Clinton said that she did not believe her campaign had any contact with Eisenberg before the hostage taking.
"He was someone who was not known to my campaign headquarters until he walked in today, and as far as I know we've had no contact with him," she said. "It appears that he was someone who was in need of help and sought attention in absolutely the wrong way."
Was this a question asked? Or did la femme Clinton offer this up out of the blue, and why? After all, conspiracy theories are not abound in the media, as most are using this to highlight Hillary as the quintessential CIC up to any crisis.
Starting with my post below, I have read enough to give me doubts as to Eisenberg being a mentally unstable dupe. And following on the heels of the CNN debate - a joke passed off to viewers as a medium presenting questions from "undecided" voters for a GOP candidate - plus adding in Hillary's latest poll slides to Obama, there is still something that isn't smelling quite right to me on this whole event. And I am no conspirator by nature.
Eisenberg has been labeled "sick", "mentally unstable" and "in need of help". Is this true?
The MA Dept of Corrections has said he was released from MCI Concord March 2005. There is a lawsuit on record with opinions and fact findings against one Respondent, Isaiah Shalom - an MIT law grad and bridge master. The court suspended Shalom's law license indefinitely as of May 2003. Shalom, according to MIT's site, retired from law in 2002, and underwent triple bypass surgery in 2006.
Two counts of Shalom's charges were:
Count Two alleged that the Respondent entered into an agreement to split legal fees with a non-attorney.
Count Three charged that the Respondent assisted inmates in various prisons to violate regulations prohibiting inmates from engaging in monetary transactions with each other.
Under both these counts, Leeland Eisenberg, an inmate in MCI Concord and formerly institutionalized at MCI Bridgewater (an institution for the criminally insane) was named as party to the charges.
In Count Two, Shalom was charged with paying Eisenberg for "finders fees" - illegal as Eisenberg is not, and never was, a lawyer.
In Count Three, $9000 was to be provided to Eisenberg for investment in "stocks, bonds and other instruments & means common to investments otherwise, for the mutual and equal benefit of both parties to this contract".
Even after Eisenberg's MCI Bridgewater days, and while he was most recently jailed in MCI Concord (during the 90s when the Shalom lawsuit events happen), apparently Eisenberg still had high level MIT contacts to pull this off.
Why would an MIT lawyer be passing funds to a mentally unstable Eisenberg? And why offering to compensate for case referrals? Where is the link that would give him any indication that Eisenberg had anything to offer in the legal arena?
A possible solution may be found at the MA Appellate Courts site, where there are 9 lawsuits under the name of Leeland Eli Eisenberg between 1974 and 2004. Most of them are filed as with Eisenberg acting as a "Pro Se" Petitioner... legalese for self-representation in a court of law.
If this Leeland Eisenberg is the same involved with Isaiah Shalom's misconduct - logical since Eisenberg appeared an adept study at pro se law while incarcerated - and the very same Eisenberg who took hostages at the Clinton campaign headquarters this past week, then he is no mentally unstable dupe living in a trailer at his core.
He is, potentially, a trickster for hire with political and legal savvy. If jailed since 1974, there is little fear of additional jail time with the current charges. This is a man who has spent as much time in jail - if not more - as he has free.
Will the media continue to fall for this "poor sick man" routine? Will they just parrot the campaign promo that Clinton is a master at handling crises?
Or will they post a close watch for any large deposits in Eisenberg's bank accounts? Perhaps from one who has paid him to stage a hostage event to benefit Ms. Clinton? And will anyone be able to effectively trace the funds back to the prime beneficiary, Hillary Clinton?
_____________________________________________
UPDATE 12/2/07
Three additional suits under Eisenberg's aka, Ralph E. Woodward, Jr., also appear on the MA Appellate Court sites. Most media concentrate only on the lawsuit against Cardinal Bernard Law of the Archibishop of Boston. Of course that places Eisenberg/Woodward amidst 450 other victims who filed suit against the well publicized priest. Was Eisenberg truly one of those molested? Or merely an opportunist, jumping on the already full bandwagon.
Eisenberg, now in custody, is being charged with kidnapping, reckless conduct and criminal threatening. He may face federal charges, but these are subject to further investigations. Note however ... being legally savvy... Eisenberg did not possess a weapon, and the bomb was flares taped together to look like a bomb and a fake detonator for accent. In short, he broke no gun laws with illegal possession, and the hostages - while fearing for their lives with a bomb - were actually not in physical danger. The absence of possessing weaponry and explosives, he knows from legal experience, will weigh in his favor in any trial. He also slowly released hostages, or allowed others to escape, prior to his peaceful surrender.
All in all... very odd. Not only did he call CNN three times, described as "well spoken". But he allowed incoming calls to the hostages throughout the day.
2 comments:
I too read the shalom doc and found it rather odd that Eisenbrg knew such lofty contacts--(the MIT law grad and bridge master) whom felt comfortable doing business with an inmate, no less.
very weird. and all his neighbors paint him as "friendly" "Always had a smile" "always well-dressed". It's a strange juxtoposition--The well-dressed hostage taker in slacks and power tie with the image of a "24/7 beer drunk/mental patient" somehow just doesn't ring true.
After all, would someone in such a diminished state really put in the effort to make a windsor knot in his silk tie?
I believe, anonymous, that he was clad such because he was due for a divorce court appearance that same morning. Perhaps he thought he'd slide thru after the hostage incident? Who knows.
Post a Comment