LONE NUTTERS ARE SCREWING DOGS...!

Q: The interesting thing about Files' confession is that, while it was videotaped, he does not give up his right to take the 5th under oath. Also, this was NOT a legal deposition. In order to be tried, the Attorney General of the State of Texas would have to DO HIS JOB and INSIST that the Dallas DA, John Vance, call a grand jury and hear the evidence OR the USDOJ would have to call the grand jury. Go to www.jfkmurdersolved.com and click on the picture of the Texas AG next to Janet Reno and the Texas law is printed there for you. To double check the correctness, please visit the Texas AG site and go to the Texac Code of Criminal Procedure section. You will see the murder statues and the proof that the Dallas DA is neglecting to do his duty. It's all right there, in their laws.. That is the way it was explained to me by criminal attorney Don Ervin of Dallas, Texas.

A: Let me try to give you a clearer picture. There is a confession from a man that says he killed the President of the United States. There are living witnesses that substantiate the man's claims as well as supporting witnesses who corroborate his confession. The grand jury will hear all of the evidence and reneder their verdict as to whether or not to idict the man for murder. If he is indicted for murder, then the VIDEO CONFESSION becomes the main crux of that murder jury. Whether or not the man takes the 5th or not, or whether or not he chooses to answer any questions, has nothing to do with whether or not a murder trail jury will convict him. Again, that's coming from a layman, but that is my understanding. Criminal attorney Don Ervin of Houston will be further enlightening me over the next few weeks and I will be happy to provide you and the other readers with a precise understanding at that time. I appreciate your response and I mean no disrespect. I have been an attorney for 20 years in the criminal arena and this still does not make sense. Why would you,

a man he has cooperated with, desire to put the gears in motion that could subject Mr. Files to such harsh criminal sanctions? Second, if that is your intent, why would Mr. Files have anything to do with you? Also, in a grand jury proceeding he would be forced to answer questions that he refused to answer in his video confession that would not personally subject himself to criminal exposure. Rarely does any grand jury convene solely on the basis of a confession. I do not want the group to misinterpret my questioning you. There is a strong foundation of evidence by Mr. Files that rings true though I am confused by certain things, as you have yourself acknowledge, that do not.