time someone who actually committed these crimes pays a price for committing them rather than making ficticious "welfare queens" and "fraudulent voters" be the scapegoats. Or worse still having our military pay the price of Bush's colossal arrogance.

Anonymous wrote on May 22, 2007 6:05 PM:

Michael Stevens, it seems that you are implying that she would be invoking her Fifth Amendment right in an attempt to avoid testifying as to someone else's wrongdoing. If this is what you are saying, I believe that that is impermissible. Isn't the Fifth only available for self-incrimination?

c4logic wrote on May 22, 2007 6:05 PM:

Man! If you agree to accept a job that is paid for by the taxpayers--then you should be willing to sign a waiver of your 5th ammendment rights on any question pertaining to your job performance or responsibilities. I can understand the 5th ammendment in every other context EXCEPT public service. That is a special class, involving a special trust--when you betray that--you betray America.

Anonymous wrote on May 22, 2007 6:08 PM:

"...Her friends have said she has nothing damaging to say about Karl Rove..."

Which, of course, is a lie.

And who are these unidentified "friends" that are quoted?

conniptionfit wrote on May 22, 2007 6:10 PM:

Dammit, this is what happens when congress lets witnesses get away with refusing to testify in the first place! Goodling should have been forced to sit her ass down in the witness chair and explain why she doesn't think that she has to answer questions to the congress like every other citizen of the US does. And then Leahy should have told he that the 5th only applies to incriminating herself, she has no right to refuse questions that incriminate others. Now we've got Ralston pulling the same shit! When will these guys get that everything they do is precedent?

dolooper wrote on May 22, 2007 6:19 PM:

It's not just the Abramoff dealings. She also said she'd plead the fifth for questions relating to using RNC e-mail accounts (I assume that also means accounts created at georgewbush.com and gwb43.com). She knows those are blatant violations of the Presidential Records Act.

Long Memory wrote on May 22, 2007 6:25 PM:

I agree with my peers who want her to come in and plead The Fifth. Somebody look up the record for taking The Fifth. It was probably some mobster or perhaps someone in front of the HUAC. Then ask her question after question, just make certain that when she walks out of there she's taken The Fifth more times than anyone in history. Then point out that she's covering for Karl Rove, not for herself.

unpoetaloco wrote on May 22, 2007 6:26 PM:

Find a way to put her a&& in jail.

unpoetaloco wrote on May 22, 2007 6:29 PM:

I agree. Hall her sorry self in, grill the crap out of her. Embarrass her. More important, make her embarrass herself. Even if she has to answer "I plead the Fifth" a thousand times, make her do it on the record. Put it on the news. Maker her sweat, cry, piss her pants.

WhiteCollar wrote on May 22, 2007 6:31 PM:

Committee: Ms. Ralston, the committe would like to know if you have knowledge of Mr. Abramoff bribing Mr. Rove or any other White House offical or employees?

Ralston: I invoke my 5th Admendment right to remain silence.

Committee: Ms. Ralston, are you aware that you can only refuse to answer if you believe you yourself has committed a crime in this matter.

Ralston: Oh.

Committee: The committee repeats the question, did Mr. Abramoff bribe any one in the White House?

Ralston: I invoke my 5th Admendment right to remain silence.

Committee: So you are saying that you believe that you have comitted crimes involving Mr. Abramoff and the White House?

Ralston: uh...uh...

Mike Valentine wrote on May 22, 2007 6:32 PM:

Give the little fish immunity.

Throw back the little fish and (code word) Keep the big fish.

Anonymous wrote on May 22, 2007 6:36 PM:

THINGS NOT ADDING UP BETWEEN LEGAL COUNSEL: Inconsistencies between Comey, Berenson, and Dowd

Allegations:

1. One of the attorneys is either lying; or knows about information they have a duty to provide, but are not disclosing it; and

2. One of the counsel appears to have claimed an issue is secret, when in fact, it appears the activity was illegal, and counsel should ahve known not to participate.

DETAILS

Both Goodling [atty: Dowd] and Ralston [atty: Berenson] have other problems. Their legal counsel has fatally disclosed that counsel is aware of specific information of interest to the Tribunal.

Attorney standards of conduct indicate that regardless a request for immunity, counsel has to disclose this information, especially when there has been a subpoena; and counsel has fatally admitted that they are in receipt of information which the committee/tribunal has requested.

Both Dowd and Berenson appear to have publicly admitted that they know of specific information. It remains up to Dowd and Berenson to explain:

A. Why are they not disclosing this information, as required, under the Attorney Standards of Conduct in re tribunals

B. Do Berenson and Dowd have an explanation why their clients have not -- as required by the subpoenas -- turned over all the e-mails, which both Berenson and Dowd have fatally admitted their clients still have; and that counsel has (apparently) reviewed and confirmed are real?

C. What does Berenson plan to do to ensure that he remains in fully compliance with this legal obligations?

D. Does Berenson have an explanation how he is going to justify confidence that he has, is required, provided all information to the tribunal; but is not withholding something that he is required to disclose?

E. Given Berenson's close association with Kyle Sampson, and the issues of WH Counsel [rendition, FISA, and prisoner abuse] what does Berenson plan to do to justify confidence that he's independent, but not subject to review for his inconsistent statements on rendition: One day he says openly that risks were taken; another day he says he can neither confirm nor deny what overseas countries were involved with the rendition.

Both Dowd and Bereson appear to have mixed loyalties. Indeed, both counsel have openly admitted their clients have information. That's an error -- especially when the subpoenas have been issued. How does any explanation the fatal assertions/admissions of Berenson and Dowd, but not review whether they are really complying with their attorney standards of conduct?

=================
Refs:
Atty Standard 3.3 "a lawyer shall inform the tribunal of all material facts known to the lawyer that will enable the tribunal to make an informed decision, whether or not the facts are adverse."

Atty Standard 1.6:
(b) A lawyer may reveal information relating to the representation of a client to the extent the lawyer reasonably believes necessary:
. . .
(6) to comply with other law or a court order.
=======================

Note neither Berenson or Dowd "had" to reveal the information, but they did. Thus, but doing something voluntarily that they were not required to do -- reveal information -- they've fatally admitted to something that they had not legal duty to do.

However, that opens the can of worms: Now that they've disclosed this adverse information, they have to comply with the other legal requirements before a tribunal: To provide the information to the tribunal so that the tribunal can make an informed decision.

1. How will Dowd and Berenson ensure that the tribunal can make an "informed decision" if the tribunal is denied the information that subpoenas have been issued [e-mails];

2. Given Comey's damning testimony -- indicating that there was illegal NSA-NSL activity -- what do Berenson and Dowd plan to do to show that they were not personally involved, part of, or had failed to do what they should have done to ensure that the FISA requirements were fully followed?

3. In light of the Title 28 discussion [indicating a requirement of the AG to report to Congress in writing a decision not to enforce the law], how do Berenson and Dowd explain the contrast: Between [a] their fatal assertions that their clients have not provided the data as requested of them; [b] the issuance of lawful subpoenas; but [c] not record that the AG has not chosen to enforce the subpoena requirement [as required under Title 28] against either Dowd, Berenson, their clients or others linked with the RCN e-mails?
You can skim through this link to read more about the Title 28 and Title 50 requirements which Berenson and Dowd appear to know that AG and the President have not complied with; but have apparently not fully provided the tribunal with the appropriate information, as required under their attorney standards of conduct:
http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/003253.php#comments
- - - - - - - -

Comey had bad news for Berenson on AT&T and the NSA surveillance.

A. Comey commented on issues, but Berenson says its classified. How can Comey comment on something that is supposedly "not mentionalble"?

B. How long will it be before Berenson and Dowd are targets of an alleged Congressional obstruction investigation: [FISA, rendition, prisoner abuse, RNC e-mails, decisions not to enforce the law, claims that the statues were unconstitutional but not documentation in writing to Congress to that effect]?

C. Comey can comment, but Berenson says can niether confirm nor deny. Does Berenson plan to continue is policy of "can neither confirm nor deny" issues in re rendition; or does he have an explanation why the commentary on rendition has changed from [a] risks were needed; to [b] we can't say anything. When was the meeting Berenson and the GOP had to change their tune on whether outside counsel would or would not comment on rendition?

D. Who else is going to present more bad news for Berenson in re rendition, war crimes, prisoner abuse, and other things Berenson is alleged to have refused/not stopped as required under Geneva?

E. What do Dowd, Comey, and Berenson plan to do to reconcile their apparent inconsistent, out of court statements; and bury their apparent irreconcile statements on FISA-NSA despite thier statements being exceptions to the hearsay rule permitting out of court inconsistent statement to impeach a witness?

F. Does Berenson ahve anything to say about the Comey testimony in light of Berenonson's apparent knowledge of the FISA-NSA issues; and his apparent statements -- outside court, not to Judge Vaughn, thereby not protected -- that the issue was "classified," when Berenson knew or should have known that the NSA illegal activity [per Comey] was unlawful; and could not be legally classified under ORCON [Executive Orders]?

G. What is Dowd, Comey, and Berenson's plan to reconcile their testimony, and explain why the President and AG have not fully complied with the reporting requiremnts under Title 28 and Title 50 to ID to Congress decisions not to fully enforce the law in re rendition, NSA, FISA violations, prisoner abuse, use of RNC e-mail in alleged violation of the Hatch Act?

H. How does Berenson with Sidley Austin -- a firm openly asserting it knows something about data retention -- possibly claim DoJ and the WH didn't know about the data retnetion requirements; yet Berenson's client Sampson was in a position to provide this guidance which Sidley Austin well disclosed on data retention?

I. How does Berenson plan to discuss and explain why his client has information that was not being correctly archived; yet, Sidley Austin is known as a firm that is an expert on data retention: What happened to the Sidley Austin expertise; and were there no S-A counsel in TX that could have raised these legal issues with the TX disciplianry board in re Gonaalz decision not to fully comply with the statute/requirement to enforce in re DOJ OPR, FISA, NSA, NSLs, MAOP, and other DOJ OPR procedures?

Michael Stevens wrote on May 22, 2007 6:40 PM:

Regarding the comment above, no she couldn't plead the fifth to avoid discussing the wrongdoing of others.

But if her awareness of ongoing criminal acts or cooperation in those criminal acts could *potentially* result in her own criminal liability, then her claim of fifth amendment rights would be completely justified.

As for her testifying about RNC e-mails. Her friends say she'll have nothing bad to say about Rove. That may or may not be true. But I don't see how she could testify about document retention act violations without hurting Rove.

unpoetaloco wrote on May 22, 2007 6:43 PM:

I agree. Haul her sorry self in, grill the crap out of her. Embarrass her. More important, make her embarrass herself. Even if she has to answer "I plead the Fifth" a thousand times, make her do it on the record. Put it on the news. Maker her sweat, cry, piss her pants.

Anonymous wrote on May 22, 2007 6:54 PM:

Immunity to prosecution is not the same as the 5th or compliance/non-compliance with a subpoena. Immunity is not conditioned on "anything," but the opposite: If the witness fails to fully comply with the agreement, that immunity agreement can be trashed. This says nothing about the requirement to comply -- outside the immunity agreement, which may not be finalized -- with a lawful subpoena related to DOJ-WH-EOP-RNC official records. Nor does this cover the issue of outside third parties providing the data that Ralston, his counsel Berenson, or others say cannot be disclosed, but have been disclosed inadvertently.

One cannot claim immunity or take the 5th on issues that counsel have fatally disclosed, contrary to client interests. Berenson's admitted his client has information on the RNC e-mails. Fine. time to go after those e-mails which Ralston says she's aware. Taking the 5th is a right to silence; it is not a right to destroy evidence, or block Congress from enforcing a subpoena.

It appears Berenson knows a little too much about the RNC e-mails. Berenson appears to have a motivation to hide the e-mails: Not just because his client is involved, but because he, Bereson, appears to have been in receipt of RNC e-mails from his clients; and it appears Berenson while working in the White House Counsel's office was in receipt of these RNC e-mails.

A. Where are the Ralston e-mails inside the WH; or cross-posted/sent to DOJ and the RNC e-mail accounts;

B. It appears Ralson has e-mails which the RNC has not provided --as required. How can Ralston "know" something about the e-mails; but not have those e-mails before her to review prior to her "truthful" testimony?

C. How much e-mail did Berenson get from Ralston; and does Berenson plan to discuss his internal e-mails which he received from Ralston while he was WH Counsel, long before he became Ralston-Sampson private counsel?

D. Where are the IP numbers linked with Ralson that will show when she was reviewing material linked with the RNC e-mail IP numbers;

E. What documents, evidence, and other DOJ Staff council memoranda -- sent between Rove, the White House, EOP, and the RNC -- will shed light on issues Ralston says she wont comment;

F. What certification has [outside/DoJ Staff counsel conducting discovery in re S Attorney e-mails ] been made that all e-mails within DOJ control as they relate to comments related to Rove-Ralston have been fully disclosed to the Committee; or has that certification not been made; and why not?

Jeff wrote on May 22, 2007 7:55 PM:

Can't we waterboard her? I mean, all of her people insist it isn't torture right?

Rick B wrote on May 22, 2007 8:00 PM:

"We're better than that now."

Maybe you think you are. I'm not. Get her under the lights on the stand and in front of the cameras and make her plead the fifth, over and over. Then after that, offer her immunity for her time working for Abramoff - only - and do it again.

Remember Ken Starr and what he did to Susan McDougal? That is the standard that should apply.

Goldspinner wrote on May 22, 2007 8:10 PM:

To the anonymous poster of "THINGS NOT ADDING UP BETWEEN LEGAL COUNSEL: Inconsistencies between Comey, Berenson, and Dowd"

Kudos...excellent parsing!

Anonymous wrote on May 22, 2007 10:58 PM:

Yet another loyal Bushie saying FUCK YOU to the Dems. I hear it's all the rage in DC.

mayan wrote on May 22, 2007 11:25 PM:

I read this all as being quite different than most of you. I read Waxman's memo to indicate that Ralston has much to say about many things. If so, if she fingers Rove, I have absolutely no problem giving her immunity...providing she comes up with the goods.

It's peculiar to me that Berenson is representing both Ralston and Sampson. I query the potential conflict and why they are both using this arch neocon. Be that as it may, it seems clear that she is plainly willing to talk. I say, talk on.

Michael Stevens wrote on May 22, 2007 11:42 PM:

It seems Waxman has denied Ralston's immunity request, at least for now.

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/R/ROVE_AIDE_ABRAMOFF?

Waxman said in the memo: "Providing immunity to a witness is a significant step with legal consequences for potential prosecutions." Before deciding on Ralston's request, he said, the committee "should seek to obtain information about the relationship between Mr. Abramoff and the White House from other sources."

Anonymous wrote on May 23, 2007 12:10 AM:

From Thinkprogess.com....

Waxman denies Ralston immunity, for now.

More details on former Rove aide Susan Ralston. Ralston’s lawyer says that if she is granted immunity from prosecution, “she would testify about Abramoff’s relationships with White House officials and ‘the use by White House officials of political e-mail accounts’ at the Republican National Committee.”

Ralston has “useful information about both of those subjects,” Berenson told the committee, and “she is more than willing to provide it to the committee” under “a grant of immunity,” the memo said.

But Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA) is going to deny immunity for now. “‘Providing immunity to a witness is a significant step with legal consequences for potential prosecutions.’ Before deciding on Ralston’s request, he said, the committee ’should seek to obtain information about the relationship between Mr. Abramoff and the White House from other sources.’”

JNagarya wrote on May 23, 2007 12:10 AM:

"Not acceptable. Please subpoena her NOW. Don't wait two months. Do it now. The delay tactics of these scumbags is so obvious and yet the Dems play right into their hands. Put some fear into this bitch.

"Posted by:
Date: May 22, 2007 05:46 PM"

Do you disapprove of violators of the law? Then don't insist that Congress do the same. We don't do Bushit lynch-mob "justice".

If you want that, then declare yourself as being a Republican.

JNagarya wrote on May 23, 2007 12:28 AM:

"Refs:
"Atty Standard 3.3 "a lawyer shall inform the tribunal of all material facts known to the lawyer that will enable the tribunal to make an informed decision, whether or not the facts are adverse."

"Atty Standard 1.6:
(b) A lawyer may reveal information relating to the representation of a client to the extent the lawyer reasonably believes necessary:
. . .
"(6) to comply with other law or a court order."

There are supplementary interpretive materials on the meanings of the Canon.

In addition, when one carefully reads the entire Canon, one discovers that it is essentially (1) the requirement that a lawyer provide a zealous defense of his client; (2) all the rest are qualifictations and caveats under that first rule.

In addition: when one reads a legal (or quasi-legal) document, one must keep in mind all provisions in it, because all are equally in effect at all times. That includes contradictory provisons.

So a lawyer must report to whatever the relevant tribunal all material facts of the matter -- but not jeopardize zealous defense of his client.

SC = garden. As in, Law is a garden of land mines, many hidden by weeds.

ralph489 wrote on May 23, 2007 1:39 AM:

First: "We're better than that now."
I don't believe there is any reason why people suspected of participating in wrongdoing should not be dragged in front of a committee. The people in the McCarthy hearings were being dragged into literally the most reported issue of their day and were expected to be ostracized. When was the last person who was ostracized for taking the Fifth in front of Congress from a sitting administration? These are different.

Second: Hall her up there. She needs to take the fifth in response to specific questions. But can anyone answer me: Wouldn't it be a crime if she had been aware of these crimes (i.e.- bribery) and not reported them, thus allowing her to take the fifth?

Third: Open an investigation on her and Ms. Goodling, and anyone else who refuses to answer straight questions, and use other sources of information to try them for the crimes they are afraid they committed. They need to be made into examples. Just because they can use the fifth to avoid self-incrimination, doesn't mean they can't be charged on other evidence.

zoyd wrote on May 23, 2007 2:30 AM:

Laughable. I like seeing good oversight.

Al in Austex wrote on May 23, 2007 5:50 AM:

I keep thinking (praying really ) that somewhere in some Hill staffers files that the "hard copy" of all the criminal wrong doing have been documented and the relevant Committess of Congres have the goods on the BushCo criminals. I have this hope because good & decent public servants such as the career DOJ's attorneys & even the Chief of Station/FBI San Diego have been to see the Hill Staffers. These same good & decent public servants have witnessed the systematic deconstruction of our Rule of Law- These good Americans I pray have already given up the BushCo RICO enterprise . My best guess is all this slow rolling by the Oversight Comittees is just Waxman's et al way of making sure we get as many of these wrong doers as possible-in one fell swoop.
As we learned growing uphunting in East Texas "its better to sneak the stock tank and flush all the ducks on the water at one time for a mutiple kill - then to try for a pass shot at one duck coming into to roost "

Nancy Irving wrote on May 23, 2007 6:20 AM:

Remember "fifth amendment Communists"?

We should start calling these people "fifth amendment Republicans."

Anonymous wrote on May 23, 2007 6:34 AM:

Seriously ...it's really time to stop fooling around here. Subpoena these people and FORCE THEM to plead the Fifth in public, over and over. The reason Dems. continue to get steamrolled is because they refuse to grow some spine. W and company ONLY respond to force.

James wrote on May 23, 2007 1:40 PM:

"If you want that, then declare yourself as being a Republican."

Six years down the line and the wall around the White House is beginning to crack from the smallest players. There are moves to get the executive uniting power after the declaration of an emergency anywhere in the world. People are dying, the world is turning against America and it's time to make people accountable as _failed_ during Iran-Contra, which you may recall was a _state_ supporting terrorism to guarantee an election result.

Say what you like about the Republicans, they don't mess about when it comes to breaking the law, and I thoroughly echo the sentiment regarding Susan McDougal and Ken Starr.

USE THE TOOLS supplied by the constitution and ignore the opinion polls, which means impeachment, subpeona and negotiation. Leaning on the people that'll have to have some kind of career after Rove retires to his think tank is the only way you're going to get any result.

The time is now to change direction and shine bright lights under this particular refrigerator.

phil james wrote on May 23, 2007 2:56 PM:

A lot of these comments about the specific remedies and requirements of their attorneys or of when the 5th amendment can be properly invoked require that all involved understand and play by the rules. Do they understand the rules? Yes. Do they have any intention of ever playing by the rules? ....ever? Absolutely not. They will use every trick in their book (turdblossom keeps their book in his WH wall safe) to obfuscate, stall, blow smoke, confuse, harass, deny, counterattack, and then kick it down the road before they stonewall again... including having their minions plead the 5th to avoid having to admit, not to their own crimes, but to the crimes of their superiors. This last tactic is a dodge just like every other tactic they use is a dodge. The Dem strategy is to hammer away and seize whatever openings appear in these tactics that reveal indictable criminal offenses. The criminal offenses are there but as Patrick Fitzgerald learned, these guys lay down heavy, heavy smoke.

Jane wrote on May 24, 2007 1:45 PM:

The ABA Directory of Lawyer Disciplinary Agencies
(last updated 3/15/07)can be found at:

http://www.abanet.org/cpr/regulation/scpd/disciplinary.html

anonoman wrote on August 27, 2007 1:23 PM:

The so-called "mystery poster" has been most prolific at the CREW website. A thread on those posts is located here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=1669387&mesg_id=1669387