The Seth Rich MURDER is becoming Big Time lately … he was the DNC Voter Expansion Data Director now suspected of dumping their Emails on to Wikileaks (it wasn’t the Russians)!
http://media.blubrry.com/rbn/b/content.blubrry.com/rbn/stream_2017-05-25_175946.mp3 {All you Med-Techs need to listen} !!!
Did his Murder happen on the streets of DC – or in the Hospital (as he did NOT die on the Street, he lived on for 8 hours afterwards and should have survived)?
His injurys from two Gunshots were serious but not Fatal: Review of this info from a mature and well seasoned ER/OR/IC nurse of 23 years invokes to many questions as I have been ‘very close’ to such Professionals in the past and they know their stuff; and I hear no Political issues invoked whatsoever … they merely seek a Forensic exam of his unaltered charts and have significant questions about the ‘story’ as it exists today!
Besides that: The DC Police say that the FBI has Seth’s Computer and the FBI says that the DC Police have it … so we’re looking at:
Spoliation of evidence.
Every presumption is made against a wrongdoer; All things are presumed against a despoiler or wrongdoer {Omnia præsumuntur contra spoliatorem}; The thing speaks for itself {Res ipsa loquitur};
18 U.S.C. § 2071 (Concealment, removal, or mutilation generally) (a) Whoever willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, or destroys, or attempts to do so, or, with intent to do so takes and carries away any record, proceeding, map, book, paper, document, or other thing, filed or deposited with any clerk or officer of any court of the United States, or in any public office, or with any judicial or public officer of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both. (b) Whoever, having the custody of any such record, proceeding, map, book, document, paper, or other thing, willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, falsifies, or destroys the same, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both; and shall forfeit his office and be disqualified from holding any office under the United States. As used in this subsection, the term “office” does not include the office held by any person as a retired officer of the Armed Forces of the United States. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2071
ORS 40.135 Rule 311 (Presumptions) (1) (The following are presumptions: (c) Evidence willfully suppressed would be adverse to the party suppressing it.); http://landru.leg.state.or.us/ors/home.htm
Kearney v. Foley & Lardner, LLP,
No. 07-55566 (9th Cir. 05/12/2009) (Spoliation of evidence is the “destruction or significant alteration of evidence, or the failure to preserve property for another’s use as evidence, in pending or future litigation.” Hernandez v. Garcetti, 68 Cal. App. 4th 675, 680 (Ct. App. 1998). http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/9th/0755566p.pdf
Trigon Ins. Co. v. U.S.,
204 F.R.D. 277 (E.D.Va., 2001) (Spoliation has been defined as the willful destruction of evidence or the failure to preserve potential evidence for another’s use in pending or future litigation.);http://www.mass.gov/obcbbo/eve.htm
THE EVE OF DESTRUCTION: Lawyers, Clients and Spoliation of Evidence: (The federal crime of obstruction of justice is defined by 18 U.S.C. § 1503 to include conduct that, among other things, corruptly endeavors to obstruct or impede the due administration of justice. To sustain its burden of proof, the government must prove that there was pending judicial proceeding, that the defendant knew this proceeding was pending, and that the defendant then corruptly endeavored to influence, obstruct, or impede the due administration of justice. In addition, the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 has expanded the federal law of obstruction by adding new sections to 18 U.S.C. § 1512 and enacting a new statute, 18 U.S.C. § 1519, creating additional crimes relating to alteration, destruction, mutilation or concealment of records, documents, or objects. Section 1512(c) requires acting corruptly with intent to impair the item’s integrity or availability for use in “official proceedings,” defined by 18 U.S.C. 1515 to include proceedings before federal courts, agencies, Congress, and regulatory proceedings involving the insurance business. This statute is particularly striking in providing, in subsection (f), that an official proceeding need not be pending or about to be instituted at the time of the offense and that the document need not be admissible in evidence or free of a claim of privilege. Section 1519 relates to any matter within the jurisdiction of a federal department or agency or any case filed under title 11 (bankruptcy) and requires intent to impede, obstruct or influence the investigation or administration of such a matter or case. It also includes actions taken “in relation to or contemplation of” a matter or case. In a bar discipline proceeding alleging a violation of Rule 3.4(a), one key issue would be whether the documents were destroyed or altered (in the language of the rule) “unlawfully”. For example, spoliation by a lawyer that constitutes a crime or violates a discovery order or the requirements of a subpoena is unlawful and in violation of Rule 3.4(a). Such conduct may also violate other rules, such as Rule 1.2(d) (counseling or assisting a client in criminal or fraudulent conduct) or the general misconduct proscriptions of Rule 8.4.); http://www.mass.gov/obcbbo/eve.htm
Spoliation of Electronic Evidence: 5 B.U. J. SCI. & TECH. L. 13 (1999)* (See Coleman v. Eddy Potash, Inc., 905 P.2d 185, 188 (N.M. 1995) (noting that California was the first jurisdiction to recognize a tort for intentional spoliation of evidence); Cf. Lawrence Solum & Stephen Marzen, Truth and Uncertainty: Legal Control of the Destruction of Evidence, 36 EMORY L.J. 1085, 1087 n.4 (1987) (citing, among other cases, The Pizarro, 15 U.S. (2 Wheat.) 91 (1817); Pomeroy v. Benton, 77 Mo. 64 (1882); Armory v. Delamirie, 93 Eng. Rep. 664 (K.B. 1722), Rex v. Arundel, 80 Eng. Rep. 258 (1617);
Spoliation of E-Mail Evidence: (Ballon, Cyberspace Law, 1999) http://library.findlaw.com/1999/Feb/22/131004.html
Spoliation of evidence: The trend to a new tort; http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3811/is_199901/ai_n8848378
Don’t let this issue die with Seth … NEVER FORGET !!!