--------------------------------------------------------
From: "Dstacey" <•••@••.•••>
Subject: Just how free are we....?
Date: Sat, 28 Apr 2007 16:16:20 -0500
This is a three part message.
Don Stacey
____________________
NY Police Report Bomb to Frame Truth Activist as
Terrorist
"By the time the government finds out, you'll be in
the hole thirty days" 9/11 Truther is Told By Officer
Who Admits to False Accusation of Having a Bomb
Aaron Dykes / JonesReport | April 27, 2007
Two persons identifying themselves as New York police officers interrupted a
9/11 Truth demonstration-- on a public sidewalk in front of the new WTC 7
Building-- to intimidate free speech, stating "Larry [Silverstein] doesn't want
to hear it," before accusing We Are Change founder Luke Rudkowski of having a
bomb and that his cell phone was "a gun."
The officer was apparently responding to refusals to stop filming their faces as
police attempted to impede free speech on behalf of Larry Silverstein-- making
slanderous and knowingly false accusations:
"I think he's got a bomb in his bag. Saw wires coming out. Think he's got a bomb
in there."
The police officer carried on during the encounter, saying "A terrorist act-- I
guess they go away for about 30 days."
<http://www.youtube.com/v/nYc2qQQfOXs>
Rudkowski tell him he is not a terrorist and that he is an American citizen. The
officer responds, "You're right. But by the time the government figures it out,
you'll be in the hole for 30 days."
The officer made the statements on camera with a notable smirk, and made no
attempt to distance himself or other witnesses from any physical danger (as he
would have done he actually believed the activist had a bomb). The officer went
on to give away his criminal behavior-- still on tape, despite ongoing demands
he and the other officer made that the cameras be shut off.
Alex Jones commented, "We have New York police ON TAPE threatening to frame
someone for terrorism in a nonchalant fashion. How bad would it have gotten if
there were no cameras around? If they'll talk like this ON CAMERA, heaven help
us."
<http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G1-112361515.html>
People are arrested every day for joking about bombs or making other bomb
references, even if it is clearly not meant to be serious.
<http://news.bbc.co.uk/nolpda/ukfs_news/hi/newsid_4281000/4281814.stm?%28none%29>
This man identified himself as a police officer and accused Rudkowski of 'having
a bomb' and 'being a terrorist' to silence his free speech for Larry
Silverstein. It is a serious federal and state crime to publicly state that
someone has a bomb and is a terrorist when not true-- like extreme example of
yelling fire in a theatre-- and needs to be prosecuted.
Such knowingly misleading and false information is not only malicious and
immoral, but has been made specifically illegal under the Anti-Hoax Terrorism
Act of 2003-- and expanded for more stringency in 2004 and the Terrorism
Prevention Act of 2006, not to mention long-standing protections against
defamation and public endangerment. There are also many state and local laws
prohibiting such activity.
<http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d108:s.01441:>
<http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c108:S.2204:>
<http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/2006_cr/s3848.html>
<http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/sept_11/ny_001.htm>
This man who identified himself as a police officer insisted that Rudkowski and
other members of WeAreChange.org must cease videotaping him.
Based on this video evidence alone, this officer should receive a prison
sentence and would be liable for civil damages as well-- not only to the wronged
demonstrator, but by law enforcement for a dangerous waste of resources, as
cited by Ted Kennedy's commentary regarding expansion:
<http://kennedy.senate.gov/newsroom/press_release.cfm?id=F0B71889-81FC-4A5F-97F9-FB5A2ABD654B>
"In addition, this measure expands civil liability to allow federal and state
governments to seek reimbursement from someone who knows that emergency
personnel are responding to a hoax and fails to inform authorities that no such
event has occurred."
Rudkowski was not only intimidated by the corrupt and criminal officer, but his
camera was confiscated. Shortly afterwards, police also confiscated his cell
phone, claiming that it was "a gun," according to Rudkowski.
The detective also snickered and "sang"tauntingly at Rudkowski, "Guess who's
going to jail? Guess who's going to jail?"
Luke was not arrested, but was detained for over an hour while police
deliberated over whether take further action.
The Face of IntimidationThe Face of Ridicule This officer makes equal attempts
to intimidate and ridicule Rudkowski.
Luke Rudkowski told the perpetrating policeman that his statements were
"slanderous," denying ridiculous accusations that he was a terrorist.
The officer again responded, "I saw wires. You look like a terrorist. I don't
know what a terrorist looks like. You may be a terrorist for all I know...You've
made threats; now I'm concerned."
It is obvious from the recorded video that the demonstration was peaceful, no
laws were broken and no threats were made. It is also clear that the reason he
approached the group did not regard suspicion of threatening behavior, but to
tell them that "Larry didn't want to hear it."
The levels of betrayal against the First Amendment of the Constitution are so
absurd and violate the basic tenants of original intent, they can only be
compared with gross violations by the enforcement officers of the police state
apparent, such as that with Abby Newman (as seen below, from 9/11: The Road to
Tyranny). Egregious misinterpretation and abuse perpetrated by the very members
of society supposedly in place to guarantee our freedoms.
<http://www.youtube.com/v/L_h_g0JtX4o>
Abby Newman was arrested for not showing ID in August 2000 and fell victim to an
illegal vehicle search in which police found items of subversive literature,
including a "pocket Constitution."
One officer asked the other "Is this legal?" (Case in point, where the very
society of freedom is violated by the system that regulates that society.)
But that has become all too common in the police state. A Christian group in
Philadelphia was arrested in 2004 and charged with counts of criminal
conspiracy, ethnic intimidation and riot for "praying, singing and reading
scripture during an annual 'gay pride' event. Of course, the question here is
not one of Christianity vs. homosexuality, but the criminal prosecution of free
speech. The eroding inherent right threatens the freedom of Christians,
homosexuals, pink-and-polka dotted people, and other groups who were previously
guaranteed protection of their voices-- whether right or wrong, embarrassing,
hateful or supportive, blasphemous, sinful or true.
<http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/december2004/161204readingbible.htm>
An attorney in Portland, Oregon was falsely arrested under anti-terrorism laws
shortly after the 2004 Madrid bombings.
<http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/11/29/national/main2216468.shtml>
Even in Canada, where limitations such as "reasonable" are pitted against
guarantees of free speech, people are granted 'fundamental freedoms' to
"thought, belief, opinion and expression."
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech#Canada>
Yet a protestor demonstrating outside the 2006 Bilderberg conference in Ottawa,
Don McCormick was kidnapped by an "Integrated National Security Enforcement
Team" who detained him, kicked him and psychologically tortured him-- including
threats that they would "cut off his arms."-- all this after being warned not to
return to the protest the previous day.
<http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/june2006/290606kidnaptorture.htm>
Though McCormick was accused of "trying to blow up the Brookstreet Hotel"-- just
as Rudkowski was accused of being a terrorist with a bomb-- he was guilty only
of holding a picket sign and being critical of the secretive and manipulative
group.
Just as McCormick's free speech was violated, intimidated and labeled as
terroristic at the behest and for the benefit of the Bilderberg group,
Rudkowski's speech was threatened on behalf of Larry Silverstein-- who
apparently wanted to silence discuss of 9/11 and WTC Building 7 through bullying
threats.
This is not Rudkowski's first encounter with harassment, intimidation and
denials to the rights of free speech. During a speech by Zbigniew Brzezinski,
security denied his free speech rights as a member of the press and attempted to
confiscate his video tape, despite the fact that he declared his press position.
Rudkowski serves as a free lance reporter for GCN Live! Radio
(nationally-syndicated), and websites such as Infowars.com and PrisonPlanet.com,
among others.
<http://www.jonesreport.com/articles/250407_brzezinski_911.html>
Recently the We Are Change group, which Rudkowski founded and remains involved
in, was harassed by police outside ABC Studios during a peaceful demonstration
of support for Rosie's public assertion of 9/11 Truth.
<http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/march2007/210307policeharass.htm>
Free speech is no longer guaranteed under the de facto shadow government that
has hijacked the formerly legitimate government of this once great nation. In
fact, the threats are widespread-- all the more so on the front lines 'who dare
call it treason.'
Luke Rudkowski can be contacted through WeAreChange.org. He has put out a call
for legal defense-- Contact luke if you can provide legal aid or identify any of
the officers in this video. Stand up to tyranny and criminal violations of
basic, inherent rights.
Aaron Dykes can be contacted at <mailto:•••@••.•••>•••@••.•••
=========================================================
<http://www.opednews.com/articles/genera_aaron_dy_070428_ny_police_report_bom.htm>
April 28, 2007
WTC Security Thugs Threaten to Falsely Report Bomb to
Frame Activist as Terrorist
By Aaron Dykes / JonesReport | April 27, 2007
<mailto:•••@••.•••>•••@••.•••
"By the time the government finds out, you'll be in the hole
thirty days" 9/11 Truther is Told By Officer Who Admits to
False Accusation of Having a Bomb
See video here:
<http://www.youtube.com/v/nYc2qQQfOXs>
Aaron Dykes / JonesReport | April 27, 2007
Two persons identifying themselves as New York police officers interrupted a
9/11 Truth demonstration-- on a public sidewalk in front of the new WTC 7
Building-- to intimidate free speech, stating "Larry [Silverstein] doesn't want
to hear it," before accusing We Are Change founder Luke Rudkowski of having a
bomb and that his cell phone was "a gun."
<http://www.wearechange.org/>
____________________
Lip Reading Surveillance Cameras To Stop Terror
Shouting, face scanning, eavesdropping, X-Ray firing and now lip reading CCTV --
do you still feel free?
<http://www.infowars.net/articles/april2007/270407lip_reading.htm>
<http://www.infowars.net/index.html>Steve Watson
Infowars.net
Friday, April 27, 2007
"Read my lips" used to be a figurative saying.
Now the British government is considering taking it literally -- by adding lip
reading technology to some of its four million or so surveillance cameras in
order to identify terrorists and criminals by watching what everyone says.
Electronic Design is reporting that the Home Office is interested in a project
being pursued by a senior lecturer in computer vision at the University of East
Anglia in Norwich, England:
Computer-based lip-reading technology would help video surveillance systems spot
people planning a crime or terror attack by literally watching suspects¹ lips
for clues. Once it finds someone speaking certain key words or sentences, the
system would automatically send an alert message to a central console, mobile
phone, or other communications device. Police or security agents could then be
dispatched to the scene to question the individual.
Of course as with all these Big Brother surveillance moves it cannot be
selectively applied and everyone will be subjected to it.
The automatic devices bring to mind the heart-chilling scene in "2001: A Space
Odyssey" when HAL (the intelligent computer) tells Dave that, despite all the
precautions taken, he knows Dave was planning to disconnect him because he can
read lips.
Imagine a place where you cannot step out of your front door and have a
conversation with someone without it being monitored. Imagine a place where if
you say something considered by the authorities to be suspicious, a team of
agents is dispatched to your location to detain and question you.
Does that sound like a free country?
We have previously reported on the various Big Brother gadgets that the
government wants to or already has added to surveillance cameras in the UK. Here
is a brief re-cap:
<http://infowars.net/articles/april2007/040407cameras.htm>Talking / Shouting
cameras - In an incredibly Orwellian move, loudspeakers are being fitted to
surveillance cameras throughout major cities, allowing CCTV operators to bark
commands at people who drop litter, act in an aggressive manner or loiter. Some
of these cameras will even use the voices of children who will be recruited from
schools to take part in the scheme and will be shown round CCTV operating rooms
on school trips, learning how wonderful the big brother state is and how forcing
people to behave in a certain way in public is the essence of a free society.
<http://infowars.net/articles/january2007/310107xraycams.htm>X-Ray firing
cameras - Documents leaked from the Home Office have revealed that the
government is looking into using X-ray technology cameras by concealing them in
lamp posts to "trap terror suspects". The cameras allow operators to see through
people's clothes and look for suspicious items.
<http://infowars.net/articles/november2006/261106Word.htm>Eavesdropping cameras
- London police and councils are considering monitoring our conversations in the
street using high-powered microphones attached to CCTV cameras that can pick up
"aggressive tones" on the basis of 12 factors, including decibel level, pitch
and the speed at which words are spoken.
<http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/december2005/221205surveillanceuk.htm>Face
scanning cameras - linked into a national database software will allow cameras
to scan hundreds of faces a second in crowds of people.
<http://www.refuseandresist.org/article-print.php?aid=801>Behaviour monitoring
cameras - These devices are programmed to sound an alarm when they spot
suspicious behaviour, such as waiting somewhere for a prolonged period of time
or just walking in a suspicious way. These have already been
<http://infowars.net/articles/january2006/120106scanners.htm>deployed in
airports and train stations.
____________________
JUROR NULLIFIES JUDGE
TEACHER CHARGED WITH RESPECTING CONSTITUTION
<>
By John Tiffany
Carol Asher, 66, is a former educator and a good Christian. She works as a
volunteer assistant to retired Phoenix, Ariz., police officer Jack McLamb and
his civil liberties-oriented organization, Police and Military Against the New
World Order.
She is a hard worker and a caring person who strives to help others.
As a result, she found herself facing the possibility of serving 14 years in
prison. What heinous crime did the onetime schoolteacher commit that would cause
the government to consider putting her behind bars for possibly the rest of her
life?
Serving on a jury that was hearing the case of a young man charged in an illegal
drug case, she stated that she could not vote to convict because she answered to
a higher power than the judge, District Judge John Bradbury.
Three other jurors also voted against a conviction, but they were less forward
about their beliefs, and they got off scot-free. Ms. Asher, however, was charged
with perjury, a felony.
In Idaho, a law requires jurors to sign, under penalty of perjury, that they
will decide a case based on the facts and law as determined solely by the judge.
What this accomplishes is to render a jury impotent.
³I am a law-abiding citizen, but the only thing I am standing on is either we
have a supreme law in this country or we don¹t,² Ms. Asher told AFP. ³I learned
a long time ago from newspapers like The Spotlight and now from American Free
Press that we the people have to monitor everything. We have to judge the law to
make sure it is in alignment with the supreme law.²
What she found troubling in the case, she said, was the forced search of the
company vehicle that was being driven by the young man.
Police reportedly found a small amount of illegal drugs hidden in the car.
³I had a problem with this,² she said. ³At no time did the prosecutor prove that
this young man knew the drugs were in the car. I had trouble overlooking the
Fourth Amendment guarantee against forced searches. That is where my sense of
higher law comes in. If it is against the Fourth Amendment I have a problem with
that.²
The attack on Ms. Asher goes against the vital principle of jury nullification.
Jury nullification occurs when a jury returns a verdict of ³not guilty² despite
the common belief that the defendant is guilty of the violation charged. The
jury in effect nullifies a law that it believes is immoral, unconstitutional or
is wrongly applied to the defendant whose fate it is charged with deciding.
Traditionally jurors are free to disregard the judge if they feel he is part of
the system of oppression. Jury nullification is an essential protection for
citizens against governmental tyranny.
The most famous nullification case is the 1735 trial of John Peter Zenger,
charged with printing ³seditious libels of the governor of the Colony of New
York, William Cosby. Despite the undisputed fact that Zenger had printed the
alleged libels, the only issue the court said the jury was open to decide (as
the truth or falsity of the statements was said to be ³irrelevant²),the jury,
feeling that the law itself was unjust, returned with a verdict of ³not guilty.²
Carol was charged by Lawrence G. Wasden, the Idaho attorney general, by Stephen
A. Bywater, deputy attorney general and chief of the Criminal Division, and by
Justin D. Whatcott, deputy attorney general, with felony perjury for doing her
duty as a juror. She had been simply following her conscience within the
supposed confidentiality of the jury deliberation room.
The fact that she works for an anti-New World Order organization may be an
unstated part of the reasons for charging her, but of course prosecutors cannot
admit that was a motive on their part.
The matter ended well, in this particular case. Magistrate Michael Griffin ruled
that Ms. Asher¹s failure to inform the court that she might have a moral problem
with voting the way the judge wanted the jurors to vote was not proven to be a
willful disruption of justice, and for that reason Griffin dismissed the perjury
charge.
But unless the right to a fully informed jury, aware of its power of
nullification, is better protected in some way, the next conscientious juror
might not be so lucky.
Galatians <>4:16 Am I therefore become your enemy, because I tell you the truth?
The error is in the assumption that the General Government is a party to the
constitutional compact. The States formed the compact, acting as sovereign and
independent communities.
The Constitution has admitted the jurisdiction of the United States within the
limits of the several States only so far as the delegated powers authorize;
beyond that they are intruders, and may rightfully be expelled.
The government of the uncontrolled numerical majority, is but the absolute and
despotic form of popular government...
If we do not defend ourselves none will defend us; if we yield we will be more
and more pressed as we recede; and if we submit we will be trampled underfoot.
John C. Calhoun
"In the beginning of a change, the Patriot is a scarce man, Brave, Hated and
Scorned. When his cause succeeds however, the timid join him, for then it costs
nothing to be a Patriot."
- Mark Twain
____________________
<http://www.proliberty.com/observer/20060302.htm>
From the March 2006 Idaho Observer:
Juror perjury case dismissed
Idaho declines to persecute Asher for perjury; lives to murder jury rights
another day
It appears that a groundswell of justifiable outrage caused the perjury charges
against a former juror to be dropped. Rather than suffer the public relations
nightmare that would have resulted had the state of Idaho continued with the
prosecution of the much loved and respected Carol Asher of Kamiah, the case was
dismissed in magistrate court March 7, 2006. The case may have been dropped for
now, but successfully delivered an important message: "Jury rights ‘insurgents¹
will teach jury nullification to fellow jurors at their own peril."
By The Idaho Observer
GRANGEVILLE‹The case and charges against Carol Asher were dismissed at a
preliminary hearing held in Grangeville, Idaho, March 7, 2006. Magistrate
Michael Griffin determined the prosecution did not meet its burden of proof that
Asher perjured herself to be chosen as a juror for a July, 2005, drug possession
trial.
The controversy centers around a point of law decided during the trial of
William Edward Clark in which District Judge John Bradbury had determined that
the police search of a man¹s work vehicle during a traffic stop, which turned up
a small amount of methamphetamine, was legal. Charges were filed against Asher
after a fellow juror complained that, during jury deliberations, she explained
how she did not agree that the search was legal and that her conscience answered
to an authority higher than the judge.
Three other jurors agreed with Asher and Clark was acquitted.
Because Asher allegedly withheld her beliefs about the rights and
responsibilities of the jury to the court during the jury selection process, the
state attorney general¹s office reasoned that she had committed an act of
perjury and should be criminally prosecuted. The charges against Asher prompted
a three-week wave of opposition from jury rights advocates all over the country.
At the March 7 proceeding scores of concerned citizens overflowed the little
courtroom which court administrators conveniently chose for the contested case.
Dozens of respectful and well-behaved citizens awaited a ruling outside the
courtroom. According to Rose Johnson of the Idaho Judicial Accountability Act of
2006, "Some prayed quietly‹others walked and talked of the disgraceful behavior
of certain elected officials in this case‹and all talked of the need for judge
and prosecutor accountability."
Asher is a former school teacher and a former nun who has worked with Jack
McLamb at the Aid & Abet Police Newsletter for several years. She is well known
by people all over the world as an uncommonly kind and loving person who has
dedicated her life to being of service to others in need. Unable to resist an
attempt to malign this wonderful woman as an anti-government extremist, Jodi
Walker of The Lewiston Tribune described Asher as living "…in Dove of the
Valley, a covenant community started by Gerald (Jack) McLamb, a former Phoenix
police officer who brought his conspiracy theories and pro-militia ideas to
Idaho. He teamed up with Bo Gritz as a co-investor of Almost Heaven and
Shenandoah."
Walker further inferred that security was heightened at the courthouse in
anticipation of an unruly mob of "Asher¹s supporters‹many with known militia and
anti-government ideas."
Walker did report that Asher¹s supporters "filed orderly into the courtroom
after passing through security leaving about half of Asher¹s supporters in the
waiting area as the courtroom reached capacity."
The charges against Asher were dismissed after Judge Griffin ruled that the
state failed to prove that Asher engaged in a willful disruption of justice by
not revealing she may have a political or religious conflict during jury
questioning. Though Judge Griffin decided that the state did not meet the
requirements that would have justified moving the case to district court, he did
tell Asher that she does not have the authority, as a juror, to disagree with a
matter of law decided by a judge.
Asher¹s attorney Wesley Hoyt of Kooskia was assisted by Paul K. Grant, a
jury-rights advocate attorney from Colorado.
Justin Whatcott of the Attorney General¹s Office took over as prosecutor for the
case after Idaho County Prosecutor Kirk MacGregor recused himself because he was
the prosecuting attorney in the criminal trial in which Asher was a juror.
Prior to the dismissal, McLamb pointed out the absurdity of the charges: "If
these charges result in a conviction, what does that mean for juries in America?
It will mean that, after being chosen to sit on a jury, the jurors will have to
be Mirandized‹‘you have the right to remain silent; anything you say can and
will be used against you in a court of law.¹ And, each juror will need to have a
public defender appointed to sit by his side to make sure what he says during
deliberations could not be construed as a criminally-intended ‘disruption of
justice.¹"
Note: The most important function of a citizen in a free nation is to sit in
judgment of his fellow countrymen. Curiously, we graduate from high school
completely ignorant of the jury¹s preeminent role in our system of justice. It
is our job to succeed where the schools have failed: We must teach our people
the real rights and responsibilities of a juror. (DWH)
The Idaho Observer
P.O. Box 457
Spirit Lake, Idaho 83869
Phone: 208-255-2307
Email: <mailto:•••@••.•••>•••@••.•••
Web:
<http://idaho-observer.com/>
<http://proliberty.com/observer/>
--
--------------------------------------------------------
Escaping the Matrix website: http://escapingthematrix.org/
cyberjournal website: http://cyberjournal.org
Community Democracy Framework: http://cyberjournal.org/DemocracyFramework.html
Subscribe cyberjournal list: •••@••.••• (send
blank message)
Posting archives:
http://cyberjournal.org/show_archives/
cyberjournal blog (join in): http://cyberjournal-rkm.blogspot.com/
Moderator: •••@••.••• (comments
welcome)
