Come and Enjoy Yourself With The JAILers

It’s time to throw the gavel at “black collar” crime. At least, that’s what the backers of Jail4judges (Jail is an acronym for Judicial Accountability Initiative Law), are saying. Its members are supporting a proposed amendment to the Nevada Constitution that aims to crack down on judicial misconduct.

“I want good, honest judges in there,” says Christopher Hansen, chairman, or “jailer-in-chief” as he calls himself, of the Nevada “cell” or chapter (www.nevadajail4judges.org), a group claiming itself nonpartisan but whose rigmarole reeks of right-wing, conspiracy obsession. Hansen is founder of The First Christian Fellowship of Eternal Sovereignty, he’s been involved with the Independent American Party and is an active worker in the Protection of Marriage initiative – that hate-filled initiative that took money from homophobic conservatives and made liberals livid. (Not that we’re biased here.)

Hansen started pushing the Jail4judges initiative seven months ago in Las Vegas. If passed, it will establish a “check and balance” system investigating complaints against our judges – though we already have one.

“(We want) to establish a grand jury to sit over all the judges in Nevada so complaints can be filed with the grand jury only after all other legal recourse has been taken,” he says.

THROW THE BOOK AT ‘EM

Jail4judges originated in California six years ago. Presently, there are branches pushing to get the initiative passed in 41 states. Hansen thinks that, with the heavy influence of the Independent American Party, Nevada has a great shot at being one of the first.

The group’s main premise is to abolish the Nevada Commission on Judicial Discipline, which currently oversees judges, and to create a 25-member “Special Grand Jury,” made up of common folks who would have the power to sanction judges by levying fines and forfeitures, and remove them from the bench. Hansen beams at the enthusiastic reception he’s gotten so far.

“We’ve already had 70 people sign up; everyone from libertarians to Black Panthers to Reform Party members, from the far right, to the far left, and all over the middle, everyone has a story about a judge,” he says.

And the corruption’s nothing new.

“This has been going on for a long time,” he says. “There have been tremendous complaints about the judiciary for over 200 years. Thomas Jefferson said the one big mistake they made in the Constitution was the way they set up the judiciary. (It’s time to) fix the judiciary, and that is up to We the People. The people are the ones that are supposed to be in charge. Not lawyers, not judges.”

Hansen thinks judges have too much power. It’s to the point that they’re making law, he says, rather than ruling on it. His group thinks money and politics sway judges more than the Constitution. He says this initiative is the solution.

“The judges, because of the good-old-boy syndrome, are afraid to discipline their own. This removes sovereign immunity off the judges,” he says, never elaborating on just how this Special Grand Jury will be selected, or how it will, itself, avoid corruption. “The jury can determine if judges have acted in violation of the Constitution.”

CLOSE THE BOOK ON ‘EM

Though he’d not heard of the initiative before speaking with Las Vegas Weekly, Allen Lichtenstein, general counsel to the American Civil Liberties Union of Nevada, says the initiative sounds unnecessary and unconstitutional.

“The Nevada Commission on Judicial Discipline is a mechanism with guidelines that are already designed for that. Certainly (the notion that) there’s something in the constitution that would allow a group of citizens to decide whatever judges are doing (the) right or wrong thing is a romantic idea,” he says. “It does strike me as something that would not be constitutional. Some sort of self-style group that’s going to make determinations would be really problematic and would require extensive alteration of the Nevada Constitution and the way that the government is structured under the Constitution.”

The Nevada Commission on Judicial Discipline is our primary state agency for screening, investigating and disciplining judges. While they refuse to comment on the initiative, Executive Director Alan Rabkin explained how the current system works: “The procedure is that anybody, whether it’s a judge, attorney or member of the public, would file a complaint of misconduct to the office in Carson City. Once it’s received we check to make sure that a Nevada judge is involved, and schedule that complaint before the commission, which meets four times a year. At that meeting they decide either to dismiss that complaint because it’s not in our jurisdiction, or proceed to investigate the complaint or file formal or informal charges against the judge.”

Rabkin says the commission has removed many judges in the 25 years it’s been in place, and has disciplined “scores.”

The Administration Office of the Courts, the Nevada Judges Association, the American Judges Association, the national Judicial College in Reno and the state Supreme Court would not comment on the initiative. Apparently, judges are a pretty close-robed group.

Maybe they do have something to hide?

Los Angeles County Courthouse Corporation and others. e.g. Los Angeles County Law Enforcement-Public Facilities Corporation and (too many to name or to discover). The Crusaders think that there are over a dozen of these 'Public Benefit' Corporations hiding in LA County. If you are aware of any of the others, drop us a line.

These companies are established as Tax exempt 'charitable trusts' under the Federal Statute - 501(c)(4). They direct millions of dollars but are basically unaudited. The Los Angeles County Courthouse Corporation (LACCC), for example, controls projects for $632 million, but as yet has not registered with the California Department of Corporations even though they have issued outstanding securities for this amount.

They have established trust agreements with banks, lease and leaseback agreements with developers, securities agreements with underwriters, legal assistance from high powered law firms, yet they have no employees. All work is done 'outside' on authorization from an officer of the Company. e.g. bills are paid, rents are collected, legal services are performed by outsiders through agreements. As an example, O'Melveny & Myers pays the fees for this Corporation.

Is this a donation? Somehow, I think O'Melveny & Myers are not providing legal services for free.

The company has offices in the LA County facilities, claims no employees, but has all of its utilities, telephone, rent, etc. paid by the County.

Who answers the phone? A county employee, doing 'part time' work but receiving no pay. At least the Corporation claims to have no employees.

How are bills paid? We have a letter to Henry P. Eng, an auditor, who is told that he will receive a check for $4,730 and a like amount will be charged to the rent due to the corporation in order to balance the books. You see, the Corporation has issued bonds (Certificates of Participation) recently for $115 Million to build the Antelope Valley Courthouse. The Banc of America and four other underwriters have guaranteed the purchase of all of these certificates.

Who gets to purchase these 'tax free' bonds? Well, we'll probably never know because they were all registered to Cede & Co. who is the registrar and holds a confidential list of the purchasers.

How do the bonds get paid? Curious - the bonds are paid through rents paid by LA County for use of the Courthouse. Never mind that the Courthouse has already been purchased by the County or did we mean the Courthouse Corporation? The $115 million in development costs for the Antelope Valley Courthouse will be paid off in 2034 when the entire cost to the taxpayer will total $251 million, which is just base rent and does not include operating costs.

The Scheme

Most of the land for these projects is acquired through eminent domain. Then the County hires a developer to build. It pays the developer to build it and then - amazing! - gives the developer the right to charge rent to the County for the next 50 years. But, it immediately assigns these rental rights to the LACCC which then directs its trustee (the bank) to collect rent from the County which then pays the LACCC which then directs its trustee to send the rent money to the secret bondholders. (Prospectus for Certificates of Participation).

Where does the money come from? Well it comes from courthouse operations, you know - fines and sanctions and such.

Why does the County do this? We expect that it gets around the law that requires the voters to approve all new taxes.

Is this a tax? Heck no. Here is a charitable trust that is merely passing millions of bucks to its bondholders and showing that its net income is zero - every year - regular as clockwork.

Are the taxpayers getting their moneys worth? Good question. One that can only be answered if we knew how much money was coming in and going out. Since there are no expenses and no income, it is pretty tough to audit. The Crusaders are very concerned that these corporations are shoveling money to outsiders and bondholders with no ability for the taxpayer to see what is going on. One thing we do know - if you count the discounts given to underwriters and costs paid to law firms, like O'Melveny & Myers, the cost to the County was 2.4% of the $115 Million just to set up the Antelope Valley Courthouse deal. This is an exorbitant fee for such transactions.

We do know that Judge Michael J. Farrell is the President of the LACCC. He is a Superior Court Judge at the Van Nuys Courthouse when he is not acting as President of the LACCC. By the way, Judge Farrell was also working for the LACCC when it built the Van Nuys Courthouse. Nice to have a judge controlling what's going on there. The Judge's Corporation quit claimed (page1, page2) the Courthouse back to the County in 1997.

Funny though, Judge Farrell has never mentioned that he holds the position as Director of the Los Angeles County Courthouse Corporation. His form 700 (page1, page 2) shows no other positions other than judge. Judges are required by law to declare their other affiliations. But I guess since the Judge knew this was courthouse related, that there couldn't be a conflict here. Or could it? What if the judge is running short of rent payments this month? He could add a few thou onto his fines and easily make his quota. What a system - a Judge determines the fines that go to pay rent to his Corporation. The Judge is appointed by Supervisor Antonovich, who clearly separated himself from this conflict of interest by having Farrell sign a No Conflict of Interest form.

The articles of Incorporation for LACCC (page1, page2) authorize the Corporation to acquire property, issue bonds, collect rent, etc. but not pay taxes.

Is this a tax free corporation? We don't question the need to build courthouses or the need to raise money for such endeavors, but why go to all the trouble of setting up a Corporation that has to hide behind no employees, no pay, no income and stretch the laws that ordinary nonprofit corporations have to live under. This is a ridiculous state of affairs and it leads to massive corruption since the money is flowing freely and to whom.

http://www.johnnypumphandle.com/cc/LACCC/LACCC.htm

Imagine coming home one Saturday night after being at an evening concert performance, slipping some fish and chips in the oven, and sitting down relaxing when a terrorist military type of government thugs with badges wearing helmets and night-vision goggles suddenly burst into your home with military assault weapons, pointing them at your head, handcuffing you, pushing you around, demanding you answer questions while others ransacked your home.

You say, "Nay, this is America, not Beirut, Lebanon where such terrorist tactics are common." Welcome to Cobb County, Georgia where this happened Saturday night - Sunday morning September 2, 2001, to John Bailey, a computer programmer.

What Mr. Bailey was unaware of that evening there had played an episode of "America's Most Wanted," a nationwide program that  displays faces of the ten most wanted persons by the FBI, and that someone had called in and stated that they had thought he looked like the picture they had seen on their nationwide TV. show. The only problem was, he wasn't the man.

Notwithstanding this fact, one of the SWAT Team member's finger got a little heavy on the trigger causing his gun to discharge sending a stray bullet through the walls, traveling into his bathroom and putting a hole through his deodorant stick and causing it to land into the bathtub.

Now some of us have seen those billboards which say, "Oh, no, not one more child," showing bullet holes peppering the billboard implying all gun owners were out to shoot every child in sight. We are told, "If banning guns will save just one life, it's worth it." Apply the same logic to the police in this story. Imagine if a child had been struck while sleeping on the other side of the wall where the polices' stray bullet passed through, or the bullet went through a window headed for a neighbor's house across the street, but instead, it hit and killed a person who was just driving by. Would we still say, if banning police's guns will save just one life, it's worth it, or is there a different standard?

While admitting they had the wrong man, the FBI says through their spokesman Richard Kolco that these type raids are common and that the Cobb Police action here was appropriate.

Now consider the fearful ramifications of this. A TV show, "America's Most Wanted," displays several faces to an audience of tens of millions of viewers across the nation. Do any of them look like you?

But here we are not even talking about whether one matches you, but whether any one of these tens of millions of viewers may think that you might look like one they say on "America's Most Wanted." This means that everyone's face is in a rolling barrel. When will your face be drawn? Just how many of us look like someone else, or remind someone of someone else? Has America not come down to breaking into anyone's home just because someone thought you looked like a picture they saw on "America's Most Wanted?"

John Bailey has now retained the legal services of Atlanta, Georgia Attorney Stephen Berne over this issue.

Finally, I present this final thought. Does this not prove how lax our judicial system has become in cooperating with police as to issue them an instant warrant for that address based on such flimsy "evidence" as someone calling in saying that they thought someone's face looked like someone they say on TV with no other cohobating evidence?

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." Fourth Amendment - U.S. Constitution. How could any magistrate perceive the above meets such a Constitutional standard? America, Oh America, when will you see the light? It's time for J.A.I.L. before we sink into a terrorist country!

The facts of this story was carried in the Atlanta Constitution Newspaper, September 6, 2001.

A State Agency With the Power to 'Kidnap With Impunity'

For Heidi and Neil Howard, giving birth to a terminally ill baby seemed punishment enough. But that was before the Massachusetts Department of Social Services stepped into their lives.

The department came knocking at the door to their home in the form of a "home visitor" sent by the hospital when the Howards' first baby girl was born with terminal health problems.

According to the Massachusetts News, the "home visitor" was a social worker who found the home in disorder. The kitchen was in the process of being remodeled. Over Heidi's objections and without identifying the true purpose of the call, the "home visitor" opened closets and quizzed her about her marriage. Then, she filed a report about the messy home and "stress" in the family – stress undoubtedly caused by having a dying child.

Their situation was complicated by a restraining order that Heidi says she was blackmailed into filing: the DSS allegedly threatened to remove their two boys, 10-year-old Christopher and five-year-old Ethan, if Heidi did not register a complaint against her husband even though she insisted no abuse had occurred. With a restraining order on file, the DSS seized the boys in November 1999.

In February 2001, another daughter, Jessica, was seized from her nursing mother on the grounds that the other children were already in DSS custody. No court hearing has been held on the two boys. Chester Darling, an attorney for the Howards, has called the DSS "an agency ... that can kidnap children almost with impunity."

The Howards' case is not unique. Cases like theirs are occurring more frequently because state agencies now have a financial incentive to separate children from their parents and put them up for adoption.

The Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997 is explicit about the rewards. Under a section called "Adoption Incentive Payment," the act says a state can receive as much as $4,000 for adopting-out a child. There is even a provision offering technical assistance "through grants or contracts ... to assist States and local communities to reach their targets for increased numbers of adoptions and, to the extent that adoption is not possible, alternative permanent placements, for children in foster care."

The money from incentives, grants, and contracts goes directly into the coffers of child protection agencies when they adopt-out children.

Who benefits? "Social workers, diagnosticians, attorneys, foster homes and group homes, to name a few," says Susan Jackson of CPS Watch, a watchdog organization that monitors Child Protective Services. "These folks are fed by a child abuse industry to the tune of well over $12 billion."

Collectively, they form the Child Abuse Industry.

CPS Watch has been carefully monitoring child abuse investigations since 1998, the year after passage of the Adoption and Safe Families Act. Alaska, it found, reported 15,703 child maltreatment referrals from a child population of 192,261 – or one report for every twelve children – that year.

In 1998, according to a federal Department of Health and Human Services report, Kansas removed 1,872 children from their homes. But only 1,104 of the investigations substantiated the charges of abuse. The report states that 272 children were removed from families for reasons "unknown" in Ohio the same year.

In a recent issue of Social Work: Journal of the National Association of Social Workers, Leslie Doty Hollingsworth cautioned her colleagues about the ethical line they may be crossing.

"Because there are strong financial incentives to increase adoptions, practitioners may be compromised ethically if required to work for reunification and adoptive placement simultaneously," writes Hollingsworth, who teaches at the University of Michigan School of Social Work.

Some organizations believe that the threat to families is severe enough to warrant active non-cooperation with government agencies. For example, the Home School Legal Defense Association – which believes home schoolers are being particularly targeted – tells members of their community to contact them immediately for legal assistance if approached by a social worker.

But the warning came too late for the Howards.

The DSS wanted to put baby Jessica up for adoption, but on July 16th, Judge Robert Belmonte of the Framingham Juvenile Court ordered the baby returned to her parents. At last report, the DSS maintains that the two boys should be adopted out but seems willing to let an aunt and uncle become the adoptive parents.

That way, at least, the DSS would still receive its "adoption incentive payment."

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,30915,00.html

Web sites:

     http://www.defraudingamerica.com
     http://www.unfriendlyskies.com  
     http://www.druggingamerica.com 
     http://www.ombudsmen.org

October 2, 2001

John Ashcroft 
U.S. Attorney General 
U.S. Department of Justice 
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. 
Washington, DC 20530 Certified mail: 7000 1670 0012 2751 8650

Reference: Response to your request for information related to September 11, 2001 terrorist activities

To Mr. Ashcroft:

As a former federal air safety inspector-investigator for the Federal Aviation Administration and a confidant to many present and former federal agents, I have acquired a great amount of knowledge and evidence relating to the September 11 deadly hijackings and related matters.

For the purpose of this letter, reference is to the terrorist threat and how a culture within certain federal agencies aided and abetted and insured the success of the hijackers on September 11, 2001, and future terrorist attacks.

For credibility, I am a former federal inspector-investigator for the Federal Aviation Administration; a former airline pilot with significant piloting experience in the Middle East, carrying Muslim and Arab passengers to Mecca and Medina from various parts of the Middle East; years of contacts with federal agents who conveyed considerable information to me-including agents of the FBI, DEA, Customs, and CIA, including former heads of secret CIA airlines and CIA financial operations who had information relating to terrorists.

The success of the hijackers on September 11th, and many prior fatal hijackings, would not have occurred if the corruption that I documented did not exist. These conditions still exist and will undoubtedly play a key role in future terrorist attacks and other adverse actions against the people of the United States. This letter provides highlights of this misconduct and makes a record that you and your office have been informed of these matters. ....

While I was an FAA air safety inspector-investigator, holding federal air safety responsibilities for the most senior program at United Airlines, during a period of numerous airline crashes, I documented a pattern of misfeasance, malfeasance, nonfeasance, and corruption within the Federal Aviation Administration.

Among the areas of FAA misconduct were pressure and threats against federal air safety inspectors not to report or act upon major air safety and even criminal activities, despite the repeated occurrence of fatal airline crashes due to these problems; refusal to act upon reports requiring changes to prevent hijackings that I and other federal air safety inspectors made, and many other areas of major air safety violations for which the FAA had a legal duty to take corrective action.

Compounding this misconduct, inspectors making these reports were harassed and threatened, their official reports destroyed, and their lives and careers adversely affected. This is the deadly culture that resulted in many fatal airline crashes, including the prior airline crash into New York City, by United Airlines, that was the world’s worst air disaster at that time.

The cover-up of the corruption within the FAA made possible the continuation of the federal offenses and the associated fatalities. The September 11, 2001, tragedies with over 6,000 deaths were simply another consequence of the internal FAA problems and the cover-up of 
these problems by Justice Department personnel.

I documented these FAA offenses while I was an FAA inspector, and proved their relationship to several specific airline crashes, which included the earlier United Airlines crash into New York City. The hard-core corrupt and criminal misconduct within the FAA, going into the FAA administrator’s office, can be associated with years of specific airline crashes, and constitutes substantial evidence showing how it insured the success of the September 11, 2001, air tragedies.

Throughout this period of fraud-related air tragedies, Justice Department personnel repeatedly blocked efforts to expose these serious federal 
offenses, thereby aiding and abetting the FAA misconduct, which in turn insured the success of the hijacking terrorists. The available evidence supports this relationship. And now, the same Justice Department is covering up for the wrongdoings that in this latest instance took the lives of 6,000 people!

Highlights Of FAA Corruption Making Possible Major Air Disasters

In my role as a federal air safety inspector, assisted by many years of experience as an airline captain, navy flight instructor, and navy patrol plane commander in World War II, I made numerous reports and the required corrective actions addressing air safety and criminal violations affecting air safety. Many of these reports required prompt corrective actions for which the FAA had responsibility to act. In almost every case, the reports that I and other inspectors made were ignored, despite the pattern of resulting fatal airline crashes.

Nonfeasance Compounded By Tragedy-Related Criminal Misconduct

The reaction to these official reports included (1) warnings not to submit such reports as the office would look bad when airline accidents resulted from the problems; (2) felony destruction of the official reports which were often followed by resulting fatal airline crashes; (3) threats, harassment, and retaliatory actions against federal air safety inspectors when the officially required reports continued to be made. ....

The actions I took, which started initially in addressing the corruption blocking the federal government from meeting its air safety responsibilities, included the following:

     · I acted as an independent prosecutor, conducting a four-month-long FAA hearing during which I obtained testimony and considerable evidence showing this culture of malfeasance, misfeasance, nonfeasance, corruption, and during the hearing, perjury and subornation of perjury. Two fatal crashes occurred in my area of responsibilities during that hearing that were caused by the very same air safety problems and criminal activities that I documented. Transcripts and documentation is 
available to show this relationship.

     · I reported these federal offenses to the National Transportation Safety Board (Bureau of air safety in the CAB at that time), to the FBI, to several U.S. attorneys, and then to the Department of Justice in Washington. Possibly because of the gravity of the criminal activities and the direct relationship to many fatal airline crashes, the response was a cover-up and obstruction of justice.

     · This response made possible the continuation of the air safety and criminal violations, and as expected, a continuation of the resulting crashes and deaths. (These matters are detailed and documented in the third edition of Unfriendly Skies.)

     · Seeking to circumvent the obstruction of justice, I appeared before a federal grand jury in Denver. Although individual jurors admitted the gravity of what I was stating, the blockage by the U.S. attorney kept the jury from taking any action.

     · As a federal agent, I filed formal complaints with FBI director J. Edgar Hoover, and encountered a pattern of cover-ups and false statements. ....

     · Refusing to be a part of the criminal activities in the FAA, I resigned from the FAA. As the air disasters continued to occur from the FAA culture, I exercised other federal remedies. I filed the first of several lawsuits in Ninth Circuit federal courts seeking to report the criminal activities to a federal judge under the federal crime reporting statute and under a citizen’s right to seek a court order forcing federal officials to perform their legal duties and to halt their unlawful conduct. District and 
appellate judges admitted the gravity of the allegations made in the lawsuit, but after U.S. attorneys filed motions to block the lawsuits, they were dismissed. These dismissals were followed by even worse air disasters due to the same FAA culture.

     · Seeking to circumvent the massive cover-ups and obstruction of justice, I used my considerable assets to make the public aware of this pattern of corruption by people in key government positions. I authored and published the first edition of Unfriendly Skies, (which is now in its third edition). I also started appearing as a guest and expert on hundreds of radio and television shows. These activities were funded by my real estate investments and threatened to expose people in key positions in 
the three branches of the federal government. 

Discovering Other Areas Of Corruption In Government

As my books and radio and television appearances became known, other government agents provided me information and documentation on still other areas of corruption in government that could be expected on the basis of the corruption that I discovered as a federal inspector.

The gravity of the additional information and documentation caused me to again exercise the responsibilities under the federal crime reporting statute (Title 18 U.S.C. § 4) to report these matters to federal judges, who had the mandatory responsibility to receive the information and evidence. Their reaction would eventually insure the success of the September 11, 2001, hijackers:

     · Federal judges repeatedly refused to receive the data and evidence that I and my group of other former and present federal agents sought to report. These federal offenses included the documented corruption in the FAA and by people in other key government positions. These corrupt and criminal activities and the standard obstruction of justice offenses are described in three books: Unfriendly Skies, Defrauding America, and Drugging America.

     · Federal judges issued unlawful and unconstitutional orders barring me, for the remainder of my life, from access to the district and appellate courts. These orders (1) blocked the reporting of these criminal activities, and (2) blocked me from defending against judicial acts that corruptly seized the $10 million in real estate that funded my exposure of the criminal and corrupt activities. (Further information about the actions taken to block my exposure of the criminal activities and the involvement of federal judges can be found in a pending federal lawsuit at the Internet site:

     http://www.defraudingamerica.com/lawsuit_reno.html.

     · When I discovered other criminal activities from government agents and sought to report these matters, as required under the federal crime reporting statute, Justice Department prosecutors and federal judges charged me with criminal contempt of court (on the basis that I had been barred for the remainder of my life from federal court access). From 1986 to 1995, these two groups had me charged me with criminal contempt of court for attempting to report these criminal activities. This retaliation, for reporting matters that made the World Trade Center 1993 bombing and September 11, 2001, hijackings possible reflects the role of Justice Department personnel and federal judges in the corruption that made possible the death of 6,000 people on September 11, and made possible other crimes against the American people by persons acting under cover of government positions.

Justice Department Corruption Aided Funding Of Terrorist Cells

Justice Department misconduct aided and abetted various terrorist cells located in the New Jersey and New York areas which were later implicated in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing and the September 11, 2001, hijackings. Details of these activities, as provided to me by government agents, are found in the book I wrote, Drugging America. The book describes how Justice Department personnel blocked federal agents from arresting people whose drug activities funded terrorist cells, some of which subsequently bombed the World Trade Center in 1993 and the cells who planned to place bombs on 11 U.S. airliners departing from Far East locations.

Evidence indicates that some of these same terrorist cells, protected by Justice Department personnel, were responsible for the September 11, 2001, hijackings. Further aid to the hijackers was the corrupt culture in the FAA that had been covered-up by Justice Department personnel for decades, as proven by my letters and judicial records.

In addition to blocking the drug-related funding of the terrorists, Justice Department personnel falsely charged, prosecuted, and brought about the imprisonment of the head of a federal drug task force who was targeting the drug activities that funded the terrorist cells. My attempt to report these activities under the federal crime reporting statute was blocked by federal judges and Justice Department personnel, who then retaliated against me for seeking to make these reports.

(Details in my three books and on the web sites: http://www.defraudingamerica.com; http://www.unfriendlyskies.com; and http://www.druggingamerica.com.)

FBI and CIA Personnel Making SAM Missiles Available to Afghan Terrorists

Another of the many areas of misconduct involving Justice Department personnel-which provided further aid to the terrorist groups-occurred in 1995. General Rashid Dostum, head of one of the groups constituting the Afghanistan Northern Alliance, who was fighting Osama bin Laden and fighting to keep the Taliban from taking control of Afghanistan, offered to provide the United States with several dozen surface-to-air missiles and possibly as many as 100. Negotiations arising out of this offer      occurred in Los Angeles and involved CIA and FBI personnel, and a friend of mine who was at one time the titular head of a secret CIA financial operation based in Hawaii. It was also known that Afghan terrorists were bidding on these missiles, which could be expected to be used against U.S. airliners.

These contacts with a key fighting group in northern Afghanistan provided the United States an excellent opportunity to obtain their cooperation to fight the Afghan terrorists, including Osama bin Laden, and prevent the Taliban group from taking control of Afghanistan.

FBI and CIA personnel involved in the Los Angeles negotiations refused to accept the surface-to-air missiles and refused to cooperate with General Dostum. This CIA and FBI conduct caused my CIA source great concern for subsequent missile attacks upon U.S. airliners from surface to air missiles that would be obtained by Afghan terrorists, including the Osama bin Laden al Quida group. ....

Withholding this information from the public keeps the same culture, the same people, the same adversaries, in the decision-making process as the United States seeks to prevent more terrorist activities!

Withholding this information protects those whose corrupt acts played a key role in the 6,000 recent deaths and the incalculable financial and other harm inflicted upon the United States. The people perpetrating these acts that insured the success of the hijackers are also adversaries to America and its people.

Protecting them subverts the process necessary by America to defend against the terrorist threat. Based upon the 40 years of documented Justice Department misconduct, the same cover-up can be expected to continue, which will insure further harm to the American people.

Sincerely,