« Enron Tapes and Transcripts | Main | The Emma E. Booker School 9/11 Video »
June 16, 2004
Who Killed Margie Schoedinger?
On December 2, 2002, Texas resident Margie Schoedinger, filed a lawsuit against President George W. Bush, claiming he and others committed "individual sex crimes" against her and her husband. The proper paperwork was filed, a detailed court petition was submitted, and it was apparent this case was serious; President Bush would be served with papers to appear before the court on charges of rape.
Now, I know what you’re thinking; this is big, if it’s for real, why didn’t I hear about it? Well, it appears there’s been a “media blackout” on the story, as no one, with the exception of a few local newspapers and internet sites, reported the story. The charges, whether fabricated or not, were legitimately filed and can still be read on the Fort Bend County website. Margie claimed, she had been harassed by both FBI and policemen, who she also filed cases against, and stated in her court petition…
"the Defendant [George Bush] also informed the Plaintiff [Margie Schoedinger] that his only option to assure his never having to answer for the previous contact would be to simply see Plaintiff pressured to the point of committing suicide"
On Monday September 22, 2003, 38-year-old African-American, Margie Schoedinger was found dead, with an apparent "gunshot wound to the head". The Harris Country Examiner's Office filed the death as a "suicide". Only 9 months after charges are filed, Margie Schoedinger is found dead.
Jackson Thoreau who interviewed Schoedinger shortly before her death reported, ”she didn't sound "deranged" to me in July 2003. She sounded like someone who had gone through something weird and was trying to sort it out. She sounded like someone who wanted the truth to come out.” It was during this exchange, Schoedinger expressed, "I am still trying to prosecute [the lawsuit]…I want to get this matter settled and go on with my life…People have to be accountable for what they do, and that's why I'm pursuing it."
05:41 AM in Current Affairs | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/832107
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Who Killed Margie Schoedinger?:
Comments
how come it shows up in the filings that schoedinger worked for the
state of texas as a commercial driver and no one followed up on it and
no one ever found out what she did and where when she was younger.
Posted by: dan ryan | September 17, 2004 05:22 PM
Does anyone have new information on this story?
Posted by: | September 18, 2004 03:55 AM
It would appear the Fort Bend County website is "down for backups". Last time I checked, the documents related to the case were no longer available for download.
Posted by: Teddo | September 25, 2004 10:36 AM
Nope. Wrong. It's back up.
Posted by: Tedoo | September 25, 2004 10:37 AM
If anyone has any follow up information on this story, please email me (Peter) at the email link at the top right side of this page, or post it here. Thank you!
-Peter (ledge of liberty)
Posted by: ledge of liberty | October 8, 2004 03:22 AM
Maybe the police and news reporters investigated it when she filed the charges(I recall seeing this item in more than one place on national television, as well as her death), and when they realized that the only story was that a person who they judged was not credible filed a barely credible charge most likely as a result of her mental problems and so they stopped giving her their valuable time. No need to keep harrassing her and her family because that would be cruel, and the poor woman doesn't mean any harm because she is unfortunately not sane. You never hear the rest of the story because it would be cruel to make her tell it, or to tell it about her after she's dead.
No followup needed because there was no proof and no one but this lady saying so. Sort of like that lady that Clinton supposedly raped, except that from the story I read which you have linked, it clearly shows the likelihood that she wasn't sane.
The first charge, where the "unknown assailants" for which "no report was filed" yet "plaintiff was repeatedly and aggressively questioned" sound a lot to me like every episode of COPS where the police show up and a poor mentally insane person is berating regular people because she thinks they are FBI sent from George Bush to get her. It's sad that there are people like that, but there are.
Even if it's true, she was hard pressed to prove it. Perhaps she was actually insane, bless her heart. I think you're better off just accepting that unless you are positive she couldn't have committed suicide it ought to be dropped. The blog account of the guy says "he didn't sound too strange" but I found the whole thing to point at her being strange. That she talked about people killing her to make it look like suicide before she committed suicide seems easy to believe, but the idea that someone killed her does not.
Do you really want to go rooting around in her family's pain to find out that she really didn't have anything but her word? I remember the story being kind of unbelievable when I heard it from her living mouth. Now that I look over the evidence you've given, I find Occam's razor telling me that this poor woman was mad.
I'm allowing for the possibility that Bush is a freaky committer of sex crime on the unsuspecting public, but it stretches the bounds of her credibility to believe it, which to my knowledge did not satisfy the rigorous standards of the mainstream media. So far it does not satisfy mine either.
Cheers,
M@
Posted by: M@ | October 21, 2004 04:27 AM
In Response to M@:
First of all, how is it that you can make this incredible leap with such confidence to the conclusion that she was insane? You make outlandish suggestions as to what may have happened to such a degree, that I wonder if you're a disinformation agent yourself. For example, you say:
"...I recall seeing this item in more than one place on national television, as well as her death..."
I've been following the current events of the day via national media religiously for the last 4 years or so and had never even gotten a whiff of this story on national T.V. Feel free to prove me wrong (which I doubt you'll be able to) by providing the name of one of the national TV news sources that you claim reported on this story. I'll gladly follow up your claim with unbiased research. Although I suspect that the effort will be in vain.
"...Maybe the police and news reporters investigated it when she filed the charges...and when they realized that the only story was that a person who they judged was not credible filed a barely credible charge most likely as a result of her mental problems and so they stopped giving her their valuable time..."
Well, apparently the local law enforcement wasn't as cooperative as you would expect your normal Officer Bob to be. When there was a failed attempt by certain individuals to abduct her in October 2000 the local police actually refused to file a report. This is the very reason why she filed suit against the Sugar Land Police Department as well. I'm sure you wouldn't be too gleeful if a major crime was committed against you and then your local police would not even so much write up a report about it. It seems to suggest that she was facing organised harassment donchathink? Again, I fail to see why you repeatedly go out of your way to label this woman insane.
"...No need to keep harrassing her and her family because that would be cruel..."
If the allegations are true, then it seems to me that George W. Bush and his administration/ covert ops/ skull & bones/ cronies (pick one or more which apply) don't appear to agree with you there. Then again, maybe they do, which makes it all the more sinister.
"...and the poor woman doesn't mean any harm because she is unfortunately not sane..."
And how do you know this? Could it be from the crystal ball that you've pulled from out of your rear-end? At least that would explain your murky point of view on this matter.
"...You never hear the rest of the story because it would be cruel to make her tell it, or to tell it about her after she's dead. No followup needed because there was no proof and no one but this lady saying so..."
Why don't we hear the rest of the story? According to you: Because it would be cruel to tell it... Brilliant! (oozing with sarcasm). You know maybe you are a disinformation agent after all. Because now you're now beginning to suggest that no followup is needed. Whoever you are, I just hope you aren't a homicide detective (or any kind of detective). Because if they all had your mindset by assuming that there is no proof or any leads right from the start then very few cases would be solved.
"...The first charge, where the "unknown assailants" for which "no report was filed" yet "plaintiff was repeatedly and aggressively questioned" sound a lot to me like every episode of COPS where the police show up and a poor mentally insane person is berating regular people because she thinks they are FBI sent from George Bush to get her..."
What the he__??!! How old are you...Twelve? It also appears that you live far from any of America's metropolitan areas. There's nothing wrong with your location, except that you may have a skewed perception of "city-life" and an over-association with reality based T.V. shows.
"...Even if it's true, she was hard pressed to prove it. Perhaps she was actually insane, bless her heart. I think you're better off just accepting that unless you are positive she couldn't have committed suicide it ought to be dropped..."
Awww bless your heart. You have the reasoning skills of a seven-year-old. Maybe we're better off accepting that until we are positive that you are a disinformation agent. Then again, you seem to be in some sort of denial...Are you Laura Bush?
"...That she talked about people killing her to make it look like suicide before she committed suicide seems easy to believe, but the idea that someone killed her does not..."
Your logic is so bizarre that it is actually numbing. I'm sure that in the dictionary it shows your picture next to the definition of tunnel-vision. It now appears that you are incapable of exploring the possibility that she did not committ suicide as shown by your statement above. You have obviously locked onto the assumption that she committed suicide and are content to let all other facts fall where they may until they almost fit. I suppose you are surrounded by a box....try to think outside of it for once. Try assuming she's telling the truth and then see if the chips fit then. I know it may be difficult for you to grasp that concept (living in Okepenoke, Montana and all) but try your best O.K.?
"... Do you really want to go rooting around in her family's pain to find out that she really didn't have anything but her word? I remember the story being kind of unbelievable when I heard it from her living mouth. Now that I look over the evidence you've given, I find Occam's razor telling me that this poor woman was mad..."
With each and every statement you make, it becomes increasingly more
difficult to phanthom your bird-brained logic. And how do you know she
had nothing but her word? Is it even remotely possible that she had
some sort of evidence that she either disclosed or gave to someone she
trusted for safe keeping?
You keep insisting that she was insane or
mad. But the fact that she made the reasonable choice to represent
herself in court (which is not generally advised, but who can you trust
if you're suffering from consistent high-level (i.e. Presidential)
organised harrassment?) and showed the capability of preparing a
well-thought-out petition to file the charges in court doesn't support
your "insane" theory. Neither does the fact that she wanted to continue
her education to obtain her Phd. In and of themselves, these facts
don't exclude one from being insane, but they certainly don't lend
themselves to insanity either. So what does Occam's razor say about
that?
"...I'm allowing for the possibility that Bush is a freaky committer of sex crime on the unsuspecting public, but it stretches the bounds of her credibility to believe it..."
Actually you don't appear to allow for much outside the assumption that she was insane or not credible. Strangely though, you seem to describe to a tee the very reason that Mrs. Schoedinger claims she has suffered all the harassment (and probably an untimely death)...the fact that you acknowledge that your President may be a "freaky committer of sex crime(s) on the unsuspecting public" and that you are so aware of this possibility but refuse to consider that she was "credible" enough to make the accusation, only demonstrates the undying (and fatal) loyalty that some people have towards Dubya despite all of the documented extreme corruptness that he and his family have demonstrated throughout the years.
"...which to my knowledge did not satisfy the rigorous standards of the mainstream media..."
Wow...You know if anyone else had said this I would assume that they were joking. The sad part is that you probably don't understand why that statement is so alarming. The only "rigorous standards" the mainstream media have is whether a story is suitable enough to keep the American Sheep asleep. Anything unwanted is either blacked-out, manipulated, white-washed, or ridiculed. But you wouldn't know that would you?
"...So far it does not satisfy mine either..."
On that note, there is no need for me to comment any further.
Posted by: IC | October 26, 2004 12:10 AM
i think we are all missing the big picture here. A suit was filed. A woman is dead. Our president is involved. End of story. There is no room for who, what where when and why, because she did not live to give those facts and conveniently for our sorry excuse of a president...it was never publicized. WHY?????? He did it that is why.
Posted by: | November 1, 2004 12:51 PM
To posted by Nov.1, How do you know the President was involved were you there? Were any of the people that have posted anything relative to this discussion there? As a person who was once a protector of the public we were trained that until you have the facts don't pass judgment on anyone for fear of retribution and the the shortcomings thereof. Some of these people really crack me up, nothing has ever been found to be factual except that a suit was filed an that this poor women was found dead. Have any of you seen the forensics, seen the body, or for that matter even been to the Sugarland police to ask any questions, some of it just may be of public record and you could start your own investigation into what happened. Until I hear of anything definitive I wouldn't pass any judgment on anyone muchless the President, bearing false statements can get you in alot of trouble. You might to think about this a little. There are things in this world that yes don't add up. But to keep going on and on about something that you have no control over is rediculous. Go out and try doing some investigating in the real world of crimes and see how you do. The lay public has no idea what to expect when you come up on a crime scene and see all the blood, and disturbance that goes along with a shooting.
Posted by: BM | November 4, 2004 07:49 PM
