Category Archives: Law

PATRICK LAWRENCE: The Press Reckoning on Russiagate

Jeff Gerth’s Columbia Journalism Review article should be earth shattering, and it would be if anyone in the mainstream media paid attention to it. But they won’t. From Patrick Lawrence at consortiumnews.com:

Jeff Gerth’s investigation for The Columbia Journalism Review exposes the dark heart of the news media’s coverage of alleged Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. elections. 

Jack Anderson in 1973. (Rochester Institute of Technology, Public domain, Wikimedia Commons)

In the autumn of 1973, Jack Anderson, the wonderful iconoclast of the Washington press corps, published a syndicated column revealing that a Hearst Newspapers reporter had spied on Democratic presidential candidates in the service of Richard Nixon’s 1972 reelection campaign.

At the time of Anderson’s column, Seymour Frieden was a Hearst correspondent in London.  Anderson also reported, not quite in passing, but nearly, that Frieden tacitly acknowledged working for the Central Intelligence Agency.

Anderson’s column was as a pebble tossed in a pond. The ripples grew, if slowly at first.

William Colby, the C.I.A.’s recently named director, responded with a standard agency maneuver: When news is going to break against you, disclose the minimum, bury the rest, and maintain control of what we now call “the narrative.”

Colby “leaked” to a Washington Star–News reporter named Oswald Johnston. The paper fronted Johnston’s piece on Nov. 30, 1973. “The Central Intelligence Agency,” it began, “has some three dozen American journalists working abroad on its payroll as undercover informants, some of them full-time agents, the Star–News has learned.”

April 24, 1975: C.I.A. Director William Colby, right, with Vice President Nelson Rockefeller, left, and Deputy Assistant For National Security Affairs Brent Scowcroft during a break in a meeting of the National Security Council. (Public domain, Wikimedia Commons)

Continue reading→

RFK, Jr. to Kim Iversen: ‘Nobody Ever Complied Their Way Out of Totalitarianism’, by Brenda Baletti, Ph.D.

People surrendered without a shot. From Brenda Baletti, Ph.D. and Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., at childrenshealthdefense.org:

In an appearance this weekend on “The Kim Iversen Show,” Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., and journalist Kim Iversen discussed resistance during the pandemic, strategies for rebuilding democracy and the power of fear — and of new technologies — to control dissent.

In an appearance this weekend on “The Kim Iversen Show,” Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., and journalist Kim Iversen discussed resistance during the pandemic, strategies for rebuilding democracy and the power of fear — and of new technologies — to control dissent.

Iversen called Kennedy, chairman and chief litigation counsel of Children’s Health Defense, “one of the most prominent voices against the authoritarian pandemic response.”

On the subject of dissent, Iversen asked Kennedy what he thought made a heterogeneous group of people, about 30% of the American population, question or resist the official COVID-19 narrative when most people went along with it.

Kennedy pointed to a history of CIA research experiments, called MKUltra, which involved manipulating the human mind.

The most famous of these, he said, was the Milgram experiment, in which psychologist Stanley Milgram studied the willingness of research subjects from all walks of life to obey an authority figure who instructed them to perform acts that conflicted with their personal conscience.

Sixty-seven percent of people in the experiment were willing, against their better judgment, to cause pain and even potential death to others when ordered to — while 33% of the subjects refused.

“It has struck me many, many times in the last year that we’re all now in the grips of this huge Milgram experiment,” Kennedy said, adding:

“We have a Dr. Anthony Fauci, who is this trusted authority, who’s telling us to do things that we know are wrong — like censor speech, like close all the churches in the country for a year with no scientific evidence, no citation, no public hearings, no public debate … who’s ordering us to put on masks, even though he admitted a week before that masks don’t work, who’s ordering us to close every business in the country — 3.3 million businesses — with no due process, no just compensation, in violation of the Constitution, who’s telling us to get rid of jury trials, the Sixth and Seventh Amendments.”

But in the Constitution, “there is no pandemic exception,” Kennedy said, regardless of the magnitude of a crisis.

Continue reading→

How the US gov’t built a shadow structure that enabled COVID vax ‘bioterrorism’, by Patrick Delaney

There isn’t an infectious disease exception in the U.S. Constitution, so the government simply ignored that document. From Patrick Delaney at lifesitenews.com:

‘Congress and U.S. Presidents legalized and funded the overthrow of the U.S. Constitution… through a massive domestic bioterrorism program relabeled as a public health program… on behalf of the World Health Organization and its financial backers,’ writes legal researcher Katherine Watt.

Featured Image

Editor’s Note: This article is the fourth of a series on the role of the U.S. government in orchestrating a bioterrorism attack upon their own citizens utilizing “biowarfare agents” marketed as “COVID-19 vaccines.” The prior three articles can be accessed here, here, and here.

(LifeSiteNews) — With exceptional detail and comprehensiveness, a paralegal researcher and journalist from Pennsylvania has documented the extensive “pseudo-legal” structures put in place over decades which allowed the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) to execute its “COVID-19 vaccine” bioterrorism attack upon its own citizens, killing and maiming many thousands with complete impunity.

Katherine Watt identifies herself as “a Roman Catholic, American, Gen-X writer, paralegal, printmaker, wife and mother.” Prior to becoming a paralegal, Watt earned a philosophy degree from Penn State University, worked as a reporter for small newspapers, and then eventually founded Bailiwick News in 2016.

Former pharmaceutical executive and researcher Sasha Latypova, who has been a source of several important bombshell reports over the last year, has more recently relied on Watt’s documentation and strongly encouraged “everyone to subscribe to her and read her work. It’s an encyclopedia of law references, meticulously researched going back years describing how the [pseudo-legal] structure [for the government’s bioterrorism program] was put in place and what it entails.”

“I’m saying ‘pseudo-legal’ because you cannot legalize a crime,” Latypova explained in a December video lecture. “They made it on paper legal… [but] none of this is lawful because they are committing a crime.”

Continue reading→

How the “Unvaccinated” Got It Right, by Robin Koerner

Investigation and simple logic should have kept many people who got vaccinated from doing so. From Robin Koerner at 2ndsmartestguyintheworld.substack.com:

Scott Adams is the creator of the famous cartoon strip, Dilbert. It is a strip whose brilliance derives from close observation and understanding of human behavior. Some time ago, Scott turned those skills to commenting insightfully and with notable intellectual humility on the politics and culture of our country.

Like many other commentators, and based on his own analysis of evidence available to him, he opted to take the Covid “vaccine.”

Recently, however, he posted a video on the topic that has been circulating on social media. It was a mea culpa in which he declared, “The unvaccinated were the winners,” and, to his great credit, “I want to find out how so many of [my viewers] got the right answer about the “vaccine” and I didn’t.”

“Winners” was perhaps a little tongue-in-cheek: he seemingly means that the “unvaccinated” do not have to worry about the long-term consequences of having the “vaccine” in their bodies since enough data concerning the lack of safety of the “vaccines” have now appeared to demonstrate that, on the balance of risks, the choice not to be “vaccinated” has been vindicated for individuals without comorbidities.

What follows is a personal response to Scott, which explains how consideration of the information that was available at the time led one person – me – to decline the “vaccine.” It is not meant to imply that all who accepted the “vaccine” made the wrong decision or, indeed, that everyone who declined it did so for good reasons.


  1. Some people have said that the “vaccine” was created in a hurry. That may or may not be true. Much of the research for mRNA “vaccines” had already been done over many years, and corona-viruses as a class are well understood so it was at least feasible that only a small fraction of the “vaccine” development had been hurried.

Continue reading→

Theater of the Absurd in J6 Courtrooms, by Julie Kelly

This kind of cruel absurdity should spark a revolution. From Julie Kelly at americanconservative.com:

As judges hand down one absurd sentence after another, one might be inclined to laugh at the absurdity of it all except, of course, it’s not funny.

The Department of Justice carefully crafted the dramatic moment in court.

A federal prosecutor handed an enclosed paper bag to an FBI agent responsible for investigating members of the Proud Boys, now on trial for seditious conspiracy related to their participation in the events of January 6. The bag contained “evidence of the unlawful entry of the United States Capitol on January 6, 2021 and evidence of the disruption to the certification of the 2020 presidential election,” FBI Special Agent Elizabeth D’Angelo told assistant U.S. Attorney Nadia Moore on Wednesday.

D’Angelo cautiously pulled the evidence out of the bag to present to the jury.

Spectators in D.C. District Court Judge Timothy Kelly’s courtroom were on the edge of their seats. What would the mystery bag reveal?

Would it disclose the group’s intricate but failed plot to overthrow the government? A detailed list of weapons the “seditionists” planned to use in service of their dastardly deed? Names of targeted officials?

A nervous hush fell over the room; sweat beads formed on furrowed brows. Finally, the big moment arrived.

It was—a set of challenge coins.

Moore: Can you give a brief description of what they are?

D’Angelo: They are challenge coins. This one is black and gold—and this package contains four black and gold colored challenge coins.

Moore: Are these the same coins that were seized from Zachary Rehl’s home?

D’Angelo: Yes.

What?

Like many organizations, the Proud Boys produce coins that depict the group’s motto and attitude. When multiple armed FBI agents raided Rehl’s Philadelphia residence in March 2021, terrorizing his pregnant wife and pillaging his home, investigators found not one but several such coins.

Continue reading→

Raging Bulls in Blue: The Deadly Toll of Warrior Policing on Steroids, by John and Nisha Whitehead

A lot of cops already have power complexes. The worst thing you can do is put that on steroids. From John and Nisha Whitehead at rutherford.org:

“This is warrior policing on steroids.”—Paul Butler, law professor

That the police officers charged with the beating death of 29-year-old Tyre Nichols are Black is a distraction.

Don’t be distracted.

This latest instance of police brutality is not about racism in policing or black-on-black violence.

The entire institution is corrupt.

The old guard—made up of fine, decent, lawful police officers who took seriously their oath of office to serve and protect their fellow citizens, uphold the Constitution, and maintain the peace—has given way to a new guard hyped up on their own authority and the power of the badge who have almost absolute discretion to decide who is a threat, what constitutes resistance, and how harshly they can deal with the citizens they were appointed to “serve and protect.”

Memphis’ now-disbanded Scorpion unit provides a glimpse into the looming crisis in policing that has gone beyond mere militarization.

Unfortunately, while much has been said about the dangers of police militarization, a warrior mindset that has police viewing the rest of the citizenry as enemy combatants, and law enforcement training that teaches cops to shoot first and ask questions later, little attention has been paid to the role that “roid rage,” triggered by anabolic steroid use and abuse by police, may contribute to the mounting numbers of cases involving police brutality.

Given how prevalent steroid use is within the U.S. military (it remains a barely concealed fixture of military life) and the rate of military veterans migrating into law enforcement (one out of every five police officers is a military veteran), this could shed some light on the physical evolution of domestic police physiques.

Continue reading→

It’s a Riot . . ., by Eric Peters

Some violence and death is more acceptable than other violence and death. From Eric Peters at ericpetersautos.com:

One man gets beaten to death by government workers and riots ensue in several cities. Thousands of people are poisoned to death by the government at the behest of the corporations who control it and there’s hardly a protest. Those that did occur were also actually peaceful. The CDC was not firebombed. Fauci wasn’t attacked in the streets. The legions of people who willingly served as the enforcers of “lockdowns,” “mask” mandates and so on haven’t had to face angry mobs demanding justice.

It’s an interesting incongruity, isn’t it?

Almost as if – per Orwell’s Two Minutes’ Hate – the government encourages (and certainly doesn’t do much to stop) certain outpourings of rage. Perhaps for just that reason; i.e., to harmlessly defuse what might otherwise be dangerously percolating anger that could threaten the government.

The beatdown administered to Tyre Nichols was gratuitous, savage and – ultimately – murderous. So also – and more so – the way an entire nation was beaten down.

In Nichols’ case, it was five against one. Those odds are pretty good – relative to having the entire apparatus of the government-corporate nexus deployed against each and every one of us.

Continue reading→

Was Martin Luther King a Russian Red? By Jacob G. Hornberger

A jury took only an hour to decide that federal officials conspired to kill Martin Luther King. That’s one of those facts you don’t hear much about. From Jacob G. Hornberger at fff.org:

Today, federal officials stumble over themselves to show how much they revere Martin Luther King. They’ve even created a federal holiday to honor him.

Not so back when King was alive, however. During that time, U.S. officials were convinced that King was a Red, and they were also convinced that the Reds, especially the Russian Reds, were coming to get us.

Do you remember the movie The Russians Are Coming! The Russians Are Coming!? The title of that movie captures perfectly the mindset that the U.S. national-security establishment had inculcated in the American people. Everyone was convinced that the commies were everywhere and that they were going to take over the federal government and teach communism in America’s socialist public-school system.

The Pentagon, the CIA, the NSA, and the FBI were also convinced that the civil-rights movement was a communist front, one that was preparing the ground for a Russian invasion of the United States. The leaders of the civil-rights movement, especially King, were considered to be covert, unregistered agents of the Russian Reds.

In 1999, King’s widow, Coretta Scott King, filed a lawsuit in Memphis against a man named Loyd Jowers and “other unknown co-conspirators,” in which she alleged that the official story of King’s assassination in 1968 was false. According to Wikipedia, King’s attorney, William Pepper, presented 70 witnesses and thousands of documents. After only one hour of deliberations, the jury reached a unanimous verdict finding that federal officials conspired to assassinate King.

Continue reading→

How Local Cops Get Your Bank Records, by Andrew Napolitano

It’s hard to keep up with all the ways all levels of government are shredding the Fourth Amendment. From Andrew Napolitano at lewrockwell.com:

This column has recently outlined the specious arguments offered by the feds when they have been caught spying on ordinary Americans. They argue that the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution — which requires a search warrant prior to spying — only applies to law enforcement and not to domestic surveillance. This argument not only defies the plain language of the amendment; it defies history and common sense.

The language of the amendment protects the privacy of all “people” by affirmatively declaring that the right to privacy in “persons, houses, papers, and effects” may only be violated by the government by the use of a search warrant, signed by a judge, based on probable cause of crime, and which specifically describes the place to be searched or the person or thing to be seized.

The language of the amendment, and the language of statutes and court rules written at the state and federal levels to implement the procedures for seeking search warrants, makes no distinction on the nature of what the government seeks — evidence of crime or evidence of foreign interests.

Stated differently, a fair and neutral reading of the amendment makes it clear that the probable cause and specificity requirements were intended not only to protect privacy from Big Brother but also to compel the government to focus on crimes after they occur and not on predicting them.

Continue reading→

When Truth is No Defense, by Eric Peters

They’ve criminalized telling the truth. From Eric Peters at ericpetersautos.com:

It used to be that truth was an absolute defense against libel – the latter being, essentially, a claim that information conveyed to others is false and defamatory.

As in “misinformation.”

Well, the wheel has turned, hasn’t it? In fact, it threatens to run us over – those of us who have the audacity to give voice to the truth.

As for example the doctors in California who are being threatened with what amounts to state-enforced cancellation of their privilege (italics for a reason; more follows below) to practice medicine if they dare to tell their patients the truth when it conflicts with the falsehoods insisted upon by the state with regard to the Holy Virus and all attending state-corporate promulgated narratives about treatments for it. It does not matter that – for example – it is perfectly true Ivermectin is an effective treatment.

Nor that it is true – it is admitted to, finally – the the so-called “vaccines” do not ” stop the spread” and do carry significant risks. But if a doctor shares these truths with his patients, he risks more than being banned from Twitter or Facebook.

Continue reading→