Oscar Pistorius Guilty: Verdict Culpable Homicide in Reeva Steenkamp Murder

At least there is a slight smidgen of justice in the world:

Oscar Pistorius guilty of culpable homicide

Oscar Pistorius has been found guilty of culpable homicide in relation to the death of his girlfriend Reeva Steenkamp on Valentine's Day last year. Report by Sarah Kerr.

October 21, 2014 in Current Affairs | Permalink

Re Lawless Judges and the Doctrine of Unauthorized Deprivation: Scott Practice of Law and Status

Mark R Ferran <mrferran@nycap.rr.com> Fri, Oct 3, 2014 at 2:47 PM
Reply-To: Mark R Ferran <mrferran@nycap.rr.com>
To: pc9323@gmail.com

----- Original Message -----
From: Mark R Ferran
To: William Scott ; GLORIA Jean SYKES ; Mark R Ferran ; WNGrigg@msn.com ; Rosalie.Levinson@valpo.edu

Sent: Friday, October 03, 2014 2:45 PM
Subject: Re Lawless Judges and the Doctrine of Unauthorized Deprivation: Scott Practice of Law and Status

The reason that we have Judges and Clerks who tamper with the Random-Assignment system
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerald_Garson to throw cases, Judges who flagrantly LIE
(e.g., lie about the written contents of Affidavits, photographs, papers) (e.g., lie about the content of a party's legal theory, pleadings, motions, and arguments), and who intentionally violate the Right to Be Heard (refusing to Read of consider Pleadings, Witness-Affidavits, papers), and disregard or simply ignore the existing substantive Laws or precedents relied upon, as necessary to throw cases in favor of the favored party (e.g., criminally deviant agents of the Government who have transcended the limits of their lawful authority), is because MOST JUDGES No longer even intend to protect the people from "the violence of public agents transcending the limits of lawful authority" because they do not believe that the Law/Consent of the People is a constitutional limitation upon the powers or actions of rulers.


Rather, the Judges of America now allow all (executive and judicial) public
agents to transcend the limits of lawful authority (even to "steal" Houses and
other private property for their personal use and enrichment [Cruz-Erazo], to
file knowingly-false charges (Albright v. Oliver) to coerce surrender of
property or of the liberty to perform lawful acts, commit oppression, extortion,
trespass and iniquity (Wilkie v. Robbins) to steal property on behalf of the
Government without Just Compensation, and Perjury) as long as the deviant
conduct does not offend the mythical "conscience" of the Judges.

See e.g., the Cruz-Erazo decision

Most Federal Judges clearly believe that our rulers have the unlimited power to
allow or coerce persons to commit crimes against other persons, and even the
power to compel public servants to commit crimes (e.g., Perjury) against citizens.
See http://dccircuitreview.com/2011/10/31/the-d-c-circuit-did-not-use-tweezers-it-used-a-sledgehammer/

In the Jackler case, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals purported to find a
First Amendment exception to the otherwise-unlimitted power of our rulers to
compel people to commit crimes against others.

Compare The DC Federal Court Judges "sledgehammer" view that there is not even a
narrow First Amendment exception to the supposedly unlimitted power of our
rulers to compel subordinate public servants to commit crimes against us, with
this analysis:

"We also think it clear that Jackler's refusal to accede to defendants' demands
that he falsely exculpate [Officer] Metakes has a civilian analogue. As
indicated by the authorities discussed above, a citizen has a First Amendment
right to decide what to say and what not to say, and, accordingly, the right to
reject governmental efforts to require him to make statements he believes are
false. Thus, a citizen who has truthfully reported a crime has the indisputable
right to reject pressure from the police to have him rescind his accusation and
falsely exculpate the accused. And, as indicated by laws such as the statutory
provisions described in Part II.B. above, a civilian who acceded to such
pressure would subject himself to criminal liability, as would a police officer.
Of course a police officer has a duty not to substitute a falsehood for the
truth, i.e., a duty to tell “nothing but the truth”; but he plainly has that
duty as a citizen as well.


In my opinion, the overt claim by our Judges that our rulers have an unlimitted
power to coerce us to commit crimes against others, and the unlimitted power to
coerce or allow others to commit Perjury and other crimes against us, is belum
flagrante against the People and against their Constitution. See, "US Supreme
Court Permits "Unauthorized Deprivations" and thereby Declares War Against God
and Against The People of the United States" billstclair.com/ferran

In my opinion, the "right to reject pressure" includes the individual Due
Process "right to resist"/"right to self-defense" confirmed in the Second
Amendment and implicit the Fourth Amendment.

But, most people, even most attorneys, do not understand that there is a
DIFFERENCE beteen lawless "oppression" on one hand, and "the necessary exercise
of lawful authority" on the other hand. Rather, the majority focus only upon the
superficialities, such as the official title or uniform of the actor, and ignore
the question of legality/consent of the governed. George Washington said:

"Knowledge is, in every country, the surest basis of public happiness. ... To
the security of a free constitution it [knowledge] contributes in various ways:
by convincing those who are entrusted with the public administration, that every
valuable end of government is best answered by the [Laws/Consent/Conscience] of
the people; and by teaching the people themselves to know and to value their own
rights; to discern and provide against invasions of them; to distinguish between
oppression and the necessary exercise of lawful authority; between burthens
proceeding from a disregard [of the Laws/Consent/Conscience of the people], and
those resulting from the inevitable exigencies of society; to discriminate the
spirit of liberty from that of licentiousness—cherishing the first, avoiding the
last; and uniting a speedy, but temperate vigilance against encroachments, with
an inviolable respect to the laws.


In early times, the Supreme Court acknowledged that "the essence of slavery" is
the "idea that one man may be compelled to hold his life, or the means of
living, or any material right essential to the enjoyment of life -e.g.,
property] at the mere will of another":

"When we consider the nature and the theory of our institutions of government,
the principles upon which they are supposed to rest, and review the history of
their development, we are constrained to conclude that they do not mean to leave
room for the play and action of purely personal and arbitrary power. Sovereignty
itself is, of course, not subject to law, for it is the author and source of
law; but, in our system, while sovereign powers are delegated to the agencies of
government, sovereignty itself remains with the people, by whom and for whom all
government exists and acts. And the law is the definition and limitation of
power. It is, indeed, quite true that there must always be lodged somewhere, and
in some person or body, the authority of final decision, and in many cases of
mere administration, the responsibility is purely political, no appeal lying
except to the ultimate tribunal of the public judgment, exercised either in the
pressure of opinion or by means of the suffrage. But the fundamental rights to
life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, considered as individual
possessions, are secured by those maxims of constitutional law which are the
monuments showing the victorious progress of the race in securing to men the
blessings of civilization under the reign of just and equal laws, so that, in
the famous language of the Massachusetts Bill of Rights, the government of the
commonwealth "may be a government of laws, and not of men." For the very idea
that one man may be compelled to hold his life, or the means of living, or any
material right essential to the enjoyment of life at the mere will of another
seems to be intolerable in any country where freedom prevails, as being the
essence of slavery itself."

Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356 (1886)

The Supreme Court has explained that the Equal Protection of the Laws Clause

"is often associated in the [Fourteenth] amendment with the due process [of law]
clause and it is customary to consider them together. It may be that they
overlap, that a violation of one may at times involve the violation of the
other.... The due process clause requires that every man shall have ... the
benefit of the general law, ... so that every citizen shall hold his life,
liberty and property and immunities under the protection of the general rules
which govern society. It of course tends to secure equality.... Our whole system
of law is predicated on the general fundamental principle of equality of
application of the law. `All men are equal before the law,' `this is a
government of laws and not of men.' `No man is above the law,' were all maxims
showing the spirit in which legislatures, executives, and courts are expected to
make, execute and apply laws. But the framers and adopters of the [fourteenth]
amendment were not content to depend on a mere minimum secured by the due
process clause, or upon the spirit of equality which might not be insisted on by
local [government]. Therefore they embodied that spirit in a specific guaranty.
The guaranty [of equal protection of the laws] was aimed at undue favor and
individual or class privilege, on the one hand, and at hostile discrimination or
the oppression of inequality on the other. It sought equality of treatment of
all persons ... similarly situated. .... It means that no person or class of
persons shall be denied the same protection of the laws which is enjoyed by
other persons or other classes in the same place and under like circumstances."

Truax v. Corrigan, 257 US 312, 331, 338 (1921).

"It will suffice to quote a paragraph from Louisville Gas & Electric Company v.
Coleman, Auditor, 277 U.S. 32, 37, 38, 48 S.Ct. 423, 425, 72 L.Ed. 770: 'The
equal protection clause, like the due process of law clause, is not susceptible
of exact delimitation. ... Certain general principles, however, have been
established, in the light of which the cases as they arise are to be considered.
In the first place, it may be said generally that the equal protection clause
means that the rights of all persons must rest upon the same rule under similar
circumstances, Kentucky Railroad Tax Cases, 115 U.S. 321, 337, 6 S.Ct. 57, 29
L.Ed. 414; Magoun v. Illinois Trust & Savings Bank, 170 U.S. 283, 293, 18 S.Ct.
594, 42 L.Ed. 1037, and that it applies to the exercise of all the powers of the
state which can affect the individual or his property ..."


The Supreme Court and other Judges no longer say such things. And, Federal
Judges will never quote such statements. And sadly, "Constitutional Law"
Professors never quote or teach such statements to their students.

Most Attorneys refuse to even acknowledge that the Doctrine of Unauthorized
Deprivation is WRONG, refuse to type even a single sentence questioning the
Doctrine of Unauthorized Deprivation or the ugly consequences of its various
applications. Very few attorneys have written anything amounting to a Challenge
to the Doctrine. See e.g., Rosalie Berger Levinson "Time to Bury the Shocks-
the-Conscience Test" http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1551391
(citing at footnote #175 one of my early section 1983 case attempting to have
the Federal Courts condemn lawless seizure/trespass/theft of real property by
Town officials: "Ferran v. Nassau, 471 F.3d 363, 369–70 (2d Cir. 2006)(holding
that although town‘s use of a landowner‘s parcel as a turnaround for its snow
plows and its paving of a road that encroached on the property was -incorrect
and ill-advised, it was not the type of conscience-shocking, outrageous behavior
that implicates substantive due process)."

See also Ferran v. Town of Poestenkill:

"The Federal District Court decided:

"As far as Plaintiff Nadia Ferran's second parcel of land at issue, the Cropsey
Road property, it is apparent that during the summer of 1990 a culvert running
underneath the public highway adjacent to plaintiff's land was in fact
constructed ... which ... resulted in damage to a section of the stone fence
located on one side of the Cropsey Road Property. In addition, Plaintiffs have
further produced evidence that a three foot wide, approximately three feet deep,
and thirtyseven feet long channel or trench was constructed through Plaintiff
Nadia Ferran's land from the end of the culvert at issue to the beginning of
another stone fence on Plaintiff's land. At the location where the channel or
trench ends, a ten feet by four feet section of a second stone fence has been
displayed and damaged. Defendants deny responsibility for the Cropsey Road
property culvert, channel or trench, and damage to both stone fences. ... This
Court finds that Defendants were in fact responsible ...."

"The Town defendants made no attempt to prove that they had obtained lawful
authority by complying with the conditions and regulations prescribed by Highway
Law sections 147 and 148 before entering and destroying and depriving her of her
property. Instead they acted stealthily, and unlawfully, like common thieves.
Therefore, these government agents clearly deviated from or acted outside of Due
Process of Law because they failed or refused to "keep within the authority
conferred, and observe every regulation which the act makes for the protection
or in the interest of the property owner." Chicago, Burlington &c. R'd v.
Chicago, 166 U.S. 226, 241 (1896). These defendants certainly did not keep
within any "process due according to the law of the land."

"The District Court concluded:

"Let this Court be clear. There is merit to Plaintiff's claim that Henderson Way
is their private property and that the Town constructed the Cropsey Road culvert
and accompanying trench at issue. Because, however, Plaintiffs have not availed
themselves of State procedures to obtain Just Compensation for the Town's
actions involving both the Henderson Way property and Cropsey Road property,
their TAKINGS claims must fail.. . because their takings claims are premature
and must ... be dismissed."

Federal District Court, Ferran v. Town of Poestenkill, (NDNY, No. 91-CV-1090,
March 14, 1999).

"Despite the clear facts and the Court's incontrovertible findings that these
defendants had deprived us of our property outside of any process of Law, and
even though the District Court had determined that the Town's entries,
appropriations, and claims to our private property were unlawful and outside of
and beyond any law purporting to legalize deprivations, the District Court
failed and refused to vindicate and enforce our Constitutional Right to enjoy
and possess our property without unlawful and unauthorized governmental
interference. After the District Court determined that the defendants had
deprived us of our property outside of any process of law, the Court absurdly
purported to "dismiss" our case on the grossly erroneous grounds that our
constitutional rights were not violated. The Trial Court's decision strangely
failed to cite or take notice of the controlling precedent in Ferran v. Town of
Nassau, 11 F.3d 21 (2d Cir. 1993). Instead, the District Court cites an
unpublished opinion of the other local District Judge,Scullin, whose persistent
confusion of the rights of "Due Process" with "Just Compensation" was condemned
and repudiated by the Federal Court of Appeals in Ferran v. Town of Nassau, 11
F.3d 21 (2d Cir 1993)

"Before deciding to sue these officials, my mother [Nadia Ferran] complained of
this obvious illegality to the Town Supervisor, and asked him to make the Town
leave her property alone. She said to him: "You are not supposed to take my
property without due process of law." His response to her objection is typical
of the mentality of virtually every government official in the County of
Rensselaer, NY, and other places. He replied:


Town Supervisor, Richard Amadon, Town of Poestenkill, Rensselaer County, New
York, United States. 1988.

Some Judges still pretend that New York has a "rules-based court system" Born to
Build LLC v. Saleh, 36 Misc 3d 590 (Sup.Ct. Nassau Co. 2012)(DeStefano, J.)
(allowing defendant to Lie (make two contradictory affidavits "would gravely
prejudice New York’s rules-based court system)

But many Attorneys are aware that this alleged "system" and its "rules" is/are
suspended when the party benefiting from deviation from the "rules" is the
judge-favored party (such as when the judge-favored party is a member of the
same Democrat Machine that puts Judges into office, and/or when the case
threatens the operation of the Democrat Machine). E.g., "Extremely-troubling-

The Liberty Teeth of the People have decayed from disuse, and from political
correctness. The Liberty Teeth of the people need to be repaired and sharpened.

In Brandenburg v. Ohio,the nation’s high court concluded that the constitutional
guarantees of free speech and free press do not permit a state to forbid or
proscribe advocacy of the use of force or of law violation except where such
advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is
likely to incite or produce such action.

----- Original Message -----
From: Mark R Ferran
To: GLORIA Jean SYKES ; William Scott
Cc: Douglas Kinan ; richardfine@campaignforjudicialintegrity.org ;
dr.richard.cordero.esq@gmail.com ; donald watson ; Anthony Zampino ; Tim Lahrman
NASGA ; Glenda Martinez ; Dr. Karin Huffer ; David Starkey ; Dan Stuart ;
J.Geiger ; Bob Barnet ; Robert Barnet ; HRS ; gary yannalfo ; Major General Paul
E. Vallely US Army ; Charles Jones III ; Michael Cutler ; William Green
President of ; Political Candidate Bill Scheidler ; Journalist Janet Phelan ;
Janet Phelan ; Michael Krichevsky ; Clive Boustred ; Judicial Reform Activist ;
Documentarist Lon Gibby ; Talkshow Host Alfred Lambremont Webre Esq ; Jon Roland
; amendmentone@comcast.net ; Diane R. Gochin ; Jane Bansal ; Yania Gonzalez ; HR
Candidate ; Journalist Editor James Hill ; Judge Mary Elizabeth Bullock ; Mark
Adams ; michelle@suskauerlaw.com ; hmc@bedellfirm.com ; lokeefe@gbblaw.com ;
lcalvert@flabar.org ; asankel@flabar.org ; richardfine@richardfinelaw.com
Sent: Friday, October 03, 2014 12:48 AM
Subject: Re: Scott Practice of Law and Status

In my observation of classmates in Law School, and of Attorneys-at-Law
practicing, the answer to your question is simply... There is MONEY to be MADE
by obtaining and keeping a Law License, and the "corruptness" of the
Court/System is immaterial. There are many people who cease to practice law
after obtaining a law degree and/or a law license when they discover that "LAW"
has little or nothing to do with the outcomes of cases. I am in that fraction,
and I had full-tuition sholarships to study Engineering and Law School. But,
some people simply have no choice to practice law as attorneys after they incur
tens- and hundreds- of thousands of dollars of student loan debt. (For many,
only-after they graduate and become attorneys do they learn the truth about the

[Oftentimes, women will go to cokkege and then Law School to get her MRS degree,
and instead of getting a ring and pregnant, she gets stuck with only a JD
degree. Then, she finds out that most men find female attorneys
unattractive.... I think that a high proportion of them wind up not married and
no childlren... (consistent with the findings of the last Census).]

Besides being an Attorney-at-Law for Profit, there are all sorts of paying jobs
that are unpleasant, gross, vile, disgusting, such as people who clean public
toilets, people who clean septic tanks, sewers, who bag long-dead bodies, crack-
whore prostitution, murder-for-hire, mercenary soldier, pirate. It is just a
fact of human nature that some People will do anything for money, if the money
is there. The news exposure of Judge Gerald Garson convicted for
bribery/corruption for throwing cases on behalf of favored Divorce Attorneys
ignores the fact that the Appellate Courts either AFFIRMED his corrupt
determinations, or never heard them (because the victim-client could not afford
an Appeal). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerald_Garson The most-disgusting
part of the JOB of the attorneys of the victims was to persuade their victimized
clients that Justice was impartially admninistered by the Judges according to
rules/law (e.g., so that the clients would not kill the Judge(s), so the clients
would be able to WORK and PAY for their lawyer's services). If Attorneys-at-
law were REQUIRED to point out where Judges have LIED (see e.g., See, e.g.,
their title "Extremely-troubling-allegations-of-lying-by-judges-in-NY.pdf"
violated the Laws, violated Due Process, or committed other misconduct, most
Judges would be DEAD, and there would be little work for Lawyers to Do to pay
off their debts. So, basically, the job and economy of an Attorney in a
"corrupt" Court/System is to help maintain "the appearance of propriety" even
when there is no actual propriety. Only by maintaining the facade or illusion
that there still are effective Laws and Courts of Law can the Attorneys find
work to pay-off their student loans, or for their expensive suits, cars,

There were Lawyers and Judges in Germany before and after the NAZIs came to
power. Maybe some quit when the NAZIs came to power, but many did not. Post-war
Germany is one of the few places where Judges have been put on trial for their
decrees. But, such trials have historically occurred.

In Hamurrabi's code, it was prescribed Judges were to be punished for
disregarding the Law, by a fine equal to 12 times the amount in controvery
before them.

I found it very intersesting that the hanging of Judges (who violated the rights
of people) actually occurred in England.

According to "The Tyrannicide Brief".

"How to try a ruler supposedly above the law, in whose name it is administered?
Only one lawyer in all England had the combination of courage and guile to find
a successful formula: John Cooke. ... The son of a poor Leicestershire
farmer, John Cooke won his way to Oxford and the Inns of Court, where he made a
reputation as a trailblazing liberal lawyer with a passionately puritan
conscience. ... As other lawyers ran for cover, Cooke used the 'cab-rank rule'
still in practice today to justify his acceptance of a brief requiring as much
courage as craft. Made solicitor-general for the Commonwealth, he was charged by
parliament with devising a means by which neither divine right nor sovereign
immunity could afford Charles impunity for oppressing his people. Cooke came up
with a charge of high treason based on the King's 'tyranny': depriving his
subjects of their civil rights and mass murder on a scale that would now be
called ethnic cleansing.
"Cooke's landmark prosecution led to more than the execution of a monarch with
supposedly divine protection; it secured parliamentary supremacy and upheld the
rule of law, affirming the independence of judges and opening the brief
republican era in which were forged many of the democratic ideals still
cherished by most of the modern world.
"Cooke's prosecution of the King set the precedent for trials of such recent
heads of state as Pinochet and Milosevic, 'who attempt [just like Charles I] to
plead sovereign immunity when arraigned for killing their own people'. Bush and
Blair, as he suggests, might 'more credibly' have based their case against
Saddam on 'the right to punish a tyrant who denies democracy and civil and
religious liberty to his people'.


----- Original Message -----
To: William Scott
Cc: Douglas Kinan ; richardfine@campaignforjudicialintegrity.org ;
dr.richard.cordero.esq@gmail.com ; donald watson ; Anthony Zampino ; Tim Lahrman
NASGA ; Glenda Martinez ; Dr. Karin Huffer ; David Starkey ; Dan Stuart ;
J.Geiger ; Bob Barnet ; Robert Barnet ; HRS ; gary yannalfo ; Major General Paul
E. Vallely US Army ; Charles Jones III ; Michael Cutler ; William Green
President of ; Political Candidate Bill Scheidler ; Journalist Janet Phelan ;
Janet Phelan ; Michael Krichevsky ; Clive Boustred ; Judicial Reform Activist ;
Documentarist Lon Gibby ; Talkshow Host Alfred Lambremont Webre Esq ; Jon Roland
; amendmentone@comcast.net ; Diane R. Gochin ; Jane Bansal ; Yania Gonzalez ; HR
Candidate ; Journalist Editor James Hill ; Judge Mary Elizabeth Bullock ; Mark R
Ferran ; Mark Adams ; michelle@suskauerlaw.com ; hmc@bedellfirm.com ;
lokeefe@gbblaw.com ; lcalvert@flabar.org ; asankel@flabar.org ;
Sent: Wednesday, October 01, 2014 10:37 PM
Subject: Re: Scott Practice of Law and Status

Why would you want to practice (law) in a system you feel so 'corrupt'? Retire /
quit whatever and use your skills to help innocents who cannot successfully
represent themselves. If you quit or retire before you're disbarred you have
leverage. It's all about leverage.

Gloria Jean Sykes
(773) 920-3310
Sent from my iPhone

On Oct 1, 2014, at 9:26 PM, "William Scott" <04wmscott@comcast.net> wrote:

> Doug,
> My plan is to keep the list posted – please stay on the list.
> I practiced law for over 40 years – admitted to practice in many courts.
> The system is in the progress of taking my right to practice law away one
> jurisdiction at a time.
> The US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit in currently in progress.
> Bill
> From: Douglas Kinan [mailto:dougkinan@yahoo.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, October 01, 2014 9:49 PM
> To: William Scott; richardfine@campaignforjudicialintegrity.org;
> dr.richard.cordero.esq@gmail.com; 'donald watson'; 'Anthony Zampino'; 'GLORIA
> Jean SYKES'; 'Tim Lahrman NASGA'; 'Glenda Martinez'; 'Dr. Karin Huffer'; 'David
> Starkey'; 'Dan Stuart'; 'J.Geiger'; 'Bob Barnet'; 'Robert Barnet'; 'HRS '';
> 'gary yannalfo'; 'Major General Paul E. Vallely US Army'; 'Charles Jones III';
> 'Michael Cutler'; 'William Green President of'; 'Political Candidate Bill
> Scheidler'; 'Journalist Janet Phelan'; 'Janet Phelan'; 'Michael Krichevsky';
> 'Clive Boustred'; 'Judicial Reform Activist'; 'Documentarist Lon Gibby';
> 'Talkshow Host Alfred Lambremont Webre Esq'; 'Jon Roland';
> amendmentone@comcast.net; 'Diane R. Gochin'; 'Jane Bansal'; 'Yania Gonzalez';
> 'HR Candidate'; 'Journalist Editor James Hill'; 'Judge Mary Elizabeth Bullock';
> 'Mark R Ferran'; 'Mark Adams'; michelle@suskauerlaw.com; hmc@bedellfirm.com;
> lokeefe@gbblaw.com; lcalvert@flabar.org; asankel@flabar.org
> Cc: richardfine@richardfinelaw.com
> Subject: Re: The CFTC Motion to Dismiss
> William:
> Thanks for sharing your pleadings with me.
> I am not an attorney and cannot comment on the merits of your case.
> However, based on my direct knowledge and experience, I'll share some
> procedural things I learned.
> 1. Bevins is dead on arrival.
> 2. 18 USC 4 is also dead on arrival.
> 3. Pro se's in federal court with the law, facts and evidence on their side
> essentially have no voice against an attorney who can commit felony perjury
> and/or make stuff up without consequences.
> 4. The plain language rules are not really the rules. The lawyer/judge
> alliance can interpret the rules any way they want and there is nothing anyone
> can or will do about it. For example, we know since approximately the first
> grade that two plus two equals four. However, if the opposition argues that
> it's "five" and the "prosecuting" judge concurs, it's five. Hence the term
> "practicing attorney."
> 5. As a "pro se" your work appears to be exceptional and I can speculate that
> your work exceeds that of at least 95% of all attorneys. Based on my
> experience, your "audacity" is an insult to the federal bench.
> 6. I would guess that the Florida court and most other courts are no place
> for truth telling.
> 7. The Florida Board of Bar Overseers is a total sham process, as are most
> Boards and Ethics Commissions across the country.
> 8. The alleged "rule of law" has been replaced by the real "rule of like."
> If the judge doesn't like you, you're out. Is there a reason for the judge to
> like a pro se over an attorney who is part of the "fraternity?" I don't think
> so.
> 9. No money, no status and no connections in America = no justice.
> 10. Public corruption is the single biggest disaster in America and "greed
> medicine" that oils all that is wrong in our "just" society and it only gets
> worse.
> None of the above are based on speculation or hearsay. The details of my
> court experience couldn't be scripted by the 20 most talented script writers in
> Hollywood.
> I hope you win your case.
> Please keep me posted.
> From: William Scott <04wmscott@comcast.net>
> To: 'Douglas Kinan' <dougkinan@yahoo.com>;
> richardfine@campaignforjudicialintegrity.org; dr.richard.cordero.esq@gmail.com;
> 'donald watson' <watson.9to5job@gmail.com>; 'Anthony Zampino' <anzam@me.com>;
> 'GLORIA Jean SYKES' <gloami@msn.com>; 'Tim Lahrman NASGA' <timlahrman@aol.com>;
> 'Glenda Martinez' <glenest03@yahoo.com>; 'Dr. Karin Huffer'
> <legalabuse@gmail.com>; 'David Starkey' <dwstarkey@aol.com>; 'Dan Stuart'
> <dstu@aol.com>; 'J.Geiger' <j.geiger@republicoftheunitedstates.org>; 'Bob
> Barnet' <rtbarnet@q.com>; 'Robert Barnet' <abn64@hotmail.com>; 'HRS ''
> <sirraha@hotmail.com>; 'gary yannalfo' <relood@yahoo.com>; 'Major General Paul
> E. Vallely US Army' <standupamericausa1@gmail.com>; 'Charles Jones III'
> <cejb66@yahoo.com>; 'Michael Cutler' <mcutler007@aol.com>; 'William Green
> President of' <americarebirthtour@gmail.com>; 'Political Candidate Bill
> Scheidler' <billscheidler@outlook.com>; 'Journalist Janet Phelan'
> <janetclairephelan@yahoo.com>; 'Janet Phelan' <writejanet@live.com>; 'Michael
> Krichevsky' <tokrichevsky1@yahoo.com>; 'Clive Boustred' <clive@getited.com>;
> 'Judicial Reform Activist' <gdhicks@shaw.ca>; 'Documentarist Lon Gibby'
> <lon@gibbymedia.com>; 'Talkshow Host Alfred Lambremont Webre Esq'
> <exopolitics@exopolitics.com>; 'Jon Roland' <jon.roland@constitution.org>;
> amendmentone@comcast.net; 'Diane R. Gochin' <diane1120@comcast.net>; 'Jane
> Bansal' <jaibelle_58@yahoo.com>; 'Yania Gonzalez' <yania@horizonmgmtroc.com>;
> 'HR Candidate' <andy@andyostrowski.com>; 'Journalist Editor James Hill'
> <hilljs@washpost.com>; 'Judge Mary Elizabeth Bullock'
> <honorablejudgebullock@gmail.com>; 'Mark R Ferran' <mrferran@nycap.rr.com>;
> 'Mark Adams' <markadamsjdmba@hotmail.com>; michelle@suskauerlaw.com;
> hmc@bedellfirm.com; lokeefe@gbblaw.com; lcalvert@flabar.org; asankel@flabar.org
> Cc: richardfine@richardfinelaw.com
> Sent: Wednesday, October 1, 2014 9:09 PM
> Subject: The CFTC Motion to Dismiss
> Among the attempts to bring the frauds against the public and me is my suit
> against the CFTC and Steven A. Frankel, Esquire of the Florida Bar in the DC
> District Court.
> The CFTC filed a Motion to Dismiss based upon the usual immunity, laches, and
> statute of limitations defenses.
> My response is attached.
> Let me know if you wish copies of any pleadings or exhibits.
> Justice is often obtained on the backs of those who have failed before us.
> Bill
> From: Douglas Kinan [mailto:dougkinan@yahoo.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, October 01, 2014 8:43 PM
> To: richardfine@campaignforjudicialintegrity.org;
> dr.richard.cordero.esq@gmail.com;donald watson; Anthony Zampino; GLORIA Jean
> SYKES; Tim Lahrman NASGA; Glenda Martinez; Dr. Karin Huffer; David Starkey; Dan
> Stuart; William Scott; J.Geiger; Bob Barnet; Robert Barnet; HRS '; gary
> yannalfo; Major General Paul E. Vallely US Army; Charles Jones III; Michael
> Cutler; William Green President of; Political Candidate Bill Scheidler;
> Journalist Janet Phelan; Janet Phelan; Michael Krichevsky; Clive Boustred;
> Judicial Reform Activist; Documentarist Lon Gibby; Talkshow Host Alfred
> Lambremont Webre Esq; Jon Roland; Diane R. Gochin; Jane Bansal; Yania Gonzalez;
> HR Candidate; Journalist Editor James Hill; Judge Mary Elizabeth Bullock
> Cc: richardfine@richardfinelaw.com
> Subject: Re: We Can End Judicial Corruption on the November 4, Election:
> Here's How!
> All:
> Let's hope the replacements, if any, will not have the same "judicial"
> attitude of indifference as the ones voted out.
> The lawyer/judge alliance coupled with the "revolving door" of deferred quid
> pro quo rewards are unbeatable in any court, anywhere is these United States of
> America, where "equal justice under the law" is an empty promise.
> Let's all remember, the two largest legalized cash cow "stealing grounds" in
> America are the probate and bankruptcy courts because they are totally
> controlled by the attorney/judge alliance. So, when the presiding judge
> appoints the Trustee to "handle" the case, anything goes, depending on how much
> money is in the ward's estate or how much is fraudulently concealed in the
> bankruptcy pleadings.
> I have witnessed (and opposed) "misappropriation" of funds in the millions,
> with either minimal or no consequences. For those of you who are not aware,
> "misappropriation" is the court euphemism for stealing.
> Best of luck on November 4 and thereafter.
> From: "richardfine@campaignforjudicialintegrity.org"
> <richardfine@campaignforjudicialintegrity.org>
> To: dr.richard.cordero.esq@gmail.com; Douglas Kinan <dougkinan@yahoo.com>;
> donald watson <watson.9to5job@gmail.com>; Anthony Zampino <anzam@me.com>; GLORIA
> Jean SYKES <gloami@msn.com>; Tim Lahrman NASGA <timlahrman@aol.com>; Glenda
> Martinez <glenest03@yahoo.com>; Dr. Karin Huffer <legalabuse@gmail.com>; David
> Starkey <dwstarkey@aol.com>; Dan Stuart <dstu@aol.com>; William Scott
> <04wmscott@comcast.net>; J.Geiger <j.geiger@republicoftheunitedstates.org>; Bob
> Barnet <rtbarnet@q.com>; Robert Barnet <abn64@hotmail.com>; HRS '
> <sirraha@hotmail.com>; gary yannalfo <relood@yahoo.com>; Major General Paul E.
> Vallely US Army <standupamericausa1@gmail.com>; Charles Jones III
> <cejb66@yahoo.com>; Michael Cutler <mcutler007@aol.com>; William Green President
> of <americarebirthtour@gmail.com>; Political Candidate Bill Scheidler
> <billscheidler@outlook.com>; Journalist Janet Phelan
> <janetclairephelan@yahoo.com>; Janet Phelan <writejanet@live.com>; Michael
> Krichevsky <tokrichevsky1@yahoo.com>; Clive Boustred <clive@getited.com>;
> Judicial Reform Activist <gdhicks@shaw.ca>; Documentarist Lon Gibby
> <lon@gibbymedia.com>; Talkshow Host Alfred Lambremont Webre Esq
> <exopolitics@exopolitics.com>; Jon Roland <jon.roland@constitution.org>; Diane
> R. Gochin <diane1120@comcast.net>; Jane Bansal <jaibelle_58@yahoo.com>; Yania
> Gonzalez <yania@horizonmgmtroc.com>; HR Candidate <andy@andyostrowski.com>;
> Journalist Editor James Hill <hilljs@washpost.com>; Judge Mary Elizabeth Bullock
> <honorablejudgebullock@gmail.com>
> Cc: richardfine@richardfinelaw.com
> Sent: Wednesday, October 1, 2014 4:06 PM
> Subject: We Can End Judicial Corruption on the November 4, Election: Here's
> The November 4, election is upon us. The time has come to "Take Action Now!"
> California has a crisis of judicial corruption which only we voters can end.
> November 4, is our only opportunity to end California's judicial corruption.
> We end judicial corruption by voting out the current justices seeking retention.
> On November 4, we vote "No" on the 3 California Supreme Court justices and 42
> California Court of Appeal justices seeking retention. Any person who does not
> vote, or does not vote "no" is in fact supporting California's judicial
> corruption.
> Please circulate this e mail and ask everyone to spread the word. 3.5 million
> votes will win!
> Regards,
> Richard I. Fine, Ph.D.
> Chairman and Founder, Campaign for Judicial Integrity
> On November 4, We Can End California's Judicial Corruption, Reform the
> Judicial System and Restore Our Rights to Due Process and a Fair Trial
> Exercising Our Right to Vote Is Our only Weapon to End California’s Judicial
> Corruption We Vote “No” on the 3 California Supreme Court Justices and the 42
> Court of Appeal Justices Seeking Retention!
> Eradicating Judicial Corruption Is the Highest Priority in the November 4
> Election
> Since the mid 1980’s, over 90% of California’s state elected judges received
> illegal payments of approximately $400 million in addition to their state
> compensation from counties. These payments were called “local judicial
> benefits”, but were actually “bribes” because the county making the payment was
> a party appearing in a case or cases before the judges. Today, these illegal
> county payments to the judges are approximately $30 million per year.
> No judge disqualified himself, even though the law required disqualification.
> No lawyer sought to disqualify the judges from cases because of the payments,
> except Richard I. Fine.
> See its effect on you. http://www.campaignforjudicialintegrity.org/#%21vote-
> for-justice-videos/c6yn
> We Must Act as Officials Abdicated their Duty to End California’s Judicial
> Corruption
> No California Supreme Court or Court of Appeal justice: (1) ended the
> corruption; (2) ordered the illegal county payments stopped; or (3) required the
> DAs to prosecute the California's judges and recover the illegal payments plus a
> 20% penalty as required under law.
> No government official or legislator took any action to end California’s
> judicial corruption.
> Even worse, in 2009, Senate Bill SBX 2 11 became law. Section 5 of SBX 2 11
> gave retroactive immunity to the 90% of California's judges taking the illegal
> payments from counties from California criminal prosecution, civil liability and
> disciplinary action.
> No California state legislator or executive introduced the CFJI legislation
> ["Fine Amendment to SBX 2 11"] presented to them to end California’s judicial
> corruption
> We Must Act as No California Candidate Pledged to End California’s Judicial
> Corruption
> No California candidate for any office in the November 4, election signed the
> CFJI Pledge to Eradicate Judicial Corruption, other than Mark Reed in the 30th
> Cong. Dist.
> On November 4, Vote "No"! Vote Out the 3 California Supreme Court Justices and
> 42 Court of Appeal Justices Seeking Retention! Not Voting Keeps the Corruption!
> Richard I. Fine, Ph.D., Chairman, Campaign for Judicial Integrity. For further
> information visit http://www.campaignforjudicialintegrity.org/ . For interviews,
> appearances and donation information, contact (310) 622-6900, or
> richardfine@campaignforjudicialintegrity.org.




October 21, 2014 in Current Affairs | Permalink

NOTICE OF DEFAULT - Communication of Paul Andrew Mitchell from 9/12/14 at Medical Center for Federal [Political] Prisoners re: Case 2:14-cr-00027-NDF Document 226 Filed 10/10/14

Note from Teknosis: Private Attorney Generals (PAGs) and other legal beagles need to get on this. We are all being damaged by these RICO crimes. Also, just had a brainstorm as to how we can help Paul. I have this piece of artwork that can generate a lot of funds if done the right way and a portion can be used to help Paul. There are various ideas I have so if anyone, who has large public reach or knows how to get things out there is interested in helping, get in touch with me @ pc9323@gmail.com and I can give the full background on it and can brainstorm as to what I am thinking: http://tekgnosis.typepad.com/tekgnosis/2013/10/original-historical-artwork-of-artist-p-adolphe-kauffmann-stamped-by-waffen-ss.html

Also it would be nice to receive contact just to let me know that you are reading this as I usually don't receive any response and it makes me wonder if my efforts are for naught, and really makes me feel alone. I rarely get feedback and when I search the entire net I don't see anything new re: Paul as to people sharing any info. It's really disempowering to know that people are sharing the info about what is going on. If I am missing something or not part of the groups who are trying to do something then let me know. It really makes me feel terrible. It can imagine how Paul might feel. I will link back to anyone providing me links to any coverage.

Case 2:14-cr-00027-NDF   Document 226   Filed 10/10/14   Page 1 of 4



TO: Mr. Terry J. Harris

        Harris & Harris P.C.

DATE: 9/12/2014

cc: Unit Counselor, USMCFP/Springfield, Missouri

cc: Docket #2:14-CR-00027-NDF-2 (USDC/DWY), 14-CR-27-F

Hello Mr. Harris:

     As you already know, or should know by now, soon

after the hearing on 6/3/2014 at USDC/Cheyenne,

I submitted a proper request under the Freedom of

Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552) to U.S. DOJ’s Office

of Information Policy (“OIP”) in Washington, D.C.,

for the following four (4) mandatory credentials

required of one Nancy Dell Freudenthal before she

could lawfully occupy the office of U.S. District Judge,

TO WIT: (1) SENATE CONFIRMATION (5 U.S.C. 2902 (c));


(3) U.S. OPM Standard Form 61 (“SF-61”) APPOINTMENT

AFFIDAVITS (5 U.S.C. 2903, 2906, 3331, 3332, 3333, 5507;

44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.); and, (4) OATH OF OFFICE (28 U.S.C. 453).

     OIP timely replied to me in writing, while I was

detained at the county jail in Gering, Nebraska.

OIP’s cover letter, on DOJ letterhead, confirmed

that their appointment file did not contain any

SENATE CONFIRMATION for Ms. Freudenthal.


incomplete, due to known defects in the SF-61

executed by Mr. Eric Holder, Jr. dba U.S. Attorney

General; also, her own SF-61 appeared to be a




Case 2:14-cr-00027-NDF   Document 226   Filed 10/10/14   Page 2 of 4




counterfeit form because it lacked a valid

OMB control number at the upper right-hand

corner (cf. “50-R0118”); and, there was no

paragraph citing 5 U.S.C. 2903 (Authority to

administer) on her SF-61. See 44 U.S.C. 3512!

     I then promptly mailed OIP’s cover letter and

responsible documents to the P.O. Box for your law

firm, Harris & Harris, P.C., in Cheyenne, Wyoming.

I also timely mailed a proper FOIA Appeal to OIP,

with directions for OIP to reply to that same P.O. Box.

     After being moved to the Federal Transfer Center

in Oklahoma City, I conducted further research

into the Appointment Clause at Article II, Section 2,

Clause 2, and into the Recess Appointment Clause

at Article II, Section 2, Clause 3, in the U.S. Constitution.

     As a result of that research, I also mailed to the

same P.O. Box at least two (2) recent Circuit Court

decisions on those Clauses e.g. Noel Canning v. NLRB

(D.C. Cir. 2013) and U.S. v. Woodley (9th Cir.) All of the

latter research confirmed the mandatory and

essential  nature of the SENATE CONFIRMATION

requirement. Chiefly, the latter credential must follow

or precede the other 3; and, the absence of a valid

SENATE CONFIRMATION appears to render the other

3 invalid for having been executed without the

U.S. Senate’s advice and consent. 5 U.S.C. 2902 (c).

     In my professional opinion, the holdings in

Canning v. NLRB are correct.




Case 2:14-cr-00027-NDF   Document 226   Filed 10/10/14   Page 3 of 4




     Therefore, all of the above call for the

conclusions that all acts of Nancy Dell Freudenthal

in my case to date were null and void ab initio,

including but not limited to the original “arrest

warrant,” all subsequent hearings on which she

attempted to preside, and all subsequent “orders”

and “rulings” signed by her, notably her attempt

to appoint you legally to represent me contrary

to 28 U.S.C. 1654: I have always appeared

“personally” and not “by counsel”. Cf. In Propria Persona.

     Her missing and defective credentials here also

necessarily rendered void her “orders” allegedly

authorizing a second psychological evaluation at

USMCFP/Springfield, Missouri.

     Lastly, I should add that Dr. Cynthia Low,

dba Forensic Psychologist at FDC/SeaTac, has now

failed to answer my FOIA Request for her SF-61


     Copies of all the above mentioned FOIA Requests

should also be in the Court’s Docket records supra.

     Thank you for your professional consideration.

Sincerely yours,

Paul Andrew Mitchell (chosen name)

Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S., “Qui Tam” Relator 4x (31 U.S.C. 3729 et seq.)

BOP Reg. No. # 44202-086

All Rights Reserved (cf. UCC 1-308)




[scanned pages and envelope follow – text of Paul’s information as to location,. immediately follow]


Modeleski, M. P. (given name)

# 44202-086

Medical Center for Federal Prisoners

Springfield, Missouri 65801-4000


Note: Write “Legal Mail” on envelope in any correspondence to him if you want it to be opened in his presence. Otherwise it may never get to him.


NOTICE OF DEFAULT - Communication of Paul Andrew Mitchell from 9/12/14 at Medical Center for Federal [Polit...


Paul Andrew Mitchell has been bundled away by the US Government

October 16, 2014 in Current Affairs | Permalink

Gnosis 284 - Tablet of Union

Tablet of union 284_skype_extra_bigger_space


October 16, 2014 in Current Affairs | Permalink

Milk kefir and suero are simply wonderful and kefir with Beyond Tangy Tangerine Citrus Peach Fusion 2.0 added is even better

Recently while being in Colombia, South America I had the pleasure of being introduced to kefir and suero. Both are great for one’s health and tasty too. I had acquired Tibetan kefir grains and now have been making my own. Anybody need some kefir grains? It is so fun to make your own kefir and suero!

In any event for the healthy boost of my day I now make a novel and healthy drink with my morning kefir drink. I mix in Beyond Tangy Tangerine Citrus Peach Fusion 2.0 (BTT 2.0) which is also 100% Organic, GMO, shellfish and allergen free, has over 90 vitamins, minerals and amino acids as well as pre- and probiotics, plus more). I also mix in some chocolate protein powder on occasion and a little bit of acai juice.

BTW. You can also make other drinks with the kefir grains besides milk kefir. It's a fun subject to research on the internet.

In that I am an Executive Marketing Director with Youngevity and get 3 canisters of BTT 2.0 a month, I like to vary up the drinks I make with it. Adding it with the kefir has really been producing phenomenal health results. Order herehttps://vitafit.buyygy.com/90forlifestore/en/btt-20-citrus-peach-fusion-480-g-canister?c=US

See the Dead Doctor’s Don’t Lie banner on the upper left for a wonderful and healthy way of supplementing and helping others as well or just click herehttp://beyondtangytangerine2dot0.wordpress.com/2014/06/22/dead-doctors-dont-lie-daily-radio-podcast-store

October 14, 2014 in Current Affairs | Permalink

Waffen SS Stamped Artwork from World War 2

Waffen SS Stamped Artwork from WW2 http://t.co/K7jainOLOT via @gofundme

October 12, 2014 in Current Affairs | Permalink

Was JFK gunned down by three shooters? Oswald not 'lone assassin'?

Did 3 shooters gun down JFK?

Scientific studies conclude Oswald not 'lone assassin'

Published [Jerome Corsi]: 09/29/2014 at 9:30 PM
Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2014/09/did-3-shooters-gun-down-jfk/#REwQbY4EmAsg5Uoj.99
 [See video at above weblink]

WASHINGTON, D.C. – The authors of two studies of the JFK assassination presented scientific evidence they believe conclusively shows three shooters fired five shots at the president’s motorcade Nov. 22, 1963.

The papers were presented at a conference in the nation’s capital over the weekend hosted by the Assassination Archives and Research Center to commemorate the 50th anniversary of the publication of the Warren Commission Report.


The Warren Commission famously concluded in 1964 that Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone.

Donald Byron Thomas, author of the 2010 book “Hear No Evil: Social Constructivism & the Forensic Evidence in the Kennedy Assassination,” presented evidence a Dictabelt audio recording made by Dallas Police Officer H.B. McLain that picked up what sounded like five separate shots is authentic.

The Dictabelt recording persuaded the House Select Committee on Assassinations, HSCA, to conclude in 1978 that there was “a high probability that two gunmen fired at President John F. Kennedy,” meaning Kennedy was “probably assassinated as a result of a conspiracy,” rejecting the Warren Commission’s conclusion that Oswald was the lone assassin.

In a 2001 study, “Echo correlation analysis and the acoustic evidence in the Kennedy assassination revisited,” published in the scientific peer-reviewed journal Science & Justice, Thomas synchronized the Dictabelt recording with a verified Dallas Police channel recording at the same time to argue with a 96.3 percent certainty that the impulses recorded on the Dictabelt were the sounds of the gunshots fired in Dealey Plaza on Nov. 22, 1963.

In a phone interview with WND, Thomas engaged a point debated for decades now with critics of the Dictabelt evidence, including Dale Myers, that McLean was not in Dealey Plaza when the shots were fired.

“If you look at positive evidence, there is no film or photograph that shows precisely where Officer McLain’s motorcycle was at every moment moving through Dealey Plaza,” Thomas said.

“But there are enough photos of McLain’s motorcycle on Houston and Elm streets that by the process of elimination we know McLain had to be very close to where the physical evidence on the Dictabelt requires that he had to be, if the open microphone broadcast came from him,” Thomas said.

Jerome Corsi’s ‘Who Really Killed Kennedy’ presents new, shocking evidence uncovered 50 years after the assassination

At the conference, Dr. Randolph Robertson, a board-certified radiologist, built on Thomas’ findings to correlate the gunshot acoustics heard on the Dallas Police Dictabelt with the Zapruder film video recording of the assassination to conclude five shots were fired by three shooters:

  • One shooter located on the second floor of the Dal-Tex building behind the JFK limo when the shooting started as the limo traveled down Elm Street toward the triple underpass;
  • One located in the sixth floor of the Texas School Depository where the Warren Commission had placed Oswald;
  • And the third standing behind the picket fence on the grassy knoll to the front of the JFK limo on Elm Street.

Robertson produced a video [embedded at the beginning of this article] that synchronized the sounds of the gunfire from the Dallas Police Dictabelt with the Zapruder film, allowing the viewer to see and hear the JFK assassination as it happened.

The video shows the second shot coming quickly after the first shot, followed by an interval and then the third and fourth shots hitting JFK’s head almost simultaneously, followed closely by a final fifth shot.

Shot No. 1

Drawing on a Power-Point presentation from his jfkproject.org website, Robertson argued the first shot occurred at Zapruder frame 201 and was fired from the Dal-Tex building, hitting JFK in the back, deflecting up from a rib and exiting his throat.

The first shot, Robertson contended, flew up over the limo after exiting Kennedy’s neck, struck the curb under the triple underpass and scattered into tiny fragments that hit bystander James Tague on the cheek.

Robertson buttressed his argument by correlating the speed of the sound waves of each shot to the distances from the muzzle blast to the motorcycle with the open microphone, the limo containing JFK and the distance from various witnesses observed in the Zapruder film.

The mathematical calculations enabled him to determine the time required for the gunshot sound waves to reach participants and observers, including Kennedy and Texas Gov. John Connelly, who was injured by gunshot as he sat in the limo jump seat in front of the president. Robertson explained both the voluntary and involuntary reactions of the various participants as evidenced in the Zapruder film.

Table 1 shows Robertson’s calculations for the first shot.

JFK dictabelt article TABLE 1 first shot calculations Sept 29 2014

Table 1: Dr. Randolph Robertson

In Table 2, Robertson produced a map that showed the direct line from the Dal-Tex building to the position of the JFK limo, as seen in Zapruder film frame 201, and the location of James Tague, who watched the motorcade from the triple underpass.

JFK dictabelt article TABLE 2 first shot map to Tague Sept 29 2014

Table 2: Dr. Randolph Robertson

Robertson calculated the second shot, as seen in Table 3, was fired from the Texas School Book Depository, establishing a path that coursed through Connelly’s body, entering in his back below the right shoulder blade and exiting through his chest at a 23-degree angle consistent with the downward trajectory from the building’s sixth floor.

This shot, Robertson argued, continued downward after exiting Connelly’s chest, lodging finally in his left thigh.

JFK dictabelt article TABLE 3 second shot hits Connelly in back Sept 29 2014

Table 3: Dr. Randolph Robertson

Shot No. 3

Robertson calculated the third shot was fired from the Dal-Tex Building, hitting Kennedy’s head from behind. The bullet caused a “head-flap” exit wound, as seen in Zapruder frame 313, with the bullet fragmenting on exiting JFK’s head and striking the front windshield.

The bullet fragment that hit the windshield deformed the glass, causing a flash of light as the sun reflected off of it, as recorded by Zapruder’s 16-mm movie camera.

JFK dictabelt article TABLE 4 third shot hits JFK in back of head and cracks windshield Sept 29 2014

Table 4: Dr. Randolph Robertson

The third shot caused Kennedy’s head to begin moving forward from the impact.

A bullet fragment from shot No. 3, separate from the bullet fragment that deformed the glass of the limousine front windshield and fractured Connelly’s right wrist at Zapruder frame 313.

Shot No. 4

The fourth shot, Robertson calculated, was fired from the grassy knoll to the right front of the Kennedy limousine, entering the president’s head through the exit wound caused by the third shot and causing a massive blowout of the back of Kennedy’s skull that resulted in a skull fragment, known as the “Delta fragment,” to land on the trunk at the back of the limousine.

JFK dictabelt article TABLE 5 fourth shot hits JFK in front of head from Grassy Knoll Sept 29 2014

Table 5: Dr. Randolph Robertson

Robertson produced a video using a segment of the Zapruder film that shows the fragment that exited JFK’s head is what Jackie Kennedy climbed out of the limousine to retrieve.


Shot No. 5

Shot No. 5, the second shot fired from the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository, missed both JFK and Connelly, striking instead the frame of the front windshield and producing another windshield flare that can be seen in Zapruder frame 328.

Table 6: Dr. Randolph Robertson

Table 6: Dr. Randolph Robertson

Robertson argued that after denting the frame of the front windshield, the fifth shot flew over the hood of the limousine, causing turf damage further down the road at Zapruder frame 328 and damaging a manhole cover on Elm Street.

Table 7: Dr. Randolph Robertson

Table 7: Dr. Randolph Robertson

This is the shot Robertson believes was recovered after the investigation by Dallas Police searching the grass for bullet and skull fragments.

JFK dictabelt article TABLE 8 fifth shot hits manhole cover and is recovered in grass by officers Sept 29 2014

Ironically, Robertson’s analysis would indicate that neither of the two shots fired from the Texas School Book Depository hit JFK, with the second shot hitting Connelly in the back and the fifth hitting the limousine’s front windshield frame.

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2014/09/did-3-shooters-gun-down-jfk/#wigdgzETtbJFLOqu.99

October 12, 2014 in Current Affairs | Permalink

Research JFK assassination, Reddit style (epicly [funny - with caveat] stupid article re: JFK assassination [a lame attempt by the Boston Globe to get subscribers especially by those who would like to comment on this idiotic "Opinion" piece?] = Fail)

The only thing funny was the author's attempt to write an Opinion piece he thought was funny. Well here it is:


If anyone happens upon this post then they can follow the related link for information to research. Some may be bogus but there is a lot that isn't,.. much of it deserving of study.

Welcome to the 'JFK Murder Truth telling - Heading to the Grassy Knoll on November 22nd - 50th Anniversary' mega research post Mr. Alex Beam. [Note: See related link at bottom.]

Comments on Research JFK assassination, Reddit style, an Opinion piece by Boston Globe Staff Writer Alex Beam:

  • gregh222310/11/14 06:55 AM
    This is droll, but it sort of makes me less sympathetic with the plight of newspapers like the Globe. If Globe writers have such contempt for Internet posters, why should posters care what happens to them? And then there's the issue of Kennedy's assassination. Serious writers before the Internet was born (Norman Mailer and Mort Saul [Sahl] for two — and yes, Sahl was serious) pointed out several problems with the investigation following the assassination. The whole process, including Oswald's murder, right under the nose of the Dallas police, and the sequestering of evidence for a half-century or so, was somewhere between suspect and outrageous. Is this really a decent vehicle for lampooning Internet posters? Next time, maybe ebola victims can be used. I'm sure a lot of inane things can be said about them too.
    Potlemac10/11/14 08:12 AM
    The mainstream press swallowed the Warren Commission report hook line and sinker! The House Select Committee on Assassinations contains the most accurate findings on JFK's and MLK's murders. They concluded that both assassinations were the result of conspiracies and two thirds of the American people agree. The mainstream press keep covering up their ineptitude in this case and hope it goes away.
      buddy4010/11/14 12:00 PM
      I look at it this way,who was worried about JFK and MLK and came to the conclusion Big bussiness and the Government.The two assassins were paid pawns.That is my belief.
    mariasha10/11/14 08:25 AM
    The internet posters on Reddit, many of them naive children, are such an easy target. It's almost too easy. However, they couldn't have done worse than the Warren Commission. If Mr. Beam really believes that fable, he is dumber and more naive than the Reddit gang he mocks.
    soxtory10/11/14 08:45 AM
    There are 4-5 books out in the last four years that shed light on the high -level conspiracy that led to the death of JFK and the role LBJ played in it. 

    The best, in my opinion, is: Blood, Money, & Power, How LBJ Killed JFK by Barr McClellan. McClellan, an Austin attorney, is the former law partner of LBJ's personal lawyer.
    [How LBJ Killed JFK: Money, Attorneys, and the Kennedy Assassination Conspiracy Theory http://tekgnosis.typepad.com/tekgnosis/2014/04/how-lbj-killed-jfk-money-attorneys-and-the-kennedy-assassination-conspiracy-theory.html | New Barr McClellan book on the JFK assassination; Also Roger Stone's and James Tague's new books! http://tekgnosis.typepad.com/tekgnosis/2013/07/new-barr-mcclellan-book-on-the-jfk-assassination-also-roger-stones-and-james-tagues-new-books.html]
      Miker610/11/14 12:36 PM
      That's why the Obama administration (which refuses to release government files) and the Globe don't want you to know.
    dcurrieus10/11/14 09:26 AM
    In 1992 Congress passed the President John F. Kennedy Assassination Records Collection Act which set up an independent Assassination Records Review Board (ARRB) to oversee the process of releasing formerly secret documents from the FBI, CIA, Warren Commission, House Select Committee on Assassinations, and various other government agencies. Between 1992 and 1998 the ARRB declassified over 5 million documents. 

    Still, as this newspaper reported on November 25, 2013, "Troves of files on JFK assassination remain secret" (see http://www.bostonglobe.com/2013/11/25/government-still-withholding-thousands-documents-jfk-assassination/PvBM2PCgW1H11vadQ4Wp4H/story.html)--although these still-protected government records are supposed to be made public in 2017.

    Thankfully in the meantime, several private research groups (such as www.maryferrell.org and www.aarclibrary.org for example) have created searchable electronic libraries of released materials which would probably otherwise be overwhelmingly undigestible. 

    In his 2013 book, "A Cruel and Shocking Act: The Secret History of the Kennedy Assassination," veteran New York Times investigative reporter Philip Shenon wrote: "The Kennedy assassination is the most written about--and without a doubt, most misunderstood--event in modern history." He described debate about the assassination as an "absolute morass." 

    But he also said that the internet-accessible databases that Jefferson Morley described (much to the frivolous amusement of Globe columnist Alex Beam) as "usher[ing] in a new era of Kennedy assassination research," also gave Shenon and other serious investigators an "all-important head start in trying to make sense of what is easily the most complicated story I have ever pursued." 

    I am grateful for the difficult work they have done; and, lo the many years, I am confident they will keep at it. -Dan Currie, Dorchester
    no-name-10/11/14 10:40 AM
    typical of this guy, he mixes his mocking imitations of faux assassination theories with actual theories in order to bismirch all such theories. whoever actually killed kennedy, I certainly don't know who or what did it, only a fool could still believe the government sponsored warren commission cover up.

    and this from a guy whose latest book sentimentalized a leader of a racist, sexist religious cult that particpated in mass murder of people for the "crime" of attempting to pass thru utah.
  • Thermopylae10/11/14 11:41 AM
    Beam's goal is to manipulate us without us ever knowing that we're being manipulated. But Beam and his fellow cover-up propagandists still have a long way to go. According to an AP-GfK April, 2013 poll, 59 percent of Americans think multiple people were involved in a conspiracy to kill JFK.
      observertoo10/11/14 01:22 PM
      Looks like you too didn't see the humor in Beam's piece. That's all he was doing; having a bit of fun with the JFK conspiracy world.
      Thermopylae10/11/14 02:11 PM
      observertoo, I don't agree. Beam's goal was to ridicule and discredit JFK asassination conspiracy supporters. It's a periodic thing with the Globe; last Nov. 10th Jim Carroll wrote a Globe piece wherein he said, "...conspiracy-mindedness undercuts the civic maturity that is necessary for a commonwealth to function responsibly." So, I see the Globe, Beam, and Carroll as "cover-up propagandists." It's all well planned.
    tributaries10/11/14 12:20 PM
    Superficially amusing, but ultimately tasteless in the extreme to mock anything to do with President Kennedy's assassination. Typical Beam style and fare.
    fordfalcon10/11/14 12:21 PM
    According to Wikipedia, here are the Reddit demographics:

    "According to Google Ad Planner's estimate, as of May 2013, the median Reddit user is male (59%), 18–29 years of age, and is connecting from the United States. Pewinternet.org has stated that 6% of all adult internet users use Reddit."

    Alex Beam has selected a narrow audience for this silly column.
    Miker610/11/14 12:33 PM
    Obama announced that US government archives would still be kept secret. What is the government hiding? 

    And the Boston Globe doesn't want you know what happened.

    Around the 50 the anniversary, the National Enquirer and the Globe weekly magazine reported that over the years 100 (!) people who either said they had knowledge of the assassination or were investigating it suddenly died under "Mysterious" circumstances.
    Thermopylae10/11/14 12:33 PM
    Zapruder Frame 317 shows a bullet hit on JFK’s right temple (the side of his head behind his right eye). Zapruder Frame 317 can’t tell us whether this is an entrance or exit wound. If it’s an entrance wound, there was definitely a second shooter on the grassy knoll. If it’s an exit wound, given that immediately preceding Zapruder Frames show JFK looking straight ahead and given the angle of a rear shot going through JFK’s right temple, there was definitely a second shooter to the right of the book depository (as you look to the rear from the viewpoint of the presidential limousine). Seehttp://www.jfkpage.com/temple_wound/. For the final shot to have originated from the book depository, you’d need a really magic bullet.
    Thermopylae10/11/14 01:11 PM
    Lee Harvey Oswald tested negative for paraffin when given a paraffin test on his cheeks. However, ALL of the FBI agents that later in experiments fired a 1940 Mannlicher-Carcano rifle (like Oswald's) tested positive for paraffin on their cheeks. Futher, all the doctors treating JFK at the Parkland Hospital in Dallas concluded that one of the shots entered JFK's throat and exited his neck (not vice versa). See http://www.usnews.com/debate-club/was-jfks-assassination-a-conspiracy/multiple-shots-prove-jfk-assassination-was-a-conspiracy. Oswald's rifle was a a 6.5 mm Mannichler-Carcano Model 91/38 rifle, mfgd. 1940 in Italy. It is so inaccurate that jokesters call it "the humanitarian rifle." Oswald himself, using this same WW-II surplus rifle on April 10, 1963, failed to hit his intended assassination target (retired, zealously anti-communist Army General Edwin Walker) less than 100 feet away. Therefore, to a virtual certainty, we can conclude that Oswald did NOT use this rifle to hit JFK's head in a limousine traveling 1,000 feet away. Somebody killed JFK, but it wasn't Lee Harvey Oswald.
      Thermopylae10/11/14 02:13 PM
      Correction: My second-last sentence should say, "in a limousine traveling 265 feet away."
    svonkie10/11/14 07:26 PM
    Here is an excellent example of why the public has such a low opinion of the mainstream media. The evidence is overwhelming that John F. Kennedy was assassinated as the result of a conspiracy. The same goes with Martin Luther King and Robert F. Kennedy. Yet smarmy tools like Alex Beam feel it is beneath them to question the official doctrine. Their job is government-sanctioned stenography, not independent journalism. They honestly think that their distain for the term "conspiracy theory" is a sign of intelligence. Oh, the irony. The biggest stories of our time fall through the cracks of history thanks to their unyielding bowing and scraping to authority. Well done, Beam.
    Related (comments, research, input is welcome):

    JFK Murder Truth telling - Heading to the Grassy Knoll on November 22nd - 50th Anniversary


    Alex Beam

    8:17 AM (4 hours ago)
    to me
    Anonymity such an impressive stance ... Tks 4 reading.

    Date: Sun, 12 Oct 2014 06:10:08 -0400
    Subject: Welcome to JFK Murder Truth telling - Heading to the Grassy Knoll on November 22nd - 50th Anniversary
    to Alex
    It is my blog since 2005. [Names are easily found]. I take it you aren't interested in research on the JFK Assassination as per your article poking fun on the subject? I haven't kept up on the latest news coverage for about a month or so but I did check today what was out there and found your opinion piece. Anyways I didn't quite catch the point of the piece unless it was to poke fun in general on the subject of the JFK Assassination which isn't really a laughing matter?

October 12, 2014 in Current Affairs | Permalink

The Superconscious Presence Inside and Outside of Your Mind

Superconscious Presence

Superconscious presence

Superconscious Presence

October 5, 2014 in Current Affairs | Permalink

Gathering of the Tribes


Gathering of the Tribes: Day 1, Part 1
Ref: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FyAADKESCjU


Gathering of the Tribes: Day 1, Part 2

Ref: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sRFc3VJyOR4


Gathering of the Tribes: Day 2, Part 1
Ref: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=26fOsbIkhgc


Gathering of the Tribes: Day 2, Part 2
Ref: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=St0B39x38_o


Gathering of the Tribes: Day 2, Part 3
Ref: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cFS-mD317ps

Ref'd from: http://sovereignwarriors.ning.com/profiles/blog/show?id=6194679%3ABlogPost%3A251551&xgs=1&xg_source=msg_share_post

Comment by Barry-Rand:Kephart 
Definitely on the right track. The certificate of live birth (birth record) creates the trust for ones Nationality and inheritance in the real world. One can use the COLB to get an American National Passport Book and card. This trust holds the physical assets such as the gold/silver in the IMF and BIS systems, the State Forests, roads, and land your family loaned to the U.S. and only took federal reserve notes in return. So this is your republic trust.
Then the Birth Registrar creates a second trust and "kills" the infant by stamping the Birth Certificate with the Registrar's Probate seal. The Birth Certificate is now a "decedent" infants Estate. Getting the infants Estate a Social Security number or simply doing nothing for seven years creates the presumption that the decedent (dying infant) is indeed dead and the Estate is willed to the United States collective corpse.
One must not identify with the name of the dead infant. Obviously one is not dead. In fact, only the names of the dead can be entered into the probate court (all U.S. courts). If one is not dead, then one has NO name in their underworld of the dead. Ones living name is a private matter and one cannot and must not give it to the DEAD!
So she got it right that she has NO name. Only the dead have names. According to their laws the living man/woman has no name for their living name has not been given to them yet by their father in heaven.
All you are allowed to do with regard to that Estate is: 1 choose someone to administer it, 2 Assign or gift it's paper Assets/debts/contracts. There is nothing but debts in in that infants Estate. It is like the State gave you a mini Christ who died for you to take on all your sins. So you can blame everything on that little dead Bastard!
Accept this gift and use it properly. Watch Gathering of The Tribes (all parts) on YouTube if one wants to learn how to claim the infant's Estate and gift it and all the debts back to the "host" Nation (the United States) which is occupying the States so that they can offset all their debts against the sacrificial infants Estate and the debts will not pass on to another Generation of Americans.
Jonah bey has some information on this too but he keeps it close.

October 4, 2014 in Current Affairs | Permalink