by Mary W Maxwell, LLB
Something wonderful has happened that has given me great hope and I hope you will share that hope. This week I read the following statement by the late Robert David Steele, known to us as a counsel at the International Tribunal for Natural Justice. He was formerly a CIA agent. He said:
“I managed a false flag event for the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) in my capacity as a Clandestine Operations Officer stationed overseas. I have personal experience with ‘legalized lying’ whereby ostensible orders ‘from the highest authorities’ mandate lying to the Court and lying to the media and the public, in support of national security objectives. Individuals ordered to lie are offered both full immunity and severe penalties if they fail to lie as ordered.”
Legalized Lying
Trust me, there is no such thing as legalized lying. The word “legalized” refers to a law passed by a legislature, doesn’t it? That means by Congress or by a state legislature. Since Steele refers to “national security objectives” (whatever the hell those are), it would have to be Congress that passed such a law. There is no other way for something to be federally legalized. It can’t be done by the president, and it can’t be done by the courts.
Article I of the Constitution is all about the powers of Congress. In its section 8, Clause 18, we see that if the courts or the president need something legalized, they have to ask Congress to do that for them. No amount of Executive Order writing, or rulings handed down by the US Supreme Court, will suffice to make something a law.
The wording of Clause 18 of Article I, section 8 is as follows:
“[Congress shall have the power to] … make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.”
Trust me, Clause 18 is not in dispute. Executive Orders by the president have no force of law if they deviate from laws enacted by Congress. As for the judiciary, it has the inherent power to set court policy, but of course it does not have a power to legalize lying by, say, allowing a “special” witness to lie under oath.
Bottom line, only Congress, not the White House or the CIA or the judiciary, makes law. So if there is a law that legalizes lying we must be able to find it in the Congressional Record. THERE ARE NO SECRET LAWS IN THE UNITED STATES.
Article I, section 5 says “Each House shall keep a Journal of its Proceedings, and from time to time publish the same, excepting such Parts as may in their Judgment require Secrecy.”
Oh, so a law can be secret? Are you kidding? Of course not. All laws have to be publicly known.
The Smith-Mundt Thing
In 1948, after World War II ended, Congressmen Smith and Mundt thought it would be wise to clarify that although the US had broadcast untruths to the enemy abroad, that material should not come flying back into the domestic public’s radios. Hence, they drafted as Act which forbids the propagandizing of Americans.
In 2012, when the bi-annual budgeting of money for the Pentagon was being approved by the legislature (the National Defense Authorization Act), someone added a few words that removed the strong proscriptions of the Smith-Mundt Act. But does that mean lying is legalized? Oh please.
The Boston Marathon Bombing Case
Steele claimed that he had managed a false flag event, and that “ostensible orders ‘from the highest authorities’ mandate lying to the Court and lying to the media and the public, in support of national security objectives.” That’s rubbish, unless you interpret his word “ostensible” to mean that such orders do not actually exist. Steele goes on to say that “Individuals ordered to lie are offered both full immunity and severe penalties if they fail to lie as ordered.”
Aha! Eureka! That must be what happened in the Boston case. “Ostensibility” ran rampant. People (such as witnesses against Jahar) must have been told that they should do such-and-such, even though ordinary folks would recognize such-and-such as illegal (not to mention immoral and outrageous). To me this explains their blatant breaches of law and of common sense.
The new knowledge, from Mr Steele, about false-flag management is very important. As I have recorded in my 2021 book, Boston Marathon’s Bombing, and as Maret Tsarnaeva, aunt of the convicted patsy Jahar (Dzhokhar) Tsarnaev, wrote in an affidavit for the US District Court in April 2015, her relatives were explicitly told to lie.
They may have been given rewards for doing so. It is plausible that they — and even the convicted Jahar himself — were “threatened with severe penalties” if they did not cooperate. I will furnish quotes at the end of this article.
The Boston Marathon bombing was definitely a false flag. The planting and detonating of the two bombs were done by someone other than the Tsarnaev brothers (likely by the FBI). I am now of the mind that the prosecutor, US Attorney Carmen Ortiz, was one of the many people offered rewards for lying in court. She was probably told that it was an offer she couldn’t refuse.
It’s likely that the cops and the FBI, and even the doctors at the Beth Israel Deaconess Hospital, participated on the same basis. Judge George A O’Toole, Jr must have been aware of the details of this false flag, in order to handle the trial of Jahar with an eye to conviction. The mind boggles, does it not? Of course, both he and Ms Ortiz are deeply trained in the Constitution and would know that “legalized lying” is a mirage.
The 2012 Massacre at “Sandy Hook Elementary School”
Although Yours Truly is happy to be labeled a conspiracy theorist, the Sandy Hook conspiracy theory (that the kids did not die, as advertised) went right past me. I felt sure it was a genuine shooting, as opposed to some which are fictional. I figured James Fetzer got what he deserved (a judgment of $450,000 for defaming the father of a Sandy Hook victim, Noah Pozner).
In recent weeks, while studying the case, I began to think it was a false flag, and as of today I can say I am certain of it. A main thing that changed my mind was the evidence, laid out in a 128-page book by Robert Steele, arguing that there was no Sandy Hook School in operation at the time. Fancy that.
(I was also influenced by the aggressive punishing of persons who criticize the official narrative. Good old freedom of speech was dishonored hither and thither.)
Steele’s book, Sandy Hook Truth: Memo to POTUS, is online as a pdf. You can also find James Tracy’s exhaustive Timeline of the event, at memoryholeblog.org. Fetzer has a book called “Nobody Died at Sandy Hook: It Was a FEMA Drill in Support of Gun Control,” but Amazon has banned it.
The really astonishing thing is that a whole town may have been persuaded to uphold the false story of the massacre of 20 children and 6 adults (and the alleged suicide of the alleged gunman Adam Lanza). If Steele is correct (God bless you, Mr Steele), the folks would have been told that their participation is mandatory under some sort of — garbagy — National Security Law. I wonder if any of them phoned up the nearby Yale Law School to query this!
Extrinsic Fraud and Equitable Relief
In a court case where there was “extrinsic fraud,” a person may be eligible for equitable relief. This does not cover fraud by which the parties were deceitful (that is expected!) or the officers of the court cheated (a Writ of Error Coram Nobis may be the basis for reopening the latter type of case).
The US Supreme Court has agreed, since the 1878 case United States v Throckmorton, that a ruling doesn’t have to stand final if there was extrinsic fraud. This could mean that a person was prevented from knowing that he could sue, or where evidence was destroyed after a subpoena was issued, or where lawyer purporting to act for the defendant connived for his defeat.
The extrinsic-ness means that the fraud occurred before the facts in the case were presented for adjudication. Such a case therefore never really got contested, did it? Therefore, the rule of res judicata (preventing re-litigation) is not applicable. See the 1925 book, A Treatise on the Law of Judgements, by Abraham Freeman.
SCOTUS To Hear the Tsarnaev Appeal
Extrinsic fraud doctrine allows a court of equity to grant relief. This should be happening right now in the case of Jahar Tsarnaev. On October 13, 2021, the US Supreme Court will hear oral argument concerning his death penalty. I think the merits of the case, ought to be discussed, not just the penalty.
Myself and two other persons were accepted as amici curiae in November 2017. We informed the court that, as a point of law, the lower court failed to note that the evidence of Jahar’s guilt tendered by the FBI in the form of an exploded black backpack did not accord with the other evidence tendered by the FBI, namely the photo of Jahar wearing a whitish color backpack, shortly before the explosion.
Our information was ignored by the First Circuit Court of Appeals. We submitted a further brief on this subject for the upcoming SCOTUS appeal. Also in the file is the stunning affidavit by Aunt Maret, which did not make sense until Robert Steele came out with his statement about legalized lying being “mandated.” I’ll now quote the aunt, and one of Jahar’s elderly cousins, Dzhamaly Tsarnaev.
Maret Tsarnaeva says in her April 2015 affidavit that the Public Defenders Judy Clarke and William Fick had made 13 trips to talk to Jahar’s parents in part of the Russian Federation. They wanted to persuade the parents to write to Jahar encouraging him to cooperate. Maret (who is a lawyer) could see that they were not acting in the best interests of their client.
“Dzhokhar’s parents expressed willingness to engage independent counsel…. Mr Fick replied that government agents would obstruct independent counsel.” [Hello???] And shockingly warned ‘that, if their advice were not followed, Dzhokhar’s life in custody near Boston would be more difficult’.” [That’s a line right out of The Godfather, isn’t it?]
Note: Jahar has been imprisoned for eight years, incommunicado, currently at Supermax in Colorado.
Cousin Dzhamaly
Separately, cousin Dzhamaly Maazovich Tsarnaev told of chats he had in Dagestan, with junior personnel from Boston. He was refused a visa to US to attend the trial, but he wrote an affidavit. It never got presented but here are five of its paragraphs:
“Representatives of the defense team were confident in the innocence of the brothers, Tamerlan and Dzhokhar; in particular the lead defense lawyer Judy Clarke agreed, adding in the conversation, ‘we know it — they are innocent.’ From the words of my brother, Said-Khussein Tsarnaev, I learned that on August 7, 2014 the meeting with representatives of the defense team, which took place at the hotel “Grozny City.”
“Charlene, who presented herself as an independent investigator involved in the case by Dzhokhar’s lawyers; Jane, presented as a social worker and psychologist; and Olga (a translator from New Jersey, who arrived with the team), translating the conversation, openly admitted to my brother that they knew that Dzhokhar and Tamerlan were not guilty of the bombings, and with this they were apologizing that the Tsarnaevs have had to endure the tragedy involving criminal allegations.
“My last personal conversation with the representative of Dzhokhar’s lawyers team, Alicia, introduced to me as assistant to the state-appointed defense attorney, during which I had to speak through an interpreter named Elena. I had met with Alicia and Elena on April 14, 2015 at noon in the hall of the ‘Ararat – Hyatt’ hotel. Later we moved to a cafe on the second floor. Our conversation lasted around 40 minutes. And suddenly Alicia said to me, ‘Dzhokhar’s guilt has been proven by the prosecution in court, please convince Dzhokhar to take the blame for the bombings in the marathon so that he is not given the death penalty.’
“I was shocked by her revelation and request and said, ‘what are you talking about, we and you both know that the boys are innocent and there is a lot of conclusive evidence of it, and representatives of the defense, who visited earlier in Dagestan and Chechnya, admitted to us that they had known themselves that Tamerlan and Dzhokhar were not involved in the Boston bombings’.”
“To this Alicia had stated, ‘If Dzhokhar does not accept the guilt and does not express remorse, then the court will issue him a death sentence, however Dzhokhar is insisting upon his own, that he is ready to die rather than allow for Tamerlan to be blamed for the bombings and to plead guilty for himself and his brother’.” — end of excerpts from Dzhamaly Tsarnaev’s affidavit.
Will SCOTUS Give Equitable Relief?
In the United States we have common law, code law, and equity. In England, until 1873, there were separate courts for law and for equity, the latter being called the Court of Chancery. In 1873 they merged. I graduated from Law School in Australia where, by 1973, in all state courts had completed the merger.
In a nutshell, the point of having equity is to give judges broader discretion to bring about fairness — they can “construct” a remedy. This happens when, say, a court overrules a contract in which one of the parties had undue influence over the other. It happens when a court forbids a person from travelling abroad while someone is suing him. And, as mentioned earlier, equity principles can be applied against extrinsic fraud.
In the US, fewer than half the states still have a separate court of equity; in the federal system they are merged (except that the bankruptcy court is equitable). The US appellate courts and the Supreme Court can render rulings based on the principles of equity. Specifically, Rule 60b of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides:
“Grounds for Relief from a Final Judgment, Order, or Proceeding. On motion and just terms, the court may relieve a party or its legal representative from a final judgment, order, or proceeding for the following reasons: (3) fraud (whether previously called intrinsic or extrinsic), misrepresentation, or misconduct by an opposing party;…(6) any other reason that justifies relief.”
As the US Supreme Court will be listening to the Tsarnaev case 48 hours from now, I hasten to declare that Jahar was unable to present his case in 2015 due to massive extrinsic fraud. To wit, the case was a false flag in which Jahar was a patsy.
I have been arguing since 2018 that Jahar is entitled to a new trial based on the 2018 case of McCoy v Louisiana, in which SCOTUS ruled that it was unconstitutional for McCoy’s lawyer to tell the jury he was guilty. This is what happened to Jahar also. Public Defender Judy Clarke said in her opening speech “It was him.” But now, thanks to what Robert Steele revealed about “legalized lying,” the concept of extrinsic fraud can cause FRCP Rule 60b to come into play. Hooray!
Technically, a motion for that must be filed by Jahar’s Public Defender, but surely the Justices have authority to rule sua sponte that Jahar was wrongly convicted. Granted, equity is usually not used in criminal cases — as the jury’s fact-finding isn’t supposed to be challenged. Still, because of extrinsic fraud, Jahar did not get to present his case — in effect, his trial never happened!
At the very least, the US Supreme Court can look at the amicus brief of Maxwell, Fetzer, and Baruja, and see that it can remand the case based on a simple matter — the wrong color of backpack evidence.
Please, Folks, don’t give up and say there is nothing we can do. The law is our weapon; it’s a wise and fabulous weapon. Use it or lose it!
Finally, let’s watch Aunt Maret Tsarnaeva, eight years ago, on YouTube:
A dissenting voice…
Why are we talking about Sandy Hook while the entire planet is being depopulated by NWO globalists?
Law? Wake up everybody, there is no Law.
What we call Law is a facade that persuades us that justice occurs from time to time. In point of fact, the Law Society in every western nation will never draft a law unless the wording is ambiguous, which is where they make their money and exercise their power.
And if any law dares defy the globalist doctrine, it is swiftly reversed, with reprisals. This applies even if almost the entire population demands the reform, as we all saw when the tiny NT passed an Act to permit voluntary euthanasia. The globalists ordered the Anglican and Catholic Churches to threaten every supportive federal politician to vote against the Act or see massive funding provided for their nearest electoral contender.
That is the Law, and has been the Law, since at least 1830. It is also the reason why not one national constitution contains the word DEMOCRACY.
Ergo: Stop believing. Just consider the evidence.
“Why are we talking about Sandy Hook while the entire planet is being depopulated by NWO globalists? “
Good question. All the worst stuff that’s happening on the planet is being carried out on an invisible/subliminal level. Focusing on anything that makes MSM headlines is a big mistake – critical to remember that the entire purpose of “news” is, and always has been, to distract
From what I’ve seen the PTB can be restrained by being confronted by “what-is-written” but a Worldly win ain’t gonna happen at this point in time
“temporarily disabled” is probably more descript.
The classic example being how Jesus dealt with Satan at the onset of His ministry.
He did manage to hold the bastard off for 3 years – which was all the time he actually needed
Tony, Tony, true guardian of the Northern terriory, what you describe as “law” is not law. It is the arrangements we naturally come to if we can’t be bothered with law.
Right now I am a door-to-door salesman trying to sell this lovely product — law.
Sure, I also try to pursue law against child-trafficking in Adelaide but down there, so far, no one opens the door to me. Today, October 13th in the Year of Our Lord 2021, I am actully in the door of the US Supreme Court. By law, they’ve had to let me in as an amicus curiae in the Jahar case.
(But you have a point re Law Societies. In USA, the ABA controls what is taught in law schools. I was lucky to have Janie Greene as my Equity teacher at University of Adelaide. In many law schools, equity is no longer taught.)
I acknowledge your reasoning, Mary, but I have the advantage of 50 years living within a Law that is tens of thousands of years old and that parallels and conforms to nature and observable univeral laws, and that is traditional Aboriginal Rom and Madayin, out of which evolved the last surviving democracy.
Western Law is the product of a struggle against totalitarianism and acquisitive war… the Magna Carta, English Bill of Rights, etc. It is essentially defensive and, simultaneously, defers to and validates illicit power. That is an innate corruption in itself. Any law that defers to hierarchy is endemically corrupt and will inevitably break down as elites erode it.
Aboriginal Law had no such oppressive origins and flowed from millennia of observation of natrual movements and flows, the objective being Harmony, as one side of the leaf, and Avoidance of Conflict on the other. All decisons are the product of informed consensus. There are no leaders.
I have found that white people just cannot confront the evidence of this, clinging to myths such as “tribal wars”, “killing of twins”, and “cannibalism”, as desperate weapons against overwhelming evidence that white superiority is pure myth.
An important weapon of white supremacy is the demand that “savages must learn to obey The Law”, even though blind Freddy can see it is a farce. The cold reality is, our society is becoming more criminal daily; more a battlefield; more a killing field of poverty, toxicity, and malnutrition.
Our culture is destroying itself with a ever-more powerful technology that we are not equipped to control, because we cannot permit ourselves to acknowledge the obvious… that hierarchy means power in the hands of the few, and accumulated power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely: hence the power of politicians, oligarchs, lawyers, and judges.
Ergo… western law is corruption.
Why do we need euthanasia legislation? Just get yourself an advanced care directive saying ‘do not resuscitate’ and your government will happily use it to dot their ‘i’s and cross their ‘t’s as that is all they really care about.
Well if nobody died at Sandy Hook and the gun control agenda fell flat what’s the big deal ?
Berry, the fact that nobody died at Sandy Hook must be quite a big deal, judging from the way people who say so are getting punished. (See earlier parts in this series of articles at Gumshoe.)
Gun control aganda fell flat? No, it is in full bloom.
So what restrictions, exactly,were implemented in the wake of the event/
?
Berry, there is a whole Wikipedia article entitled “Gun control after the Sandy Hook Elementary school shooting”. It says, inter alia:
“On December 19, 2012, President Obama announced the formation of an inter-agency gun-violence task force headed by Vice President Joe Biden.[13] The task force held 22 meetings and collected ideas from 229 organizations.[14]….
“On January 16, 2013, President Obama announced a plan for reducing gun violence in four parts: closing background check loopholes; banning assault weapons and high-capacity magazines; making schools safer; and increasing access to mental health services.[16][17]: 2 The plan included 23 executive actions, signed immediately by the president, and 12 proposals for Congress.[18]….”
Berry that was 8 years ago. Many of the 50 states have upped the ante since then.
“The Federal Assault Weapons Ban enacted in 1994 expired in 2004. Attempts to renew this ban have failed, as have attempts to pass a new ban, such as the Assault Weapons Ban of 2013 (AWB 2013). Seven U.S. states have assault weapons bans: three were enacted before the 1994 federal ban and four more passed before the federal ban expired. The majority of states (43) have no assault weapons ban, although two, Minnesota, have training and background check requirements for purchasers of assault weapons that are stricter than those for ordinary firearms. On June 4, 2021, a federal judge struck down the 3 decade long ban in California, though it is pending appeal by the California Attorney General”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_weapons_legislation_in_the_United_States
An article on the trend that’s been gaining momentum since the beginning of the century would be more to the point:
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/gun-sales-newtown_n_4394185
https://thegunstudy.com/gun-news/july-gun-sales-explode-background-checks-up-79/
https://thenewamerican.com/coronavirus-gun-sales-explode-to-2-5-million-in-march-making-leftist-heads-explode/
https://www.foxnews.com/us/gun-sales-explode-as-election-looms
If one in a hundred is a psychopath, then in Oz there are close to 300,000 thousand, many who are employed enforcing this vaxx agenda. Worldwide all up there is only 150 people in control of all power. The jabs are made in BSL4 labs(bio security weapons laboratories, level 4 deadliest).
All scribes parroted by universal garbage, is coming from Doherty Institute that is Melbourne Univesity bsl4 lab, for crying out loud. The serpents that did Port Arthur and all mass shooting events everywhere are the same entities doing this final solution.
THE POLITICS OF OBEDIENCE THE DISCOURSE OF VOLUNTARY SERVITUDE
https://www.mises.ch/library/Boetie_Politics_of_Obedience.pdf
de La Boétie composed his brief but scintillating, profound, and deeply radical Discourse of Voluntary Servitude (Discours de la Servitude Volontaire).4 The Discourse was circulated in manuscript form and never published by La Boétie. One can speculate that its radical views were an important reason for the author’s withholding it from …
“………….La Boétie goes on to make a case as to why people ought to withdraw their consent immediately. He urges all people to rise up and cast off tyranny simply by refusing to concede that the state is in charge…………….
Acts 5:29 “But Peter and the other apostles answered and said: “We ought to obey God rather than men.”
Suppose you’re the wife of a gendarme, sending him off to work this morning in Paree. How are you feeling — happy? secure? proud? worried? sad?
How is Anal Schwaub feeling today? Happy? Secure? A teeny bit nervous? Thinking “Hey wait a minute. We are falling behind on the Depop Plan, and that is dangerous”?
Sadly Robert David Steele passed away on 28 August 2021 of COVID-19 pneumonia.
https://phibetaiota.net/2021/09/in-memoriam-robert-david-steele/
Every lie that gets seen through establishes a more sound ground for the jabbers to be overturned, or boostered themselves with redirections to leave the world alone.
Ta, mrkii. By the way, I hear that a pilot on Delta airline died in flight yesterday, post-jab. That, too, may establish a more firm ground.
Currently in doubt about that Delta death. If it were leaked falsely, I suppose its purpose is to make us look gullible. Must wait to establish the source.
By the way, the FBI very publicly said on April 18, 2013 at 5pm-ish, that they had tracked down the faces of the two Marathon bombers through videos, but needed citizens’ help in learning their names.
Later FBI had to admit that they did indeed know the names on April 18th. No apology, no explanation.
Robert David Steele eh:
Well I guess spending the best working years of one’s life serving the CIA would be enough to send anyone over the edge
But it’s probably more likely that, just like Alex Jones himself, he was just working as a counterintelligence agent
How arrogant would you have to be to think that genuine concerns could be discredited by lumping them in with patent woo woo !
Psalm 85:11. King James Version:
Truth shall spring out of the earth.
I have no idea why Robert Steele would talk about Mars. Maybe he had to do it to muddy the waters as a price to pay for being able to say other things and yet stay alive.
I suggest he was killed, as a way of warning fellow Loose Lips, and also of preventing him from continuing with the work he was doing effectively, viz., to deal with child-stealing.
For sure, he got our Rachel Vaughan and Fiona Barnett to tell their story to a huge audience worldwide.
I also think he is the force behind Joachim Hagopian’s 5-volume book, “Satan and Pedophilia.” As I said before, Volume 4 alone has over 4,000 footnotes. It is valuable stuff (a steal at $19 USD per volume).
“Maybe he had to do it to muddy the waters as a price to pay for being able to say other things”
Like David Icke’s reptilian references?
Start at 30 minutes. The man in the white suit is Sgt John McLellan who was the police supervisor in Watertown on the night Jahar was captured in the shrink-wrapped boat. The setting is my January 23, 2018 lecture at Watertown Library, which was followed by an Open Mic session for locals.
McLellan says he physically had his hands on Tamerlan on Laurel St, when Tamerlan was dying of either gunshot or from being run over. I can only say John strikes me as honest, and he testified at Jahar’s trial that he was present at the Laurel St shootout. But as we now know, Tamerlan could not possibly have been there, as he is seen on Gabe Ramirez’s CNN video being arrested in good health by FBI.
So there must have been a sort of stunt-man who played the role of Tamerlan on Laurel St and that poor guy had to die. Meanwhile Tamerlan was killed in custody. All of this is Standard Office Procedure, is it not?
You have no way of proving Tamerlan was the naked man being arrested.
His family says it’s him. Gabe Ramirez said “They’ve caught the Suspect.”
Bob, who do you think got arrested there, naked? I guess you could phone the FBI and ask. Or, since they will say they cannot reveal that man’s name for privacy reasons, you could say “Dear FBI, please verify that the man in the picture is NOT Tamerlan Tsarnaev.”
While you have their attention, please also ask them if they are familiar with a National Security law that legalizes lying. Betcha five dollars they do think there is such a law. This is great as it opens the door to mass pardons for cops and media people who got “took” by the story of the NS law.
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/debunked-video-of-tamerlan-tsarnaev-naked-handcuffed-walking-alive.1422/
Here is one of the images used on that link.
https://www.metabunk.org/attachments/nakedmancomparison-jpg.2440/
Not the same person.
Who funds metabunk
Likely the owner of the site, Mick West.
My guess is he is working on the funding, maybe got an offer he couldn’t resist
Metabunk.org started in Dec 2010, I doubt West is working on getting funding.
I am suggesting he was infiltrated, started off as a UFO guy perhaps, got a following, attracted “sponsorship”, nothing unusual in that suggestion, look at Rockerfellas Foundation website and see how they are distributing little packets of money all over the place (a packet might equal on average about $50,000). You made me think I must have a quick look at Clinton Foundation, it’s getting interesting there with the unlocatable Mr Durham heading in that direction …
Well that’s the 1st time I’ve seen such an analysis
Which is interesting given the fact there’s a plethora of online “the naked man was Tamerlan” claims, claims that make no reference to the existence of such material.
Don’t get me wrong, I still think it’s highly unlikely that the bombing in question was executed by the Tsarnaevs
But ultimately trying to nut out the whys and wherefores of any cover-up can be as much of an entrapment as taking all the associated crank on board
The people who believe the naked man is Tamerlan tend to be the kind that do not go to a site like metabunk. Or they go there and ignore the information presented.
What does need a good deal more attention is that, whilst the nominal version of Islam is being treated as a useful multicultural tool by the Rulers of the Age the real McCoy, i. e. the version that’s really rooted in the foundational precepts,is being treated as a criminal offence. Understandable inasmuch as Christianity has been played like so for generations but none the less deplorably foolish. One more frightening reminder that most politicians simply cannot think logically
“think logically” as in think about the fact that, if the Boston bombing, or 9/11 for that matter, had been carried out on a religious basis both would, very obviously, have been fully owned as such.
And given the fact a couple of young Jihadists could have hit on any number of annual crowd attractions that,unlike a running race, would be anathema to Islam…………..
I’ve yet to see any sort of cogent explanation
If you can help me publicize my new book on the Marathon, please do. One has only to go to the top of the Gumshoe home page and hit the word “Books.” Up will come pdf’s of six of my recent books including “Keep the Republic.” Here is the Marathon book:
https://gumshoenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/BostonBook_BW2021.pdf
Three are antipodean:
Reunion, Judgeing the Family Court
Inquest: Siege in Sydney [the Lindt Cafe thing]
Port Arthur: Enough Is Enough, co-authored by Dee McLachlan — [in 2015, oh dear]
Ah, and “Deliverance,” which is about the Royal Commission and pizzagate, hence about both Australia and Seppoland. Hmm, it also talks about Dunblane, Scotland.
HELP! HELP!
From the department of Thank God for Do-gooders, comes this obituary of Richard Aucoin. He is the man in the brown jacket who spoke at 12 minutes into the Open Mic tape above. He died a month later, of no apparent cause. (I am NOT implying that he got taken out for coming to my show. But I don’t rule out that he died for the crime of being a wonderful person, as does sometimes happen.)
http://joycefuneralhome.tributes.com/obituary/show/Richard-P.-Aucoin-105848321
If you can read these friends’ reports and not cry, you are a cold fish. How about this one: “Rich was not a candle but a torch of truth, justice, and deep decency.”
https://veaterecosan.blogspot.com/search?q=tsarnaev
Here is the Moot Court trial at Watertown, at which I pretend to give a defense of Jahar at the appeal level.
That was 4 years ago and has had only 96 hits. Previously, though, it got hits when it was shown at the site of Hummux who is indeed the film-maker here. His site, 911tv.org, got wiped before all the recent cancellations. You could say he was a cancel pioneer.
I know him to have made many personal sacrifices in devotion to getting the truth on record, particularly in regard to 9-11.