Question for anyone

If citizens can be charged with "obstruction of justice", why can't government officials who either themselves obstruct the release of documents or allow it to happen?

The same applies to any relevant government committee charged with oversight of the JFK Act which entails oversight hearings which have not been conducted in accordance with the mandates of law. Could that not also be considered "obstruction of justice", at least in a broad sense?

And lastly, should it not be considered "obstruction of justice" for relevant law enforcement agencies not to consider new evidence in a case in which there is no statute of limitations? When, exactly, was the last time new evidence in this case was considered by the Justice Department, the FBI, the Dallas Police or any other relevant authority? And how much new evidence has been brought forth since then?

Underpinning all laws are certain fundamental principles - whether those principles be enshrined in a separate act, or in a Constitution, or in some other form. I suggest that some type of class action which refers to such relevant broad-based principles may well be an option.

This is the kind of thing I'm talking about: "It's the vibe"...

 

I agree that it's a form of obstruction of justice, Greg. IMHO, they will never declassify all the documents.

Probably not, Hasan. At least, not if they can avoid it.

One of the roles of the courts is to ensure that the administration of justice is in accordance with applicable law AND that the applicable law is itself in accordance with applicable sections of the constitution and common law rights.

Bear with me here...

My argument would be that the assassination robbed, violated, disturbed and aggrieved every right-minded citizen in the country, that the cover-up was  manifestly illegal, immoral, damaging to the national psyche, damaging to future restraints on government malfeasance, and decidedly unconstitutional (even if we're just talking about "the vibe" of the document); that the refusal to open files or to consider new evidence constitutes something akin to an  "obstruction of justice" issue - especially in light of the longest-serving FBI head in history promising the President's Commission that "so far as the FBI is concerned, the case will be continued in an open classification for all time."  Doesn't have to be "for all time" though - only until it is properly solved.

So... what I am suggesting is a class action by and for "the people" to get the courts to consider all of the above and to rule on each and to ensure any favorable rulings are acted upon - some examples of outcomes of such proceedings I'd like to see:

1. the enforcement of the JFK Act w/regard to oversight and release of documents

2. the setting up of an ARRB type body to review new evidence with the power to order the Justice Department to follow up on any evidence deemed of sufficient merit to be of possible value in the case.

greg parker wrote:Probably not, Hasan. At least, not if they can avoid it.

One of the roles of the courts is to ensure that the administration of justice is in accordance with applicable law AND that the applicable law is itself in accordance with applicable sections of the constitution and common law rights.

Bear with me here...

My argument would be that the assassination robbed, violated, disturbed and aggrieved every right-minded citizen in the country, that the cover-up was  manifestly illegal, immoral, damaging to the national psyche, damaging to future restraints on government malfeasance, and decidedly unconstitutional (even if we're just talking about "the vibe" of the document); that the refusal to open files or to consider new evidence constitutes something akin to an  "obstruction of justice" issue - especially in light of the longest-serving FBI head in history promising the President's Commission that "so far as the FBI is concerned, the case will be continued in an open classification for all time."  Doesn't have to be "for all time" though - only until it is properly solved.

So... what I am suggesting is a class action by and for "the people" to get the courts to consider all of the above and to rule on each and to ensure any favorable rulings are acted upon - some examples of outcomes of such proceedings I'd like to see:

1. the enforcement of the JFK Act w/regard to oversight and release of documents

2. the setting up of an ARRB type body to review new evidence with the power to order the Justice Department to follow up on any evidence deemed of sufficient merit to be of possible value in the case.

I agree with you, Greg. But of course, I also realise that the US Government would never in a million years tell the public that the man who allegedly assassinated the President had connections to US intelligence agencies, for example.

You are most likely correct, Hasan. But I'm not counting on the government making any voluntary admissions. The judiciary is separate to the executive.  

I'm counting on a process, along with the separation of powers to get the job done. If a civil action by "the people" got a result, I believe the momentum and "will of the people" can actually move those mountains.

greg parker wrote:You are most likely correct, Hasan. But I'm not counting on the government making any voluntary admissions. The judiciary is separate to the executive.  

I'm counting on a process, along with the separation of powers to get the job done. If a civil action by "the people" got a result, I believe the momentum and "will of the people" can actually move those mountains.

I sure hope so, Greg.

On the other hand, Hasan.... I could be talking out of my arse...

A legal opinion would be good...

LOL I don't think you're talking out of your arse, Greg. I think you could be onto something. Only time will tell what happens I suppose.

"The People" can only act through prosecutors, there's no civil cause of action available. There's no statute of limitations on the state crime of murder, so the investigation would have to be run through a local grand jury (though Jim Garrison took advantage in a wrinkle in criminal law, Conspiracy to Murder can be prosecuted in any jurisdiction that has ties to the conspiracy).
There's no federal criminal action available, however during the Bush Administration the FBI reopened a slew of Civil Rights cold cases from the 50s & 60s, most of those ended up being prosecuted in state courts.  Certainly if the FBI really cared to, it could cooperate with the Dallas DA to re-open the case.

Having said all that, I'm afraid its a fool's errand. the Rosetta Stone died 2 years ago.  The one guy I would have hauled before a grand jury is Marrion Baker.
He had, what, three different stories?  Same day affidavit had him stopping suspect on third or four floor (affidavit doesn't ID Oswald, even though he was IN THE ROOM while Baker was filling it out); Warren Commission/HSCA testimony had him stopping Oswald in second floor lunch room; However far more interesting was his statement to an author in the late 70s so ominous in its implications Baker should have been hauled into a grand jury as soon as it was published (he may have spoken openly because he was not named in the interview. However, since he's the only person on the planet this series of events could happen to, he's not exactly anonymous):

"The man who said he was the building superintendent was outside and met me at the door and went in with me. Shortly after I entered the building I confronted Oswald. The man who identified himself as the superintendent said that Oswald was all right, that he was employed there. We left Oswald there, and the supervisor showed me the way upstairs. We couldn't get anyone to send the freight elevator down. In giving the place a quick check, I found nothing that seemed out of the ordinary, so I started back to see what had happened. Not knowing for sure what had happened, I was limited in what I could legally do.
The investigator from Washington contacted me for my recollection of what happened, but I guess they weren't interested in what I said."
http://www.jfk-online.com/bowles6.html

Either the Dallas DA investigating JFK's murder (or for that matter, the US Attorney for the District of Columbia investigating Baker's apparent perjury to the HSCA) should have forced Baker to come clean. But they did not and now he's gone West. 
What's worse, the second floor lunchroom story has so blinded researchers, apparently no one who interviewed him ever called Baker out on his testimony contradictions.  Of course, I only know about it from reading Sean Murphy and Greg so I shouldn't judge (oh I guess I should have pointed out upfront I'm an American lawyer). )

beowulf wrote:"The People" can only act through prosecutors, there's no civil cause of action available. There's no statute of limitations on the state crime of murder, so the investigation would have to be run through a local grand jury (though Jim Garrison took advantage in a wrinkle in criminal law, Conspiracy to Murder can be prosecuted in any jurisdiction that has ties to the conspiracy).
There's no federal criminal action available, however during the Bush Administration the FBI reopened a slew of Civil Rights cold cases from the 50s & 60s, most of those ended up being prosecuted in state courts.  Certainly if the FBI really cared to, it could cooperate with the Dallas DA to re-open the case.

Having said all that, I'm afraid its a fool's errand. the Rosetta Stone died 2 years ago.  The one guy I would have hauled before a grand jury is Marrion Baker.
He had, what, three different stories?  Same day affidavit had him stopping suspect on third or four floor (affidavit doesn't ID Oswald, even though he was IN THE ROOM while Baker was filling it out); Warren Commission/HSCA testimony had him stopping Oswald in second floor lunch room; However far more interesting was his statement to an author in the late 70s so ominous in its implications Baker should have been hauled into a grand jury as soon as it was published (he may have spoken openly because he was not named in the interview. However, since he's the only person on the planet this series of events could happen to, he's not exactly anonymous):

"The man who said he was the building superintendent was outside and met me at the door and went in with me. Shortly after I entered the building I confronted Oswald. The man who identified himself as the superintendent said that Oswald was all right, that he was employed there. We left Oswald there, and the supervisor showed me the way upstairs. We couldn't get anyone to send the freight elevator down. In giving the place a quick check, I found nothing that seemed out of the ordinary, so I started back to see what had happened. Not knowing for sure what had happened, I was limited in what I could legally do.
The investigator from Washington contacted me for my recollection of what happened, but I guess they weren't interested in what I said."
http://www.jfk-online.com/bowles6.html

Either the Dallas DA investigating JFK's murder (or for that matter, the US Attorney for the District of Columbia investigating Baker's apparent perjury to the HSCA) should have forced Baker to come clean. But they did not and now he's gone West. 
What's worse, the second floor lunchroom story has so blinded researchers, apparently no one who interviewed him ever called Baker out on his testimony contradictions.  Of course, I only know about it from reading Sean Murphy and Greg so I shouldn't judge (oh I guess I should have pointed out upfront I'm an American lawyer). )

Thanks for chiming in!

I knew it was a long-shot, but I thought maybe "damage to the national psyche" or some such might provide grounds for civil action in the same way that civil action for psychological damage by family members might be viable if civilians in the crowd had been killed by return fire. 

Is there no "trojan horse" that can be used to get this case into a court-room?

Thanks for recognizing the problems with Baker. Too late for him as you note, but there are others still alive.

Leaving aside the statute limitations issue (apart from murder, rape & kidnapping, federal and state legal codes have 5 to 10 yr time limits on starting a criminal or civil case), there's the question of standing.

Things like "damage to the national psyche" that are amorphous and impact everyone (or to put it another way, impact no one in particular) are what American judges call "political questions", which no private citizen has standing to file suit over. Judges kick these sort of broad-based problems out of court and leave it to the elected officials to handle. Courts only boss the politicians around when someone in particular has their civil rights violated, like last week's Supreme Court decision barring the federal govt from denying gay married couples the benefits it grants straight married couples. I'm going far into the weeds, I know. My point is simply that the JFK assassination is, in the legal sense, a political question.

There may be some viable lawsuits on the margins (hasn't Jefferson Morley been in and out court for what, a decade, to get some CIA files released?) but nothing to write home about. The only way to see real action on this is if elected officials in Washington or Texas want to take action. No judge will order them to.

But the statute of limitations is not insurmountable if a good enough reason is found for an "exception"? 

On the issue of amorphous claims being "political questions" and kicked out by the courts... would it be possible to place such an amorphous claim within the context of a breach of civil rights or as being a constitutional issue - either of which the courts will deal with? 
 
And maybe find one or more individuals to whom the issue/s might apply to nullify the the impact being on "no one in particular"?

I just think it may be time to get imaginative. Whatever it takes to get something rolling... although I do understand the chances are wafer thin at best.

'But the statute of limitations is not insurmountable if a good enough reason is found for an "exception"? "

Yes in every state in America, the criminal code puts no statute of limitations on a prosecution for murder (in most states, rape & kidnapping are also w/o a SOL). However we're back to the standing issue, as a political question, its left to the discretion of elected officials--  either the Dallas District Attorney or the Texas Attorney General-- to reopen the case.

"would it be possible to place such an amorphous claim within the context of a breach of civil rights or as being a constitutional issue - either of which the courts will deal with? "

The civil rights statutes have some of the strictest statute of limitations rules in American law (For example, a job discrimination claim has to be filed within 6 months of alleged violation). Again, even if there were no SOL issue, since no alive can claim a particularized injury (its a national tragedy, not a personal one), the judge will drop kick the lawsuit and tell you to make an appointment with the District Attorney.

I'm sorry for sounding like a downer, just calling it like I see it. Lest you think I'm opposed to legal trojan horses that look like long shots, google my screen name and the words trillion dollar coin. )

A step ahead of you, counselor. I remembered "beowulf" (incorrectly) as a character from mythology and googled it to refresh my memory. I then found the stories about your trillion dollar coin idea -- which is why I threw in about being "imaginative". I was actually tempted to say "you never know what might come out of an on-line bull session" like this...    

Is the coin idea still under consideration?

"Is the coin idea still under consideration?"

Well, it'll be in the Treasury toolbox forever but I doubt it'll ever be used. The only time it'd be useful is if Congress refused to raise the govt debt ceiling out of spite to the President (no fan of the guy but crazy is crazy)

Its sort of a remarkable example of deterrence or game theory. Once congressmen discovered the Secretary of the Treasury had the legal equivalent of a Martin-Baker ejection seat handy, they suddenly lost interest in causing a crash.
http://www.martin-baker.com/clubs/ejection-tie-club

"Game theory" played an important part in Oswald's travels, but the CIA messed the board up causing the players to leave the table.

Speaking of players leaving the table, is Sean Murphy still posting (here or elsewhere) or did Simkin cap off destroying EdForum by putting a hit on Sean?

beowulf wrote:Speaking of players leaving the table, is Sean Murphy still posting (here or elsewhere) or did Simkin cap off destroying EdForum by putting a hit on Sean?

Sean is a member but has never posted here. obviously he'd be more than welcome. It was only through Sean and Lee that the facts about the Baker - Truly encounter ever got any traction at all.

I think Sean's a really good researcher, and would like to see him posting here. Also nice to see Beowulf contributing to the forum.

Something like this happened in NZ recently. We had a politician lying about where his donations were coming from and committing electoral fraud. The police looked into it and came back and said there was not enough evidence to press charges. It was a case of the police not wanting to upset a politician, there was plenty of evidence. A private citizen got the evidence and bought charges against the politician himself and took it to the courts who said that there was enough evidence to have a case and the politician must stand trial. (in our election year hehe).
I think that if we were looking at bringing charges for the files not being released re the JFK Records Act 1992 then we would have to gather the evidence and bring the charges ourselves. The only concern I can see about doing that is funds. If we can find someone to fund our case and pay the legal fees then I think the case would be pretty strong. I would also like to see some perjury charges.

greg parker wrote:You are most likely correct, Hasan. But I'm not counting on the government making any voluntary admissions. The judiciary is separate to the executive.

Not really. Check into the issue of "administrative courts" and "administrative law". 

I'm counting on a process, along with the separation of powers to get the job done. If a civil action by "the people" got a result, I believe the momentum and "will of the people" can actually move those mountains.

I feel ya. Unfortunately, that's not the way it works anymore. We had a coup d'etat in the early 60's, remember? No one in office is interested in public opinion anymore, except for one day every four years. Need proof? Check into a piece of legislation that was euphemistically called "Audit-the-Fed". It garnered 320+ co-sponsors in the House of Representatives, which is definitely a Constitutional super-majority (ie it would have been enough for an actual Constitutional amendment, and that is uneard of in the partisan fray that is US politics), but the moment it went to the Senate it was killed in less than an hour by jackass Chris Dodd and his special banking and insurance interests.

We can bring public officials up on "obstruction of justice" charges, but two things are true:

a. someone has to bring the charges
b. we have to be able to prove them in a court of law

So, in reference to part a, my take is that every single one of the Warren Commission members are guilty of obstruction of justice (even including Hale Boggs, since he put his name on the final report). And that would include a US President, Gerald R Ford - and once we get into this domain, we're on thin ice because according to our Constitution the elected representatives are free to do their jobs without legal impediment from anyone but themselves. In other words, the only way a sitting representative is going to be "convicted" is by his peers. That's mostly the de-facto reality.

Another de-facto reality, is they're powerful and we're puny. They'll destroy us long before we can destroy them.

The only thing that makes sense to me is a "fait accompli". We'll never be able to get our government to "formally reopen the Kennedy assassination". No - what We the People have to do instead, is do the investigation and the work ourselves, and release it to the public in spite of our government's best efforts and over their strenuous objections.

And we know in advance that this is a dangerous endeavor, yes?

People have died for less.

nonsqtr wrote:

greg parker wrote:You are most likely correct, Hasan. But I'm not counting on the government making any voluntary admissions. The judiciary is separate to the executive.

Not really. Check into the issue of "administrative courts" and "administrative law". 

I'm counting on a process, along with the separation of powers to get the job done. If a civil action by "the people" got a result, I believe the momentum and "will of the people" can actually move those mountains.

I feel ya. Unfortunately, that's not the way it works anymore. We had a coup d'etat in the early 60's, remember? No one in office is interested in public opinion anymore, except for one day every four years. Need proof? Check into a piece of legislation that was euphemistically called "Audit-the-Fed". It garnered 320+ co-sponsors in the House of Representatives, which is definitely a Constitutional super-majority (ie it would have been enough for an actual Constitutional amendment, and that is uneard of in the partisan fray that is US politics), but the moment it went to the Senate it was killed in less than an hour by jackass Chris Dodd and his special banking and insurance interests.

We can bring public officials up on "obstruction of justice" charges, but two things are true:

a. someone has to bring the charges
b. we have to be able to prove them in a court of law

So, in reference to part a, my take is that every single one of the Warren Commission members are guilty of obstruction of justice (even including Hale Boggs, since he put his name on the final report). And that would include a US President, Gerald R Ford - and once we get into this domain, we're on thin ice because according to our Constitution the elected representatives are free to do their jobs without legal impediment from anyone but themselves. In other words, the only way a sitting representative is going to be "convicted" is by his peers. That's mostly the de-facto reality.

Another de-facto reality, is they're powerful and we're puny. They'll destroy us long before we can destroy them.

The only thing that makes sense to me is a "fait accompli". We'll never be able to get our government to "formally reopen the Kennedy assassination". No - what We the People have to do instead, is do the investigation and the work ourselves, and release it to the public in spite of our government's best efforts and over their strenuous objections.

And we know in advance that this is a dangerous endeavor, yes?

People have died for less.

I'm viewing this as an outsider, so I may occasionally misinterpret/misunderstand your system of government, but it is supposedly the cornerstone of any democracy to enshrine the principles underpinning the separation of powers. That said, I have always been bemused that your sitting presidents get to nominate judges based on political affiliation and personal beliefs. I know they still have to go through an approval process... but nevertheless... puzzling to this antipodean.

I refuse to use the word "never". It leads to self-fulfilling prophecies.

greg parker wrote:

nonsqtr wrote:

greg parker wrote:You are most likely correct, Hasan. But I'm not counting on the government making any voluntary admissions. The judiciary is separate to the executive.

Not really. Check into the issue of "administrative courts" and "administrative law". 

I'm counting on a process, along with the separation of powers to get the job done. If a civil action by "the people" got a result, I believe the momentum and "will of the people" can actually move those mountains.

I feel ya. Unfortunately, that's not the way it works anymore. We had a coup d'etat in the early 60's, remember? No one in office is interested in public opinion anymore, except for one day every four years. Need proof? Check into a piece of legislation that was euphemistically called "Audit-the-Fed". It garnered 320+ co-sponsors in the House of Representatives, which is definitely a Constitutional super-majority (ie it would have been enough for an actual Constitutional amendment, and that is uneard of in the partisan fray that is US politics), but the moment it went to the Senate it was killed in less than an hour by jackass Chris Dodd and his special banking and insurance interests.

We can bring public officials up on "obstruction of justice" charges, but two things are true:

a. someone has to bring the charges
b. we have to be able to prove them in a court of law

So, in reference to part a, my take is that every single one of the Warren Commission members are guilty of obstruction of justice (even including Hale Boggs, since he put his name on the final report). And that would include a US President, Gerald R Ford - and once we get into this domain, we're on thin ice because according to our Constitution the elected representatives are free to do their jobs without legal impediment from anyone but themselves. In other words, the only way a sitting representative is going to be "convicted" is by his peers. That's mostly the de-facto reality.

Another de-facto reality, is they're powerful and we're puny. They'll destroy us long before we can destroy them.

The only thing that makes sense to me is a "fait accompli". We'll never be able to get our government to "formally reopen the Kennedy assassination". No - what We the People have to do instead, is do the investigation and the work ourselves, and release it to the public in spite of our government's best efforts and over their strenuous objections.

And we know in advance that this is a dangerous endeavor, yes?

People have died for less.

I'm viewing this as an outsider, so I may occasionally misinterpret/misunderstand your system of government, but it is supposedly the cornerstone of any democracy to enshrine the principles underpinning the separation of powers.

Yes. We pay an enormous amount of lip service to that concept. I dunno, I was born in 1959 and the very first thing I remember is seeing Kennedy getting shot over and over again on the TV. My mom had rented us a TV for that specific purpose, it seems. We were in Hollywood CA at the time. So, that's when my real-world experience starts, right about the time Kennedy got shot. And since then, my take is unequivocally and unmistakably that the US Congress has lost its 'nads and has delegated most of its actual authority over to the Executive Branch.

Two specific examples: the ability to wage war, and the pot laws. Our current Prez is claiming the authority to take our nation to war with or without Congressional approval. Such a thing wouldn't even have been mentioned in the 60's, people had a lot more respect for the separation of powers back then. And, you know how big a deal the marijuana thing is, here in the US, and you've probably heard how one state after another has independently acquiesced to medical marijuana and the like. Well, the truth is, that marijuana could be put on the retail shelves at the local drug store, with two phone calls on the part of our President. The first one would be to the Administrator of the DEA, instructing here to take marijuana off Schedule 1, and the second would be to the Administrator of the FDA, instructing him to approve marijuana for use as a nutritional supplement. That is all, that's all it would take according to the way our law is currently set up and the way our administrative system of "legal delegation" presently works. The Congress no longer has the power to define the Schedules, that power has been delegated to the President, and he in turn delegated it to the Administrator of the DEA. It is she who has authority over the Schedules. She can change the Schedules at will (although she'll probably have to justify such an action on paper).

That said, I have always been bemused that your sitting presidents get to nominate judges based on political affiliation and personal beliefs. I know they still have to go through an approval process... but nevertheless... puzzling to this antipodean.

Yes. There's a whole interesting history behind this. The federal judiciary was "reorganized" under FDR. In theory the Chief Justice sets the administrative agenda for the Courts, but in practice the CJ only has authority over about 2/3 of the courts. Anything related to taxes, social security, family law, ... all of that is "administrative", under the control of the Executive Branch and not the Judiciary.

Yes, it's bizarre. I'm not entirely happy with it. Hopefully we will eventually "remember" how and why our system was put together the way it was. Certain among us seem to have "forgotten" why we favoreds such a system over others.

I refuse to use the word "never". It leads to self-fulfilling prophecies.

Okay, let me rephrase then. Let us say that the "level of effort" required to accomplish such a thing would be overwhelming. It would take a mountain's worth of effort to move the proverbial molehill.

This could actually turn into a whole long discussion. I use public transpo a lot, and I listen in to peoples' conversations, especially when they're about politics. After the financial meltdown in '08 and '09 there was a lot of anger, you could hear a lot of people nebulously "threatening" our government. Now, it's kind of gone the other way, people are actively trying to ignore their government insofar as it's creating problem. When a new law gets passed, the prevailing sentiment is now "yeah, yeah, another law, whoop dee doo". There is very little "respect" left for the law, seeing as how it's been so thoroughly abused - and how said abuse has come to be institutionalized over a relatively short period of time.

But any way you slice it, or any way you look at it, interaction with one's government involves "overhead", it invariably becomes "expensive" in some way. And, this Kennedy thing has been going on for a long, long time. We've already had three investigations, we've spent billions in taxpayer dollars on it. And we still don't have the truth. In fact, it's been so long that most of the actual truth has disappeared, it's no longer recoverable.

And that, in my opinion, is hard to forgive - for a government whose primary purpose it is to uphold and defend the rights of the People.

IMO. I'm gonna try to stick to JFK and avoid "politics in general". I'm not a very happy camper with the state of US "politics in general", but I figure maybe with the help of others I can contribute to getting something positive done for We the People.

Thanks for the extra info and clarifications. 

I largely agree and sympathize. One point of difference may be that I think The government does care about public opinion, otherwise why spend so much time, money and effort finding out what the public thinks and also in trying to sway  opinion? That isn't limited to just elections. Some parties here won't even scratch themselves without first testing the idea through a focus group, or consulting spin doctors. The media also drives, more than reflects, public opinion. Like you, I'm an observer of everything that interests me (and oblivious to everything else), and I constantly have to bite my tongue when people start talking politics - because so many of them just parrot what they are told to believe by radio talking heads or over-the-top (mainly News Ltd) press stories and opinion pieces.

And yes - some facts are gone and may never be retrieved in the JFK case, but I promise you, there is much that can and will still come out.

I don't know if this could be of any help but I have heard that petitions can be posted to the White House website and, IF there is enough signatories, some action will be taken.

Of course, there would have to be some sort of word-of-mouth chatter through the JFK research community that such a petition is going to be posted in order to get the requisite number of signers.

And it should be written in a manner that is conducive to action such as:

Inasmuch as recent research of documents released by the AARB has proven much of the original evidence viewed by the Warren Commission was contradictory to their findings and,

Inasmuch as further detailed discoveries by members of the research community have shown that certain facts accepted by the Warren Commission were in error,


We petition to move the government to create a commission to reopen the investigation into the death of President John Kennedy whose membership should include members of said research community...

blah, blah, blah. I don't want to see them simply create another "government run" commission of yes men to blow it off. There should be several (if not most) of the members be the guys who have done the hard work in the case.

With supposedly better than 80% of the population thinking there was a conspiracy in the case, it might be possible to get the requisite 100,000 signatures in a short time.

And, of course, there would have to be some method of spreading the word. Maybe Stan Dane could blanket the internet with his charming little memes?