www.justiceforchandra.com

[benn]

Isn't this about the time for the Condit v Dunne depositions? I am just wondering when and if we will hear anything about them.

I can't see Condit answering enough questions to satisfy the defense.

benn

[laskipper]

Hi Benn,

The depositions are just the preparation for the trial. I'm sure we won't hear anything until pre-trial negotiations are complete because I doubt if this lawsuit will make it to trial for obvious reasons. IOW, I think it will be settled same as the NE/American Media suit.

[benn]

skipper, this is all pure conjecture here on my part. Dunne is not NE. NE has a lot of money, probably a lot more than Dunne has. Dunne may not be willing to give up any of his money without just cause.

If the deposing of Condit is not satisfactory I am not certain who would be settling with whom. Dunne did not ruin Condit's reputation. If we look at the Jay Leno jokes about Condit, and I assume the David Letterman jokes about Condit, Dunne might almost be thrown into the same category as a jokester. Condit had plenty of time to set everything right when Connie Chung interviewed him, and he also did several other interviews. The truth sets things right. That is what we are looking for right now, the truth.

benn

[rd]

benn, this week is about as late into September as it's going to get and we still haven't heard a peep from anyone that Condit showed up in NYC. I think it'll be like the grand jury hearing in April of 2002. People are on the watch for this guy to even show up, so I think we'll hear about it if he does.

From the Muder on a Horse Trail - Discussion thread:

from www.modestobee.com (fair use)
Levy case haunts Condit
By MICHAEL DOYLE
BEE WASHINGTON BUREAU
Last Updated: September 5, 2004

WASHINGTON — The mystery of Chandra Levy still prompts serious questions, some of which former U.S. Rep. Gary Condit will confront soon.

Now a private citizen, Condit no longer is hounded by reporters, and his silence no longer carries political risk. But because he is pursuing several defamation lawsuits, he still faces interrogation by hostile attorneys.

Later this month, author Dominick Dunne’s lawyers will get the chance to grill Condit for up to seven hours. The deposition in New York City will follow up on Condit’s earlier surrender of several boxes of documents.

“I’m eager to take some testimony from this fellow,” said Paul LiCalsi, one of Dunne’s attorneys.

end quote

rd

[peripeteia]

rd:
Perhaps today is the day that Condit will show up, or it will be later in the fall, one thing is for sure, someone is likely onto Condit't tail. Wouldn't it be wonderful if Condit arrived at a downtown hotel in NY to be greeted by "our" James. I think I'd fly there just to be able to sit in court, well likely outside the courthouse. I doubt this will happen in secret, it is a public matter suing anyone and since Condit is doing the suing I doubt Dominque Dunne is likely to part with his money without a lot of noise.

Here is hoping that Condit has not pulled rank and made a private appearance or a court held in camera. If Condit was into hanky panky and given that he lived a double life of secrecy, I'm sure that he is worried, and there must be others who are worried that these facts will become known. Surely Dominique has done some heavy duty research.

Perhaps Condit is going to take the money that he and his wife have already won, and blow Dodge and live on the Riveria and not follow through on his plan to sue Dunne.

I find it odd that Condit does not work, surely he must do something, else he has retired and playing golf in Arizona, he certainly appears to be keeping a VERY low profile.

Well we will see what time will bring....but one good thing we have James to call on to get the scoop. Any news from your end James as what is going on with this lawsuit.
_________________
A vision sent me on the path of seeking justice for Chandra, nothing I've seen in print to date has diminished the vividness but only served to reaffirm the validity of this vision.

[benn]

Hello kate,

I went out on the street and looked for James. Of course he might not be here in Sacramento. Oh well, some other guy came down the street and handed me a press release. I don't know if he had just been released from somewhere or not.

But isn't that what newspapers do, when they don't have any news they create some. This is sort of a rehash, but it says something. I don't know what it says, but that is what it says.

>>>Liz Michael for United States Senator
P.O. Box 25506
Tempe Arizona 85285

PRESS RELEASE
For release October 15, 2002
Contact: Liz Michael or J. A. Moran, 480-540-1320 and 520-568-3324

Lawyers representing disgraced Congressman Gary Condit today contacted Liz Michael, webmistress of the political advocacy website LizMichael.com, and a possible candidate for the 2004 Democratic nomination for U. S. Senate from Arizona, inferring that she might be the subject of a defamation of character suit on behalf of the Congressman, a member of the House Intelligence Committee.

Attorney L. Lin Wood, of the law firm L. Lin Wood, P.C., contacted Ms. Michael, maintaining that an article which appears on her website, authored by former Congressman John Leboutillier, entitled "Condit: Gays, Bisexuals and Murder", was "false and defamatory". The article suggests the possible involvement of Congressman Condit in the gay sado-masochism scene in Washington DC, and suggests that the murder of Chandra Levy was likely connected to her involvement in the scene, either with Mr. Condit, or with other heretofore unnamed powerful individuals.

Ms. Michael says that the article was published on LizMichael.com because it was censored on the Republican activist site "FreeRepublic", and was also censored in Newsmax, another conservative publication. Ms. Michael states that she detests censorship, and has published and linked to several controversial works which were the subject of government censorship. As for the facts in the article itself, Ms. Michael states: "I have no personal knowledge of either Chandra Levy, the circumstances of her death, or the sexual orientation and habits of Mr. Condit. I do not know whether the theories and allegations of Mr. Leboutillier are 100% on the mark. However, I did not consider them to be baseless at the time they were published, nor have I received any evidence whatsoever at a later date that they were absolutely false. The opinion piece has never to my knowledge been publicly retracted."

Mr. Wood's letter, and Ms. Michael's reply, are included in this press release. Ms. Michael's response to the prospect of a Condit lawsuit against her was, "Go ahead, make my day." She also inferred she would make any threatening letters or any legal proceedings a very public event.

From: L. Lin Wood
To: golizziego@lizmichael.com
Sent: Tuesday, October 15, 2002 12:37 PM
Subject: Condit Article by LeBoutillier

10-15-02

Dear Ms. Michael:

I represent Congressman Gary Condit with respect to the investigation and potential prosecution of a number of civil actions for defamation. A false and defamatory article about Congressman Condit is published at your website, entitled "Condit: Gays, Bisexuals and Murder" and located at http://www.lizmichael.com/condit.htm. This article purports to have been written by John LeBoutillier. Please confirm for me by return e-mail whether Mr. LeBoutillier is in fact the author of this article and the date on which the article was first posted on your website (information obtained to date indicates that the initial date of publication was either November 23 or 24, 2001). Thank you for your assistance.

L. Lin Wood
L. LIN WOOD, P.C.
Suite 2140, The Equitable Building
100 Peachtree Street, NW
Atlanta, Georgia 30303
Phone: 404.522.1713
Fax: 404.522.1716
E-mail: llwood@linwoodlaw.com
Internet: www.linwoodlaw.com


From: Liz Michael for United States Senator
P.O. Box 25506
Tempe Arizona 85285

To: L. Lin Wood
L. LIN WOOD, P.C.
Suite 2140, The Equitable Building
100 Peachtree Street, NW
Atlanta, Georgia 30303

Mr. Wood

To the best of my knowledge, former Congressman John LeBoutillier is the author of the article. It is published on our site because it was censored on the FreeRepublic news site.

Please be advised of the following if you are planning on a lawsuit against myself or any of my associates. I am a candidate for the United States Senate, from Mr. Condit's own party, and more than just from his party, from his proximate ideological wing of it, the Blue Dogs. Should you pursue legal action, I will gladly welcome the publicity that would arise over being sued by a man with the reputation of Mr. Condit for the duration of the election. It would massively help my election chances to be the subject of a lawsuit by Mr. Condit. In other words, go ahead. Make my day.

Please also be advised that a copy of this letter is being forwarded to every activist list and every media list that I have, and will receive wide distribution. Subsequent communications, including any and all legal filings, will receive the same widespread communication and will be a matter of public record open to all media and activists.

=========================================
Deo Vindice!!!
Liz Michael
http://www.lizmichael.com - Political Activism For The Liberation Of The World
http://www.lizmichael.org - Liz Michael for United States Senate
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." --- Thomas Jefferson
=========================================

Liz Michael for United States Senator
P. O. Box 11591, Casa Grande Arizona 85230<<<

I voted for Liz here in California, but they tossed my vote in the waste basket. Oh well.

benn

[laskipper]

You have to hand to to Liz for standing up to Lin Wood. Guess she's really the one with "no fear."

[benn]

Liz did some professional wrestling--in one of her profiles--maybe she was ready to take Wood on.

Wood probably saw that Liz did not have enough money.

I read a stupid statement by Wood somewhere, if it was accurate. Someone quoted him as telling someone that he made as much money in one law suit as they did in years of work.

It didn't sound too good, to me.

benn

[laskipper]

The statement by Wood was about how much money he had made off the Ramsey's litigation. I think he made that statement to a reporter. The Ramsey's are the parents of Jon Benet, the 6 year old girl who was killed in her own home at Christmas time.

[rd]

Scott wrote:

Coming now to the present, it appears that all the talk about Condit's not being a suspect is just a smokescreen, since it would make no sense to talk with Condit's former driver (I think this means only Flammini) about the new suspect (the Maryland man) if he were not tied to Condit. (The NE, of course, because of the fear of another lawsuit, is going out of its way to toe the official line, which has always been the case, that Condit is not a suspect, but it also appears from my reading the NE article from September 2004 that their FBI or law enforcement source is also emphasizing, a bit too much to sound sincere, that Condit is not a suspect.)

(I agree with RD that the Maryland contractor could not be someone Condit introduced Chandra to, since Condit didn't take Chandra out in public. And I don't believe lawyer Robinson's theory of a Congresssional sex club, so that is out for me as a place to introduce Chandra around.)

Anyway, despite the official line that Condit is not a suspect, perhaps part of the reason the Levys are so quiet is that in exchange for the police, now FBI, keeping them abreast (including letting them in on the fact that they are really still pursuing Condit), they have agreed not to comment publicly. Perhaps they simply took to heart an admonition I assume Chief Ramsey or someone probably gave them long ago -- public comments can impede the investigation, so don't make them. [This view on the part of law enforcement is the same view that often keeps law enforcement agencies from sharing info, and that would have prevented the capture of the Washington snipers if Chief Moose of Montgomery Country, MD, had not decided to publish the license plate numbers of the suspects' car.] I have a feeling if the police were really truly laying off Condit, the Levys would not be so quiet, at least not the aunt and uncle. (Witness the aunt's comment in reaction to the "just friends" testimony -- "he lied" -- she for one is not inclined to let Condit off the hook.)

Note also regarding the new suspect that a law enforcement source is deliberately talking to the press -- notwithstanding that, according to Fox on August 28 2004, the pursuit of the new suspect came from a tip. From looking at the Globe/ National Enquirer story that came out in Sept, I would guess that a prime suspect for the leak is the new US Attorney for DC, Kenneth Wainstein, who has publicly said he is trying to reinvigorate the prosecution of murders in the District:

http://www.wjla.com/news/stories/1004/177432.html

I suspect Wainstein and the FBI guy Garrett understand how badly this investigation has been handled to date and are trying to make amends. But the exact source is really beside the point. The point is that, because the info was deliberately leaked, we have to assume it was leaked for a tactical purpose, including to give Condit false confidence, or possibly to scare Condit.

Or, admittedly, this could be a smokescreen to hide the fact that the FBI really hasn't gotten anywhere.

Now, who is this new suspect and where does he fit in? Lisa Cosby on Fox said a tipster led the FBI to re-interview people and show the photo. Somewhere in the previous posts, and somewhere in the press or internet, I've read that the tip about the Maryland man came from someone in Michigan. Is it possible that the Romulus, Michigan web investigator quoted in discussion 12 of the "FBI Revisits" forum, who thinks Garrett at FBI has been brought in to do a coverup, gave enough info to the FBI to intrigue them into investigating? A sort of dare by the Michigan guy who says if you guys are really seriously investigating, you have to look at these great leads I have.

One idea that occured to me is that the CIA employee whose fingerprints were found at the scene, Alejandro Martinez, fingered one or more people as part of a plausible but concocted story to deflect blame from Condit, who, let us suppose, hired this CIA guy as his hit man. But this assumes Martinez was detained and interrogated. According to the following conspiracy theorist, Martinez has fled to someplace unknown:

http://www.geocities.com/northstarzone/LEVY.html

(Anybody know anything more about Martinez?)

Or perhaps Martinez identified the man who put Condit in touch with him. Condit presumably had CIA contacts as part of his intelligence oversight work, but it might not have been operatives and potential hit men. But more likely Condit avoided middleman hitman procurers.

Or perhaps Condit's lawyer, Geregos, found a likely suspect working with the author of the northstarzone site just cited, who believes that Condit is the fall guy and that Chandra was killed by a big C conspriracy involving the CIA because as a Mossad agent she was about to spill the beans and prevent 9/11. Frankly, I don't believe the FBI would believe such tipsters.

Or perhaps the Maryland party guy did nothing more than agree to let Condit use a country house or property. If Condit killed Chandra, he would have preferred to do it somewhere other than in a motel or outdoors, where screams could be heard. But I doubt Condit would risk being ratted on just to borrow a cushy pad to have a last go at Chandra.

Did anyone notice in the NE article that the NE found the Maryland man, they said, and he was not the guy in the photo shown to Flammini, because the NE took a photo of the Maryland man (who denied knowing Condit or Chandra) and showed the photo to Flammini, who said the latter photo was not of the same man the FBI showed him a photo of (the Tommy Lee Jones lookalike).

Talking about the Maryland man and the CIA guy leads to the general subject of accomplices.

Conspiracies don't usually work except among gangs with a real structure and intiation rites and enforcement of gang rules. Accomplices have to be chosen very carefully, with a long term view of whether the accomplice will squawk.

Suspending judgment for the moment about the Maryland man and the CIA guy, there is first the question of whether Condit needed an accomplice at all.

Scott


Concerning Flammini, here's some background. Condit had him as a driver in California for 30 years, but fired him a few months after taking on Anne Marie Smith as mistress in both DC and San Francisco, and the same month he took on Chandra as mistress. He told Flammini to find another line of work. I took it that Flammini knew too much and asked too many questions, and Condit had embarked into territory where no questions could be tolerated.

I have never talked to Flammini, or any of the principals in this case for that matter, but from all accounts Flammini worked from California and didn't make trips to DC. Chandra disappeared six months after he was rudely fired and on the other coast. Indications are that he wasn't out of town during that time anyway.

I would suspect that Flammini was shown a person's picture to see if he recognized him as a person who might have taken a trip out to California to meet with Condit while Flammini was Condit's driver. I think the whole thing is ludicrous and a smokescreen to say, "yeah, maybe Condit unwittingly introduced Chandra to one of his swinger friends and something went wrong that he didn't know about", but that's just more nuts and sluts Chandra running around and getting herself killed despite Condit's best efforts at mentoring her. It's like something straight from Geragos. That's where I would put the source of this story.

rd

[rd]

Scott wrote:

If there was an accomplice, you have to ask, as we did in the Washington sniper case, what could establish the bond of trust between Condit and the accomplice suffient to join in killing someone? Condit did trust certain people, notably Flammini, who drove him to rendezvous with Anne Marie, although Flammini later talked. Presumably the accomplice would have trusted Condit to keep his mouth shut to stay out of the slammer, but who could Condit trust? And what would motivate an accomplice? If the accomplice was a government contractor, possibly help getting the accomplice a government contract, although unlikely in the absence of an independent motivation to get rid of Chandra. (While it is not out of the question that Chandra was a Mossad agent in training, it seems to me that Condit's need to act quickly, for his own reasons, precluded him striking a bargain with someone who might have had an independent motive to get rid of Chandra, and who at a minium would have to deliberate for a while about whether to take so drastic a step and risk exposure.)(Courts and prosecutors might be compelled by statute to go after spies for Israel such as Pollard, but I would be shocked if anyone in the CIA or elsewhere has a program of assassinating Mossad agents.) Anyway, regarding the DOD contractor, one area for exploration would be any correspondence by Condit with DOD to push any DOD contracts, although as I've said I doubt there would be a payoff there.

Scott

[laskipper]

rd, who is Scott? Looking on the link that you posted, I don't find a name.

[blondie]

skipper - scott is a new poster.

One person that could be an accomplice is someone involved in the same things he was reportedly involved in. Kind of a blackmail type thing - 'I go down, you go down with me'. Just a possibility. Thinking out loud.

[rd]

Scott20037, skipper. This is from a post in Murder on a Horse Trail - Discussion. I copied the portions out pertaining to the FBI Revisits Case and replied here.

Yes, blondie, if there was an accomplice, that's the idea, whether brother or anybody else. In Ann Marie Fahey's case, Tom Capano's brothers were accomplices but testified against him at trial to convict him and got lighter sentences. Capano had murdered her, and they just helped coverup the murder.

Going down with me quickly falls apart when one testifies against the others. They race to see who will get credit for testimony to convict. Also, it's a rare person who doesn't talk to someone. That's why I don't believe in conspiracies, and I do believe in plausible deniability.

rd

[laskipper]

Thanks Blondie and rd.