Friday, August 2, 2013

Elias Davidsson

HIJACKING AMERICA'S MIND ON 9/11
Posted by at

29 comments:

  1. AnonymousAugust 9, 2013 at 9:05 AM

    Again a very interesting podcast.
    Mr.Davidsson pointed to a logical fallacy in which Dr. Fetzer challenged his assertions based on maintaining a "constitutional" form of government based primarily upon judicial interpretations of our constitution and reforms. Therein lies the logical fallacy.

    While Mr.Davidsson pointed to inequalities in our economic system i.e. fascism stated by both, there is another half to the equation which few even begin to understand: a legal system where attempting to hold government accountable has been, and is, deemed a "criminal exercise of the right to Petition" declared from the beginning as shall "not be abridged."

    I know of no better source to explain this than John Wolfgram, a fellow veteran and lawyer/JD. See http://www.constitution.org/abus/wolfgram/ptnright.htm#N_2_
    "How the Judiciary Stole the Right to Petition."

    I'm certain, and I mean this with great respect, that Dr Fetzer would agree that "when you receive new information, you adjust your thinking."

    Wolf gram details how the utterly false dogmas of "sovereign immunity" "absolute immunity" "qualified immunity" along with the fact that Congress has NEVER provided a statutory or jurisdictional basis for citizens to claim constitutional rights against the government in federal courts. He also details the control exercised by the licensing of lawyers and the absurdity of the government exercising control over what they can present.

    Any barbarian state can say its people have rights and point to a "bill of rights". But "rights" don't mean a thing unless enforceable: People enforce rights, either with bombs and guns, or in a civilized world, through effective compulsory process of law; to wit: The Judicial Remedy.

    "Sovereign immunity is the judicial theft of the people's right to a civilized relationship between themselves, individually, and their government. It should be seen for what it is."

    The Right of Petition is the right to substantive justice between government and governed. Upon that Right rests our hopes for freedom and dignity in the twenty-first century.

    "Freedom and dignity thrive in Justice. They cannot survive without it."

    I urge all to read this law review article. Wolfgram is a genuine hero who has sacrificed all but his life in the pursuit of the right of the people to justice, and their constitution. He is blacklisted. It would be a wonderful podcast if Dr. Fetzer could discuss scientific reasoning with a man very skilled in the "philosophy of law" and a fellow ex marine. (Vietnam)





    ReplyDelete
  2. AnonymousAugust 9, 2013 at 1:53 PM

    This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  3. AnonymousAugust 9, 2013 at 1:55 PM

    Davidsson is right on the money.

    ReplyDelete
  4. AnonymousAugust 9, 2013 at 7:00 PM

    Elias Davidsson ends all the bickering with the fact that the US government has yet to prove its claim concerning 9/11. There is no evidence to support the claim of 19 hijackers and four Boeing aircraft. He who makes the claim has the burden of proof. Think what this means in terms of other false flag attacks and even the JFK assassination. Would that the public had the Right to Petition our government. (Thank you Joseph for the legal link.)

    Davidsson said the government, media and the rest of the institutions have been lying for decades. This takes me back to JFK and this video of Jim Garrison addressing the nation in rebuttal to the slander put out by NBC in 1967. See: ? Jim Garrison Response - Kennedy Assassination - YouTube

    Published on Apr 16, 2011

    On July 15, 1967, NBC allowed New Orleans District Attorney Jim Garrison to respond to an NBC program that was highly critical of Garrison's pursuit of alleged Kennedy assassination conspirators in New Orleans
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=Hqo2c_SxQag#at=46

    ReplyDelete
  5. AnonymousAugust 9, 2013 at 9:00 PM

    What is wrong with throwing all these criminals in jail? It is impossible for all these money junkies to make these enormous amounts of ill gotten gain without breaking hundreds of laws most of which provide for serious time behind bars. We could start with the Logan Act for all these Bilderberg attendees. How about charging all the Trilateral Commission and CFR members with treason and sedition? What about these NSA guys lying before congress? What about these IRS guys lying before congress? There probably many laws being broken for insider trading, campaign finance, Misuse of funds etc. We as citizens should demand more enforcement and our research efforts should be much more specific as to law breakers and their specific crimes. We should pick about 20 or 30 individuals, research their crimes fully and expose and demand action. Watch how many others would start flipping like fish out of water. I think this would be a better use of time rather then endlessly debating these false flag details. All these 911 and Kennedy perps could be thrown in jail for hundreds of easier to prove crimes (OJ style).

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. AnonymousAugust 10, 2013 at 3:05 AM

      Yes there are many laws which could be used to jail them. However, we the people do not have a legal mechanism to prosecute. While the 5th amendment does contain the "presentment" along with the "indictment" clause, the grand jury has been placed under the sole control of the prosecutor i.e. the executive branch. Only the government can decide what can be heard in court. We the people can not bring criminal charges or convene a grand jury.
      This is one of the many thefts of the right to petition...firmly imbedded in the constitution and stolen by the judiciary.

      Delete
    2. AnonymousAugust 10, 2013 at 4:51 AM

      The Attorney General of the United States and the Justice Department cannot indict and prosecute these criminals? I realize we have a corrupt AG at the moment who could and should be tried for perjury, RICO, terrorism among other things. This is where the immense pressure should be applied by we the people in the court of public opinion. As for these crisis actors, we should perhaps select 3 or 4 and doggedly research their backgrounds, expose their crimes and relentlessly demand prosecution with a wave of public protests and paparazzi like exposure. I nominate Jeff Bauman as target number one, as he has a ton of evidence against with charity fraud and RICO being a slam dunk.
      A group of respected researchers and legal minds should present evidence and demand action with a highly publicized news conference at a big Boston venue and invite all concerned citizens and public officials. Indict the media at the same event by pointing out that we have to do their job again. I think this persistent type of strategy would ignite brushfires and could grow to overwhelm the current false reality paradigm.

      Delete
    3. AnonymousAugust 10, 2013 at 5:39 AM

      See above and below. The United States can not be sued in its court's. (Sovereign Immunity) Its agents can be sued and or prosecuted, but have "absolute and/or qualified immunity". Then there are jurisdictional matters. Congress has never provided a statutory mechanism for the vindication of constitutional violations committed by federal officials. It was not until 1971 in "Bivens v Six unknown Narcotics Agents" that a Judicial Doctrine was created e.g. judge made "law" that a basis was created which only applied to 4th amendment violations. It has been extended to 4th and 5th. However, the "immunities" have to be overcome before a citizen can be heard on the "merits" of their constitutional claim. There have been less than 10 successful "Bivens" actions since 1971.The "supreme" high priests have declared that they urge "hesitation" and since Stump v. Sparkman have declared "even if they (judges) act corruptly and maliciously, they have absolute immunity. It is all logically indefensible. So are all the other "judicial doctrines" which state on their face, the constitution is beyond the reach of the citizen to enforce.

      Delete
    4. AnonymousAugust 10, 2013 at 5:57 AM

      I should add that a prosecutor can not be sued for refusing to prosecute, and has "absolute immunity."

      Delete
    5. AnonymousAugust 10, 2013 at 2:41 PM

      I am not talking about enforcing the lack of adherence to the Constitution per se, unless you are saying all government officials and politicians are immune to any kind of prosecution? I don't think that these politicians faced with an informed public outrage spurred on by specific findings from a group of determined patriotic thinkers would dare try to pull some obscure immunity play technicality to escape public scorn. Even these psychopaths cannot function in a environment of total public scorn ie Tony Weiner and that idiot mayor of SD comes to mind. The main idea is collace around one targeted scumbag with indisputable evidence and with geniune grassroots credibility demand justice.

      Delete
    6. AnonymousAugust 10, 2013 at 9:05 PM

      I'm not talking about an obscure immunity play. The only time that I recall immunity NOT being claimed was by Bill Clinton in Jones v Clinton. He didn't for exactly the reasons you stated but the court nonetheless considered it. You can look it up.

      Matters of jurisdiction of federal courts are constitutional. The only court established by the Constitution was the Supreme Court under Article III. All district and appeals courts are established by Congress under Article I powers and their jurisdiction limited thereby.I read all the time how lawsuits are dismissed for lack of jurisdiction while the victims don't understand or be told why. Congress has limited them.

      Many determined Patriotic thinkers and organizations have tried hundreds of times to have these bastards prosecuted. Vincent Bugliosi wrote a book on how state prosecutors could prosecute W Bush for murder,(titled the same) No takers except one candidate who lost. Most laws that are broken are state laws. States could prosecute but are immediately removed to federal courts where the "doctrines " and immunities are applied. Or they just write an opinion that doesn't even resemble the facts and laws presented. They should hang signs above the courtroom doors: "Abandon all hope ye who enter here." (Dante)

      The 5th Amendment:
      "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury."
      "An indictment is a written accusation of an offence preferred to, and presented, upon oath, as true, by a grand jury, at the suit of the government. An indictment is framed by the officers of the government, and laid before the grand jury. Presentments, on the other hand, are the result of a jury’s independent action:

      'A presentment, properly speaking, is an accusation, made by a grand jury of its own mere motion, of an offence upon its own observation and knowledge, or upon evidence before it, and without any bill of indictment laid before it at the suit of the government.

      The right of presentment has been stolen. It was the only way citizens had to drag corrupt official into court.
      in United States v. Williams, 504 U.S. 36 at 48 (1992), Justice Scalia,(shudder)(makes my skin crawl) delivering the opinion of the court, laid down the law of the land:
      "the grand jury is mentioned in the Bill of Rights, but not in the body of the Constitution. It has not been textually assigned, therefore, to any of the branches described in the first three Articles. It "is a constitutional fixture in its own right.'

      The right belongs to us, we the people.

      Even so, try writing a motion in a US District Court to Convene a Grand Jury. You won't like the outcome IF you survive it. I know this for a fact.





      Delete
    7. AnonymousAugust 11, 2013 at 5:40 AM

      I know that you are correct about this escape hatch for these wrong doers but people do get prosecuted within this same system My angle of attack is a little different. The media culture they built can be used effectively against them, if by taking all the energies devoted to pontificating details, filing motions in a corrupt system etc and directing these resources, in their crushing will not be ignored totality, at just one high profile criminal in the court of public opinion. I feel this type strategy, prosecuting OUTSIDE of the corrupt Judicial system will bring what these mental midgets fear most, public ridicule and scorn in a career crashing dose of real world reality. Take away their false reality built adoration is like water on the witch with the same result for the masses IMO when ding dong the witch is dead. (Hillary leaps to mind).

      Delete
    8. AnonymousAugust 11, 2013 at 9:29 AM

      The main stream and Social media brought down Weiner
      and that perv Bob Filner as well as Spitizer, Petraeus, etc. Now granted these were probably targets of the both the left/right distraction psyop machine or just plain political enemies. The point is the power of media and public opinion. We the people are much more likely to get more done by consolidating a targeted alternative media campaign (just like these robber baron scum do) instead of beating our heads against the trying to achieve justice in a corrupt Judicial and Law enforcement system.

      Delete
    9. AnonymousAugust 11, 2013 at 10:55 AM

      The alternative media is absolutely necessary and the only way any of us can be informed. So friend, I am not faulting your approach.

      In the podcast Davidsson stated that these matters would never be prosecuted. I felt the "equation" stated by both to be incomplete but "correct" and have simply attempted to point to the cause.

      For example, Dr Fetzer has enough "probable cause" through his research to seek a prosecution for say who fired the shots that killed Kennedy. He in fact has named them and proved their locations among many other things for years. Same with so many other events and issues. His work, and ability to present matters on a scientific basis is absolutely necessary and commendable.

      Davidsson pointed to the futility and his belief that these matters will never be brought to justice.

      There is a way. Like the Declaration states: "Establish justice."

      Delete
  6. AnonymousAugust 9, 2013 at 10:21 PM

    Unfortunately, there is one set of laws for us and another set for the government:

    John E. Wolfgram: How the Judiciary Stole the Right to Petition
    http://www.constitution.org/abus/wolfgram/ptnright.htm#N_2_
    D) ASPECT FOUR:
    THE JUDICIAL CONTEMPT FOR PETITIONING
    TO REDRESS GRIEVANCES WITH GOVERNMENT IN FEDERAL COURT
    We have discussed three central aspects of the Petition Clause that are never addressed by the judiciary. Those aspects are:
    1.The Petition Clause vs. Sovereign Immunity Issue.
    2.The Petition Clause vs. Personal and Official Immunities Issue.
    3.The persecution of persons for "Criminal Exercise of Petition Clause Rights."

    The Fourth Aspect is intimately related to the first three because it inquires into why the judiciary refuses to address constitutional issues of major importance, generally, and specifically why it refuses to address the first three aspects of the Petition Clause.
    In point, there is no more serious constitutional issue then whether judicially created sovereign and official immunity violates the Petition Clause. Is there any jurisprudential thinker who does not immediately know that the United States under the doctrine of sovereign immunity is an entirely different nation than the United States with an effective Right of Petition? .......

    ......But while there are many methods of petitioning for redress with government, up to and including assembly to riot or to use force against it, only one method can use the law to subject the government to the law and to the redress consequences of violating it.[SUP](65)[/SUP] That is to petition the government for redress through the courts. That is the right of the citizen to use the compulsory process of the law to compel the government, just like any other party, to answer and to be accountable for its wrongs to the citizen, under the law.

    ReplyDelete
  7. AnonymousAugust 9, 2013 at 10:40 PM

    My point in posting Jim Garrison's response to NBC criticism is to note how simple the case against Oswald is. Like 9/11, there is no evidence of hijackers or of Boeings at any of the sites. Garrison reminds us there was no evidence for Oswald as the assassin: no fingerprints were on the rifle, no powder burns were on his face, he was not seen on the 6th floor and no witnesses identified him as the shooter of officer Tippit,

    What then is the point of endless discussions of the magic bullet theory and the endless publication of books on the topic? Garrison says right at the outset the CIA killed Kennedy. Contrary to Oliver Stone's JFK, Garrison always asserted the CIA did it and was not mystified as Kevin Costner appears to be when meeting with Mr. X, supposed to be Fletcher Prouty.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. AnonymousAugust 10, 2013 at 4:02 AM

      I think that both Fetzer and Davidsson are correct in their approaches, both necessary and the result of scientific reasoning.

      It is safe to say that anyone here knows that what began with the Kennedy assassination,and Bobby, Martin, Malcolm X, Wellstone, and tens of thousands we have not been informed of either dead or in an Amerikan Gulag, along with the false flags and utterly nonsensical account of 911 "hijackers" and Planes, and buildings disintegrating, are simply not possible. I don't know exactly what happened. Anyone that could even remotely believe any of the official accounts are out of their dammed minds.

      I was 11 years old when Kennedy was assassinated. I knew in my gut that Johnson was a player, and about got my ass beat for saying so. You did not say such things in the home I grew up in. However, that slowly changed and turned into intelligent discussions instead of an ass beating when the shocks wore off. Mark Lane's books were a good starting point, and after all these years I listen to and read Fetzer's analysis. Will one more fragment of truth ever change anything. Maybe.

      Cognitive dissonance was discussed briefly in the Podcasts. Dr. Fetzer is a professor of scientific reasoning and his encyclopedic dissertations are necessary. The point I attempted to raise is exactly that, that a core belief that a constitutional system based on a system of unaccountability is no different that the wife whose core belief does not allow her to recognize the abuse right in front of her face. Both Fetzer and Davidsson works are necessary and "correct."

      Interestingly enough, Dr.Fetzer wrote a review on Amazon of John McMurty's re-publication of "The Cancer Stage of Capitalism." which is one of the most profoundly intelligent books IMHO ever written. McMurtry is a moral philosopher who teaches that all questions must be founded in life value analysis.

      Delete
  8. 911truthncAugust 10, 2013 at 12:40 PM

    Hello People! YOU HAVE NO CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS!!
    The United States only exist in the District of Columbia. Do not believe me. Here is what the Supreme Court has to on the subject.

    U.S. Supreme Court in Lane County v. Oregon, 74 U.S. 7 Wall. 71 71
    (1868):
    "In summation, the United States, a federal corporation located in the District of Columbia, cannot exist without the freely associated compact states, but the freely associated compact states can exist without the United States",

    The Constitution in Article 1 Section 8 makes it clear:
    “To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District
    (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and
    the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States,
    and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;”

    I am working with Freeman Burt on a case in Colorado. A 70 year old created his own legal seal and put it on some legal documents. A Federal prosecutor charged him with counterfeiting the United State seal. Below is part of a response the man is filing in court:

    RESPONSE TO DOCUMENT 62

    Let it be clear that the “ten Miles square” has been reduced causing “such
    District” to be reduced by thirty-one square miles. These thirty-one square miles
    have been spread over the free states in order to accommodate “Places purchased
    by the Consent of the Legislature of the State”, therefore the “needful
    Buildings” which make up the District Courts are in fact part of these thirty-one
    square miles otherwise each court would be in violation of Article I Section 8,
    therefore the The United States District Court for the District of Colorado
    encompasses only the land under the Court house and nothing else, therefore any
    assertion by the U.S. Agents to the “District of Colorado” being a place where the
    United States can exercise its Legislature can only refer to the location of the
    Federal Court house, therefore dragging the Injured Claimant into this location in
    order to establish jurisdiction is fraud, kidnapping and a violation of Article 1
    Section 8.




    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 911truthncAugust 10, 2013 at 12:47 PM

      The US Constitution only applies to federal employees and their agents. No to the people of the United States.

      Just like IRS income taxes only apply to federal employees and their agents.

      To learn more go to youtube channel donotconsent83.

      The Link below is a radio show I did with Burt. It is interesting and fairly entertaining.

      UNITEDWESTRIKE Radio-Marathon,
      Freeman Burt (donotconsent83)+ guest Gary Gray (911trutncDotOrg)
      original post: http://youtu.be/2IwmhLLgS4w

      Delete
  9. AnonymousAugust 10, 2013 at 11:13 PM

    You might want to listen to this earlier conversation with Elias Davidsson and Dr. Fetzer. It talks about the continuing slander and libel of Muslims by the media and the government and possible legal solutions with focus on the Moussaoui trials of 2006 and 2008 during which the defense entered into "stipulations" with the prosecution, meaning there is an agreement that the unproven allegations of hijacked planes by Muslims has been proven in a court of law.

    Elias Davidsson - No Evidence of 911 Hijackers - Dynamic Duo 28 Oct 2008.mp3 (7.9 MB) (Modified: Oct 29 2008 11:30:39 AM)

    ReplyDelete
  10. AnonymousAugust 11, 2013 at 4:49 AM

    7cOae etc. again points to the superior argument of Davidsson which I certainly don't disagree with. "proven in a court of law" by stipulation is an admission yet another "artful" concealment of what surely we must all know.

    While I'm really not trying to beat it to death, the "legal system" is so corrupt that opposition is impossible. Attorney Lynne Stuart is senselessly dying in prison for supposedly "lending support to the enemy" for her representation of Sheik Rahman and his ties to Moussaoui. Stuart is a genuine champion of the rights of all to their day in court rooted in what is supposedly "the conscience and intelligence of all civilized nations." But what should be the obvious gets buried in the pseudo logic a and paramoralisms of the "war or terrorism" i.e. "the slander and libel of Muslim people."

    Kindly tell me, how can lending support to al CIA DUH be a crime punishable by slow death in a federal prison?

    ReplyDelete
  11. AnonymousAugust 11, 2013 at 5:09 AM

    but Jews DO NOT control USA totally? Well lets see
    They control the Federal Reserve totally. They control the SEC totally They control the too big to fail Banks totally
    They control the Media totally
    They control the Hollywood movie indust totally
    They control the Porn industry totally
    They control the White House staff totally
    They control the President totally
    They control the Congress almost totally
    They control the Supreme Court probably totally
    They control the NSA probably totally
    They control the State Department totally
    They control the City of Chicago totally
    They control the City of New York totally
    They control the state of New York totally
    They control the Defense industry totally
    They control so much of the USA I could sit here all day typing what they control and this post would be 30 feet long and still not totally contain everything that the Jews totally control. Finally they control the Vatican AND Eric Jon Phelps. I wouldn't be surprised if they don't control you.

    ReplyDelete
  12. UnknownAugust 11, 2013 at 11:45 AM

    Nobody controls me, not even my wife. But, to make 9/11 happen, they would have to be 100% in control - and they are NOT. Do people follow? ¨Somebody¨ would have to break the ranks. So, while Israel benefits from 9/11 in terms on war against Muslims, they are only a PART of the Establishment, but NOT 100% of the Establishment. The Establishment of the West consists of four pillars: Aristocrats, Theocrats, Plutocrats and Cryjptocrats. Jews are only a PART of Establishment, present in all four pillars, but, once again, NOT 100% of Establishment. I shall give you a clue: Vatican is the head of Theocracy (yes, the control hundreds of so-called protestant churches, as well). As for Eric Jon Phelps, well, he is ¨soft¨ on the Jews, it is obvious - but given his enemy (guess who?), he knows that he cannot fight a battle on several fronts, so he has to ¨soften up¨ on one front. One question:: WHO gave Jews all the organizations that you list, so that they could be a VISIBLE heads on top of them (so they can be whipping boys for all of you pundits)?!

    ReplyDelete
  13. AnonymousAugust 12, 2013 at 5:10 PM

    http://www.aldeilis.net/english/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1485&Itemid=107
    Moussaoui's trial: Open letter to Judge Leonie Brinkema,
    U.S. District Court,
    Alexandria, Virginia

    Your Honor, Judge Brinkema,

    I feel compelled to address you this letter regarding the Moussaoui case. I hope this is not yet too late to avoid a terrible miscarriage of justice.

    In the Jury Questionnaire Proceedings of February 6, 2006, which was posted on the web, you gave the following direction to the jury:

    "I assume every one of you is aware of what happened on September 11, 2001, and has watched or read extensive media coverage about that day and has watched news reports or read about Al Qaeda."

    Yet in the same directions you said:

    "Persons on trial must be judged not on the basis of what is in the news or popular media, but rather on the hard evidence presented in the courtroom during the trial."

    To my knowledge, no evidence was presented to the Moussaoui court which establishes the true facts on the events 11 September 2001, and the identities of the perpetrators of the crime committed on that day. Nor did the Court refer to any authoritative findings regarding these events by other courts.

    The Court simply assumed and asked the jury to assume that the facts reported in the media and in non-judicial reports were true. Such reliance on hear-say is contrary to principles of criminal law.

    On the base of these assumed facts, your Court asks the jurors to determine whether Moussaoui's silence while in detention had the causal effect to allow the perpetration of the above crime by nineteen named individuals, who have never been found guilty for the crime they are accused, and whose identities remain in question.

    I am concerned that your contradictory directions to the jury and the failure by your Court to establish, according to standards of evidence required in criminal law, that the crime of 9/11 was committed by the nineteen alleged hijackers, may represent a gross miscarriage of justice. I urge you, in the name of justice, to reconsider your decisions.

    Respectfully,

    Elias Davidsson
    Rekjavik, Iceland
    17 March 2006

    ReplyDelete
  14. AnonymousAugust 12, 2013 at 5:38 PM

    Brave Words by Dr. James Fetzer

    http://www.aldeilis.net/english/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1516:scholars-call-moussaoui-trial-a-charade-describe-accused-as-patsy&catid=117:court-case-moussaou

    Scholars Call Moussaoui Trial a "Charade;" See Constitutional Rights on Trial; Describe Accused as Patsy


    http://news.yahoo.com/s/prweb/20060421/bs_prweb/prweb375105_2

    Fri Apr 21, 9:16 AM ET

    (PRWEB) - Washington, DC (PRWEB) April 22, 2006 -- The trial holding Zacarias Moussaoui responsible for the horrors of 9/11 has all the marks of a political charade, according to Scholars for 9/11 Truth, a society of experts devoted to exposing falsehoods and establishing truths about the events of that day. "Even the most basic elements of due process have been violated," according to James H. Fetzer, its founder and co-chair, "by failing to prove that the accused had anything to do with 9/11. What we are seeing here tends to substantiate Charlie Sheen's allegations."


    Fetzer insists there has been a clever ruse to confuse the jury by using a confession to one plot as though it were evidence of complicity in another. As The New York Times (April 27, 2005) reported, Moussaoui "confessed" to having been involved in a plot to fly a plane into the White House to free Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman, who is serving a life sentence for terrorist acts. He denied that he was part of the 9/11 attacks in New York City and Washington, D.C.

    A Judicial "Shell Game"

    The mentally instable Moussaoui has now "confessed" that he and shoe-bomber Richard Reid were going to hijack a fifth aircraft and fly it into the White House, which was not the plot of which he was convicted. The Scholars believe government prosecutors have been playing a deceptive "shell game" by tying him to 9/11. Even the
    FBI has expressed doubts about Moussaoui's new version of events, since Reid left a will naming Moussaoui as his beneficiary, which was very odd if they were going to participate in a suicide mission together.

    The government claims Moussaoui should be put to death for failing to report everything he knew about 9/11, which it claims would have saved lives. "This is blatantly unconstitutional," says 9/11 Truth Scholar Webster Tarpley. "Under the Fifth Amendment to the US Constitution, nobody can be prosecuted for a failure to incriminate themselves.'"

    "This entire trial has been a farce," says Fetzer, a professor of philosophy at the University of Minnesota. "Government prosecutors have contaminated witnesses, elicited testimony they cannot corroborate, and -- according to multiple reports -- even forced Moussaoui to wear a 'stun belt'. 50,000 volts should be enough to keep anyone from straying from the script," he said. "It is very difficult to imagine how testimony taken under duress is admissible.".........

    ReplyDelete
  15. psheaAugust 13, 2013 at 11:54 PM

    This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  16. psheaAugust 13, 2013 at 11:55 PM

    This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  17. A. J. MacDonald, JrAugust 14, 2013 at 8:52 PM

    This Elias guy is correct. Fetzer is wrong. Our problem is not electronic voting machines, etc... our problem is the entire system is rotten. Fetzer is putting the cart before the horse. Once the people organize a movement outside the system, and take it over, then we can institute reforms. I've been trying to organize this sort of grass roots, unfunded, social media networking and communications based movement, which you can find by searching for Summer of Justice.

    ReplyDelete

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)