États-Unis
France
This work is licenced under a Creative Commons Licence.
<a rel="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/">
Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.3 or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation. A copy of the license is available at: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/fdl.html.
by Dan Hajidah
Here is the relevant page from the official transcript at the United States federal courthouse in Richmond, Virginia, a document which US Department of Justice sources say is sufficient evidence to send the author Patricia Cornwell to prison for many years, and possibly for the rest of her life.
The transcript shows Patricia Cornwell lying under oath - in other words, committing the serious crime of felony perjury - in a US federal courtroom. The topic about which Patricia Cornwell is lying and committing perjury, is precisely her past threats of book-burning, Cornwell's previously written threats to destroy the books of Dr Les (Leslie) Sachs.
See the previous post showing the original threatening extortion letter of Patricia Cornwell, where she makes threats of book-burning against Dr Les Sachs, with Cornwell and her lawyers actually using the words 'destroy' and 'book', as quoted by Sachs.
According to the US Department of Justice and to legal observers, Patricia Cornwell's criminal offence of felony perjury is completely clear, unmistakable, and absolutely certain to lead to the criminal conviction of Cornwell on felony charges, should the US government finally (perhaps under President Obama) begins the criminal prosecution of Cornwell and her lawyers and allies.
According to the Dept of Justice sources, Patricia Cornwell's felony perjury is part of what are technically crimes of 'terrorism' - Cornwell threatening to have a Jewish journalist tortured to death, and then funding and committing multiple additional criminal acts across international borders - so Patricia Cornwell faces jailing for the rest of her life when prosecuted.
None of Patricia Cornwell's lawyers deny that Patricia Cornwell has committed felony perjury here, none of her lawyers deny that Patricia Cornwell is a liar and perjurer under oath in US federal courtrooms.
The issue of Patricia Cornwell's apparently well-proven perjury, is highly significant not only for the potential lifelong jailing for Cornwell, but also for the context of the many other lies told by Patricia Cornwell.
For example, there were Patricia Cornwell's lies in media interviews in 2007, when Cornwell was trying to spread the false stories of 'stalking' and 'cyberstalking' against Dr Les Sachs. These lies of Patricia Cornwell, even though spread via CNN and other media (CNN is a branch of one of Cornwell's publishing companies, Time-Warner Books), have already been exploded as impossible hoaxes.
Patricia Cornwell, as if on drugs (Cornwell is a frequent drug-and alcohol-abuser), began to make weird claims that Dr Les Sachs - who has been a political refugee in Europe since 2004, subject to instant arrest and jailing at US borders - Cornwell began to claim that Sachs was somehow, avoiding all the Homeland Security border controls, and sneaking back into the USA to 'stalk' Cornwell near her house, and then with only Cornwell noticing and no police able to see or catch Sachs, and Cornwell not even calling police, then Sachs would sneak back to Europe. - Or so Patricia Cornwell claimed.
Clearly, these weird Patricia Cornwell 'stalking stories' about Sachs were lies and absurd fabrications, Cornwell just trying to smear and slander Sachs via media willing to repeat her lies. - Corporate media, of course, didn't mention how Cornwell herself had been a documented lesbian stalker of the actress Jodie Foster back in the 1990s, as recounted in Esquire magazine.
With Patricia Cornwell a proven perjurer under oath in US federal courtrooms, the question then is, why should anyone in the world believe anything at all that Patricia Cornwell says, given that Cornwell is a proven liar and perjurer in a courtroom?
Patricia Cornwell's lawyers have no answer to this question.
On the day when she committed perjury in the courtrooms of Virginia, Cornwell was directly asked:
"Have you threatened in any way to destroy Mr. Sachs' books?"
"No" replies Patricia Cornwell, directly telling this lie and perjury in front of a US federal judge and a roomful of witnesses, and with the very documents proving that Patricia Cornwell made her threats of book-burning, right there in the courtroom, and one of these documents even being read aloud during the course of the proceedings.
It is significant that the question was asked if Cornwell had threatened her victim "in any way", because this deprives Cornwell of making the possible excuse that while her lawyers working for her had clearly threatened to destroy her victims books, and Cornwell had filed legal papers clearly threatening to destroy her victim's books, Cornwell herself had merely hired other people to make these threats for her, instead of doing the dirty deed herself.
No one cross-examined Patricia Cornwell, because there are no lawyers in the courtroom working for Cornwell's victim Dr Les Sachs. (As Department of Justice sources confirm, two friends of Judge Payne were fraudulent 'posing' as lawyers for Sachs, but they were working for Cornwell, not for Sachs.)
And Dr Les Sachs was unable to announce or call attention to Cornwell's lies and perjury, because Cornwell's friend and protector, US Federal Judge Robert Payne, had already illegally and instantly banned Sachs' freedom of speech.
The instant banning of Dr Les Sachs' freedom of speech and freedom of the press, prevented him from all contact with the media. The federal judge allowed Patricia Cornwell's allies to publish articles attacking Sachs in the national news media and all over the internet, but Sachs was ordered not to respond, on pain of instant jailing by Judge Payne.
The judge's order preventing Sachs from responding to the media lies about him, also prevented Sachs from getting large-scale public support, or lawyers who would help him, as the lawyers were discouraged by all the media stories smearing and attacking Sachs, and mis-representing the case.
Sachs was ordered not to try to organise any independent news media favourable to his cause, who might tell the truth about Cornwell, or who might show up to report on this stacked 'hearing' where, according the US Department of Justice, all the lawyers and the federal judge himself, were receiving bribes and payments from Patricia Cornwell.
There was never any 'trial' in that original Patricia Cornwell case where she had Dr Les Sachs' freedom of speech instantly banned. Dr Sachs was simply given the legal papers, and US federal judge Payne immediately telephoned Sachs to ban his freedom of speech. Then, a few weeks later, Judge Payne held not an actual trial, but a one-day 'preliminary hearing', on Tuesday the 16th of May, 2000, for the purpose of putting the ban on Dr Sachs' freedom of speech in writing, and expanding the ban on Dr Sachs freedom of speech even further, so that Dr Sachs had to close down his website material, so there was almost nothing on the internet to contradict the false media articles.
Judge Payne also ordered the mailing out of letters which destroyed Dr Sachs' publishing company and his reputation. According to DOJ sources, Cornwell's media allies were encouraged to produce a continuing set of false national 'news stories' attacking Sachs and telling lies about him, while Sachs was told he faced instant jailing - and being tortured to death in a jail cell - if he did not stay silent and submit.
The one-day 'hearing', with no lawyers or anyone else representing Dr Les Sachs, ended with Judge Payne issuing on-the-spot direct expanded orders, which banned Sachs from speaking or writing about what was happening to him. Judge Payne made it angrily clear he was ready to take full rapid revenge on Sachs, if Sachs dared to breathe a word about Patricia Cornwell's felony perjury that had just taken place, or any other criticism of Patricia Cornwell, whom Judge Payne was determined to 'protect' by all his power to instantly jail people for 'violation of court orders'.
In the scans here, you see not just the page where Cornwell commits perjury, but also the first page of the official court transcript record, which lists not just two of Patricia Cornwell's lawyers as representing her, but also lists two lawyers as claiming to 'represent' Dr Les Sachs. According to US Department of Justice sources, US Appeals Court filings, and other court transcripts and documents, these two Virginia lawyers, Thomas H. Roberts and Tim Schulte, were in fact also working for Patricia Cornwell, being paid via bribery cash from Cornwell's Willcox & Savage law firm, which DOJ sources describe as also paying bribery cash to US Federal Judge Robert Payne.
DOJ sources point out how it is indeed quite clear that Thomas H. Roberts and Tim Schulte were working for Patricia Cornwell, and not for Cornwell's victim Dr Les Sachs. According to the DOJ sources and the proof files, Roberts and Schulte had been appointed by Judge Robert Payne to pose as lawyers for Sachs, using the cover of the ban on Sachs' freedom of speech, to threaten Sachs with instant jailing and being murdered, if he tried to fire them, or if Sachs tried to say anything about how they were frauds working for Cornwell.
According to DOJ sources and written proof documents, Thomas H. Roberts and Tim Schulte not only were fraudulently posing as lawyers for Dr Les Sachs, they were also fraudulently posing as lawyers working with a fraudulent 'Freedom Foundation' which does not exist, and they and Judge Payne all used this fraudulent 'Foundation' as part of this court fraud of staging a fraudulent 'legal proceeding' with Patricia Cornwell.
The crimes of Roberts and Schulte in posing as lawyers for Dr Les Sachs, were more fully exposed in a Virginia court transcript of 8 May 2003, and in a US Appeals Court filing of 3 April 2004, later filed with the US Supreme Court (see other postings for these documents).
One of the many items pointing to how Thomas Roberts and Tim Schulte were really working for Patricia Cornwell and not her victim Dr Sachs, is how Roberts and Schulte did not dare cross-examine Patricia Cornwell on the felony perjury that she committed right there in a US federal court hearing.
The federal judge witnessing Cornwell's perjury, 4th Circuit federal Judge Robert Payne, did not request Cornwell's indictment for perjury, according to US Department of Justice sources, because Payne was receiving bribes from Patricia Cornwell, via Patricia Cornwell's lawyers, Conrad Shumadine and Gary Bryant of Willcox & Savage.
One of the remarkable things as well about Cornwell's felony perjury here, as Dr Les Sachs has pointed out, is that it shows how utterly weak the whole Cornwell case against Sachs really was, right from the beginning.
The perjury is striking, given all the weapons that Patricia Cornwell had on her side: According to US Department of Justice sources, these included a bribed federal judge who had already banned her victim's freedom of speech, and a crew of extortionists willing to jail and murder Dr Les Sachs as well. Here is a one-day court-hearing, with a federal judge willing to do unlimited favours for Cornwell, anything that Cornwell wants, and there are no lawyers in the courtroom working for the victim, with all lawyers and the judge are all working totally for Cornwell, according to DOJ.
And yet, with everything stacked in her favour, her victim's freedom of speech banned, no one to defend him or speak for him, everyone apparently ready to jail and murder him - Patricia Cornwell yet still finds it necessary to commit perjury about the threats of book-burning that she had authorised via her lawyer Michael Rudell.
It is truly regrettable that no US lawyer has ever yet been brave enough to be willing to confront Patricia Cornwell in a US courtroom, and cross-examine her about her perjury and other crimes involved here.
An additional curiosity of this page 141 of the court hearing transcript, is that it also provides proof that Patricia Cornwell was writing and re-writing her book that she published later that year, "The Last Precinct", AFTER she had received private complaints from Sachs about her possibly imitating the ideas of Sachs' previously-published 1998 novel, "The Virginia Ghost Murders".
(To summarise what has been published elsewhere: Dr Les Sachs had never made any accusations of "plagiarism" against Patricia Cornwell, there is zero evidence he ever used that word. In December of 1999, Cornwell announced a future upcoming book, with a plot that sounded like Sachs' novel published the previous year. Documents prove that Sachs' book had been reviewed by both Patricia Cornwell's editor, and Patricia Cornwell's literary agents.
Sachs investigated and protested, and received boasts from their mutual publisher, that Cornwell could borrow other people's ideas, and any victim would be helpless to oppose it. Sachs pressed the question, and then received the extortion letter from Cornwell's lawyers, giving Sachs a ten-day deadline ordering him to be silent, and to agree to a book-burning of his own books. The apparent goal of the letter was to create controversy, and enable Cornwell's lawyers to start a legal case where they could earn hundreds of thousands of dollars from Cornwell.
The lawyers' scheme worked; Patricia Cornwell agreed to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to have Dr Les (Leslie) Sachs banned and destroyed, and Sachs' freedom of speech was instantly banned a few weeks later. Cornwell's money that she has spent to have Sachs banned and destroyed, including bribes to the President Bush family to ensure she would not be prosecuted, have now totalled an estimated approximate US $2 million.)
For the documents from US government and courthouse files, proving that Patricia Cornwell committed felony perjury, see here:
http://cornwelldocuments.hostfile.nl/images/f4wsdabw7b/2984/cornwell-testimony-p-1.jpg
http://cornwelldocuments.hostfile.nl/images/caev0lgnoh/2982/cornwell-perjury.jpg
This work is licenced under a Creative Commons Licence.
<a rel="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/">
Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.3 or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation. A copy of the license is available at: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/fdl.html.
