 |
 |
 |
|
|
Corruption Chronicles Supreme Court to Decide Whether to Release Foster Photos The United States Supreme Court will soon rule whether or not photographs of the dead body of Clinton friend and business associate Vincent Foster must be released to the public. Foster, who handled the infamous Whitewater real estate deal for the Clintons, was found dead in a park in Virginia with a gunshot wound to the head in 1993. The case is being brought to the Court by California lawyer Allan Favish. While investigators ruled the death a suicide, Favish believes 10 photographs taken of Foster's dead body will prove he was murdered. Favish points to a statement by one of the paramedics on the scene that Foster had a bullet hole in his neck. This directly contradicts the government's contention that a single shot was fired to the mouth. Favish told the Associated Press, that gaps in the investigation of Foster's death "could only be the product of extreme negligence or an intentional cover-up." In rendering its decision, the Supreme Court must determine the right balance between the privacy rights of the family fighting the release of the photos, with the public's right to know the circumstances surrounding the suspicious death of a close ally to President Clinton. Judicial Watch had litigated this issue on behalf of Accuracy in Media, which was also seeking access to information about Foster's mysterious death. SIDEBAR: The Foster case represents the first time in history that the U.S. Supreme Court will rule on a case involving the privacy rights of a surviving family and the Freedom of Information Act. Massachusetts Court Violates Law in Recognition of Homosexual Marriages Following is a statement by JW President Tom Fitton in the wake of a recent Massachusetts Supreme Court effectively mandating the recognition of homosexual marriages: "The Massachusetts court decision now forces the people of Massachusetts to recognize homosexual marriages. This misguided decision flows directly from this year's Supreme Court Lawrence decision, which granted constitutional protections to the right to engage in sodomy. Now that this right has been established by the Supreme Court, it was inevitable that another court would mandate recognition of homosexual marriages. "The November 18 ruling, though, is on a collision with the federal Defense of Marriage Act, which protects states from being forced to recognize homosexual marriages permitted by other states. It is likely the U.S. Supreme Court will now have to decide the controversy - whether states and the federal government are constitutionally required to recognize same sex marriages. "These decisions are affronts to the law and to legal precedent." SIDEBAR: With its November 18th Lawrence decision, the U.S. Supreme Court reversed an earlier Supreme Court ruling in the 1986 Bowers v. Hardwick case. The Court then ruled 5-4 to allow states, in that particular case, Georgia, to pass laws outlawing homosexual conduct.
info@judicialwatch.org • 1-888-JW-ETHIC
Site hosting and technology by Cory Consulting, Inc. © 1997-2004, Judicial Watch, Inc., All rights reserved. |
