Obstruction of Justice
by Gary Hunt, Outpost of Freedom
April 6, 1998
Although Kenneth Starr, Bill Clinton, Laura Kriho, and perhaps others, will be mentioned in this article, the Obstruction of Justice that we are speaking of is much more of a cancer and blight on the Constitution and the Bill of Rights than any of the above. "Obstructing Justice" is Black's Law Dictionary reference to this 'crime'. What Black's has to so is as follows:
"Impeding or obstructing those who seek justice in a court, or those who have duties or powers of administering justice therein. The act by which one or more persons attempt to prevent, or do prevent, the execution of lawful process. The term applies also to obstructing the administration of justice in any way -- as by hindering witnesses from appearing, assaulting process server, influencing jurors, obstructing court orders or criminal investigations. Any act, conduct, or directing agency pertaining to impending proceedings, intended to play on human frailty and to deflect and deter court from the performance of its duty and drive it to compromise with its own unfettered judgement by placing it, through medium of knowingly false assertion, in wrong position before public, constitutes an obstruction to administration of justice. [Cites omitted]
Now, keep in mind what you just read as we begin this series.
Before we delve into the mysteries of the current legal (not necessarily lawful) world, I would like to leave a caveat. This author has known several of the defendants in the Tampa Common Law Court trial for years. Emilio Ippolito and his daughter, Susan Mokdad have been friends for nearly eight years. Our studies in Law, Common Law, status and other matters of substance to the Patriot community have brought us together many times. Of all the defendants in the case, I have never had the pleasure of a meeting with only Phil Marsh.
My knowledge of the events in the trial can be reckoned from the first meeting of the Tampa Common Law Court, in the Courthouse in Tampa Florida. This was 1992, and was very early in the efforts of many of the players in attempting to find a peaceful means to restore Justice, Liberty and the Constitution to their rightful place.
My testimony in the recent Tampa trial was considered instrumental in the acquittal of the only defendant found not guilty of all charges. I hope that it assisted in reducing the number of guilties to the other defendants.
Going just a bit further, the issue of Obstruction of Justice is only a small piece of a larger puzzle. It is the woven fabric of injustice, and its effect is much more far reaching than a simple matter of denial of a system of law that has lost all relationship with what was intended, and granted us by the blood of so many, over two hundred years ago.
Let's begin then, with Kenneth Starr, the Grand Juries and the President's attorneys. Although the judges in the various cases and issues regarding the sexual prowess of the President continue to direct ALL those involved in the matters to refrain from discussing any testimony, depositions, etc., in public, some of these "officers of the court" have ignored the rule of the judge and the court to which the have subordinated (prostrated?) themselves. In collusion with them has been the major (establishment) press. The results of this conspiracy (and Obstruction of Justice) has been a nearly daily airing of issues which were "sealed" by the court. A public trial, claims of unfairness to the President, ultimately the dismissal of a civil action because, after many years, it was determined that there is no crime or justiciable issue.
It is not that a possible guilty party cannot be found, since the entire nation, even the world, is aware that the violations of the judge's orders have occurred. With an FBI that can track bombers with only radio parts, and can find evidence of criminal wrongdoing in Waco, Texas, there is no reason to believe that these able investigators would be unable to come up with probable cause and a defendant in this matter -- or, is there?
Let's take the Laura Kriho case. Here, a juror failed to answer a question that was never asked. The subsequent investigation confirmed that the question was never asked of the juror, but that there was sufficient evidence to rule in the matter. From the Final Order in "THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF COLORADO, Plaintiff, v. Laura J. Kriho, Defendant," DISTRICT COURT, COUNTY OF GILPIN, STATE OF COLORADO -Case No. 96 CR 91 Division 1, Filed in Combined Court, Feb. 10. 1997:
"The District Attorney asserts that Ms. Kriho is in contempt of court for disobeying an order of the trial court, obstructing the administration of justice, and committing perjury. The District Attorney alleges that Laura Kriho, while serving as a juror:
"1) failed to reveal that she had previously been arrested, charged with, and pled guilty to a felony charge of Possession of a Scheduled I Controlled Substance and was thereafter granted a deferred judgment and sentence;
"2) failed to reveal that she was opposed to the enforcement of drug laws through the courts and that she was actively involved in an organization which had as its purpose the modification of certain Colorado drug laws; and
"3) failed to reveal that she did not intend to follow the judge's instructions on the law.
"The District Attorney argues that Ms. Kriho did these things with the intent to obstruct justice.
I have referenced the Internet site with the entire order, but a few comments and highlights should suffice to my point. The judge, Henry E. Nieto, did defend the ability of the jury to nullify law (Jury Nullification), however in his legal double-talk, he made clear that it is not a right. In his ORDER:
"There is no question that jurors possess the power referred to as jury nullification, but juries should not be encouraged to use such power indiscriminately. In United States v. Moylan, 417 F.2d 1002, 1006 (4th Cir. 1969), cert. denied, 397 U.S. 910 (1970), the United States Court of Appeals stated:
"No less an authority than Dean Pound has expressed the opinion that "Jury lawlessness is the great corrective of law in its actual administration." However, this is not to say that the jury should be encouraged in their "lawlessness", and by clearly stating to the jury that they may disregard the law, telling them that they may decide according to their prejudices or conscience (for there is no check to insure that the judgment is based upon conscience rather than prejudice), we would indeed be negating the rule of law in favor of the rule of lawlessness. This should not be allowed.
In Nieto's masterful obfuscation, he concludes that: "It is quite another thing for a juror to deliberately mislead the court in an effort to obstruct the administration of justice." What he has said, then, is that a juror can act his conscience ONLY if the court has not read him an instruction to the contrary. You see, as all judges do, the trial judge instructed the jury to rely on the judge's interpretation of the law. Any juror NOT following the judge's instructions must so state during voir dire (during jury selection). So, it is not the law that one is to follow, it is the judge's interpretation of the law that MUST be abided by. Sort of like ruled by man rather than by law!
In Nieto's conclusion, he makes clear that:
"trial court finding that juror was under duty to disclose prior offenses on voir dire examination and intentional failure to respond to court's voir dire questions constituted contempt reversed by appellate court, which held that because juror only pled guilty to marihuana possession and because marijuana possession was not a crime in Missouri, juror did not falsely answer voir dire question regarding whether or not she had been convicted of a crime. In re Mossie, 768 F.2d 985 (8th Cir. 1985)
"juror found to be in contempt when juror failed to reveal prior criminal record during jury selection process. United States v. Limpkin, 66 F. Supp. 821 (S.D. Fla. 1946)
Laura Kriho was found in Contempt of Court.
The judge had little cause to deny Laura Kriho her freedom as a consequence of her exercising her "ability" to judge the law as well as the facts. He, rather poorly, cites cases where it affirms that explicit answers must be forthcoming, even to ambiguous or indirect questions. The Instructions of the Court go without question!
Back to the various court and grand jury investigations. The Court's Instructions have been violated by the "officers of the Court" and the Press, with impunity.
Now, let's venture down to sunny Tampa Bay, Florida. Here we have another juror situation. Not unlike Kriho, this case involves a juror's failure to honestly answer a question. However, more like the cites used by Nieto in his Order, the questions were direct, and there was discussion by the juror with regard to the question. The answers the juror gave were absolute lies -- with regard to federal law on Jurors (28 USC § 1865. Qualifications for jury service) and, without regard to a very direct questions, the juror gave a "knowingly false assertion."
In the Tampa Common Law Court jury selection (voir dire), the judge asked, "All right. Have any of you ever been charged with a crime? And by that I mean something that you understood might result in being imprisoned if you were convicted." This question was asked on June 3, 1997. In response to that question, Juror Number 505 (of the anonymous jury selected for the trial), AKA, Matthew Lee Finch responded, "I was stopped last year and charged with driving with a suspended driver's license. It was an unpaid traffic ticket. It since has been resolved, no problems."
On October 14th, 1996, Matthew Lee Finch (Case Number 96-10839-CF D, Circuit Court for the Sixth Judicial Circuit of Florida - Criminal Division) signed a "Change of Plea Form" in which he swore, in open court:
"1. I, Matthew L. Finch, Defendant herein, do hereby withdraw my plea of not guilty and enter a plea of nolo contendere to the charges…"
"2. … I understand that, if the court accepts my change of plea, I give up (waive) my right to a jury trial, and that I will be sentenced as a felony offender, based upon my plea."
"3. I understand …. The maximum penalty for the crime(s) to which I am pleading guilty or no contest. Which is 5 [years in prison and] $5,000."
9. … there has been an understanding that my sentence will consist of 18 mo[nths] probation; 60 days jail weekends; $250.00 court costs; $34.00 investig[ative] costs; [withheld] adjudication."
Now cometh the FBI. On February 19, 1998, at the request of Judge Merryday (the judge in the Tampa Common Law Court trial), Special Agent Robert Coffin of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, began an investigation into whether "any of the jurors used in the trial [U. S. v. Ippolito, et al.] …had any felony convictions."
Special Agent Coffin determined, through NCIC, that juror #505 (Matthew Lee Finch), was the only juror who had a record. The record included "five misdemeanors and two felony arrests but only one misdemeanor conviction (no felony convictions)."
Maybe we can begin to understand the inability of the FBI to investigate the direct violation of the Courts" instruction in the Clinton affairs. After all, the FBI (Coffin) began his investigation in February, 1998. Matthew Finch's Change of Plea Form was "sworn to in open court" in October, 1996. Remember, Finch agreed that he was being "sentenced as a felony offender." He knew that he could face jail or prison were he to violate probation, yet he declared in court, "no problem." And, the FBI seems to think that there is "no problem", either.
So, we have three different situations. In only one of those was there no DIRECT effort to act against the instructions of the court, and Laura was found to have, "deliberately and willfully withheld and concealed information [that the court agreed was not criminal] which was relevant and important to selecting a fair and impartial jury for the purpose of obstructing justice, the Court finds Ms. Kriho in Contempt of Court."
go to Obstruction of Justice #2
Return to Florida Common Law Court page