Revolution or Extinction:

Revelations and Demands

A call for the total exposure and radical transformation of the U.S. military-industrial-organized crime complex 

© 1999 (as “A New Millennium Revolutionary Manifesto”)

Mark Lee Krangle

Mark Lee Krangle is a GNN.TV contributor-- http://lot08.gnn.tv/

 

contact: [email protected]

 

 

For Bernie who was persecuted as mentally ill in Pittsburgh because she insisted she knew my Jimmy Carter secrets were true.

 

 

 

Acknowledgement

Professor Kenneth Burke (1897-1993) was a brilliant language theorist, and literary and social critic.  His writings helped to inspire an extraordinary brainstorming session that took place in April 1976 between Democratic presidential primary candidate Jimmy Carter and me.  We used concepts I borrowed from Burke’s "dramatic pentad" as an organizing tool for projecting the foreign policy of Carter’s soon-to-be-won presidency.  Jimmy and I began our stunning tête-à-tête with a detailed vision of the Camp David Framework for Peace.  We went on to project, also in extraordinary detail, the Iranian, Afghanistan and Nicaraguan revolutions, and other events and policies that would unfold during his campaign and his presidency.

 

Corporate Imperialism and Organized Crime dominate American Politics, Bureaucracy, Media and Society.

 

Table of Contents

1. Introduction

2. Background

3. Scripting the Carter Presidency focuses on an hour and fifteen-minute 1976 presidential primary campaign conversation between Jimmy Carter and the author. Our brainstorming produced a script of truly Biblical proportions that has yet to be discussed in the mainstream media.

4. The Military-Industrial-Organized Crime Complex criticizes America as a nearly totalitarian system that includes a clandestine hierarchy going way beyond Hillary Clinton’s complaint about "a vast right wing conspiracy."  The will and the objectives of rich special interests imbedded with both organized crime and government intelligence assets dominate the political as well as the economic spheres of American life.

5. The Fixing of the Presidency  (from a 1993 essay of the same title by the author) gives a brief review of rigged elections in America’s quadrennial super-event from the 1960 Kennedy-Nixon setup through the fixing of Jimmy Carter into the 1976 presidency to the reasons for President George H.W. Bush’s 1992 taking a dive.

6. GULAG OMNIUS takes a look at some secret high-tech totalitarian methods that should alert the reader to the absolute necessity that the government turns over all of the facts to the public. The sooner the facts about the programs discussed here are found out, the more likely it will be that real democracy may be able to develop in a future America.  In the meantime, a situation has been created that equals Nazism.

7. What Goes up Must Come down will very possibly wind up causing more rage, havoc and irreversible damage to America than all of the other aspects of totalitarian America put together.  An overview is presented of CIA intrusion into the stock markets of the world.

8. Terror’s Claim on America attempts to explain why so many groups and individuals at home and abroad hate the United States government. Such entities are becoming increasingly more able and more likely to carry out large-scale attacks against American targets.

9. Higher Intelligence and History introduces the author's theory in development about the God of our universe. It hypothesizes motives and goals for interventions in human history by higher intelligence. 

10. Utopia or Oblivion is named after the book written by R. Buckminster Fuller. This unit tries to provide positive motivation for America to change its attitudes, thinking and conduct in the face of possible extinction.

11. Demands to the President and the Congress of the United States reinforce the implication always present in this work that the American people may finally have to resort to armed force in order to achieve social justice and democracy. An ideal solution is projected and radical demands are made.

12. Conclusion reviews the predictions of this work which center on the impending fall of America and a judgment of all nations.

 Postscript discusses the author’s personal experience in the Omnipresent U.S. Government Ultra-secret Labyrinth of American Geopolitics—the Omnius Gulag or GULAG OMNIUS.

 

Appendix I: This author's 2004 legal brief submitted to the 2^nd Federal Circuit Court of Appeals of the southern District of New York, following incarceration for 40 months in the U.S. Bureau of Prisons for transmitting an e-mail to ABC.online, the New York Times, Time Magazine and Comments@PaineWebber on May 19^th and May 20^th of 1999. The e-mails were intended to get ABC and Paine Webber to discuss the claims in the e-mails and this Manifesto, but the government claimed that the intent was only to extort the corporations for money.

 

Appendix II: Author’s pro se Petition/Brief for Writ of Certiorari in the Supreme Court of the United States October Term, 2005, after losing the appeal in the 2^nd Circuit.

 

 

 

2009 Preface

I wrote all of the following in 1998 and 1999. I have made some grammatical and stylistic corrections, and some formatting changes over the years since that time, but the content remains the same as in the July, 1999 electronic manuscript referred to under the title of “A New Millennium Revolution,” submitted to the U.S. Southern District of New York Federal Court during the my trial, which is reviewed in the appendices at the end of this manuscript.  The original manuscript “A New Millennium Revolution was acknowledged for copyright by the U.S. Library of Congress on August 30, 1999 under the registration number TXu 916-536.

 

I have given credit to writers and thinkers by name within the text wherever I have used someone else’s words or ideas, but I have only provided a few formal citations for reference.  This is an experimental work, which combines elements of a memoir with the conviction of a manifesto, and at the same time invites the reader to participate as if she or he were studying a textbook on history and theory-building.  It is meant as a foundation for a work in progress to be continued by a new millennium revolutionary movement.

I. Introduction

The late Professor Kenneth Burke told a seminar I attended at the University of Pittsburgh in the seventies that whenever you look behind any scene you will inevitably find yourself in some other full fledged scene that should be looked at carefully in its own right. My hope is that if you realized the extent of the corruption in what Burke called “the scene behind the scene" of ruling class America, the role that money and privilege play in access to politicians, bureaucrats and the press, you would decide to join me in a revolutionary struggle for justice and democracy.  I am convinced that a great judgment of the United States of America, and of all nations, is about to unfold and that you will be a part of it—whether you want to be or not.  That is, I predict that you are going to be a part of “the fall” of America" even if you just turn out to be one of its nameless victims. 

 

Several contemporary political analysts have provided very serious insight into the projection of a fall of America. Perhaps most persistently among them has been Reverend Louis Farrakhan.  I have to give him credit for that vision and for his anger at centuries of U.S. racism and imperialism.  Way before I read about Farrakhan’s projections of a fall of America, though, when I was just a little boy, a member of the Mafia in New York chose the same term, “the fall,” to describe what he told me that he and his people were dedicated to engineering ahead of what might otherwise be a much longer period  for the decline and fall of a neo-Roman empire like the United States of America.  He told me that the fall of America was going to happen around the turn of the new millennium.  This manifesto aims to shed some additional light on some of the bases for a fall of America.   

 

Certain aspects of the coming fall of America, which will clearly be part of a giant collapse of the world economy, should be recognizable by anyone. Transnational corporations are unable to control dedicated religious, ideological and criminal groups imbedded within nations all over the world.  What is not so obvious is that a secret United States national security government has grown itself since World War II and has facilitated terrorist events to unfold over recent decades as part of its own strategy to expand American power in the world and its own centrality in the largely veiled totalitarian military-industrial-organized crime complex that America has become since World War II. 

 

Since World War II, such acts have included: false U.S. intelligence reports about the Tonkin Gulf incident to facilitate the intensification of the Vietnam War; setting up KAL 007 to be shot down in order to gain acceptance for the installation of U.S. medium range nuclear missiles in Europe; purposely allowing the U.S. Marine barracks in Lebanon to be bombed as an excuse to exit and as a trampoline for the surefire invasion of Grenada; the Iran-Contra affair to provide arms and money for a regional war and a counter-revolution; mass murdering then Commerce Secretary Ron Brown along with a whole group of important Silicon Valley executives to gain control of leading NASDAQ corporations through prearranged proxies; allowing the Murrah building in Oklahoma City to be bombed in order to help set the stage for  an expanded U.S. security program;  and, allowing  such attacks to succeed even after getting detailed intelligence of  the plans in order to justify launching wars in the future. 

These are just some of the events that have been portrayed by government authorities and the press as unpredicted or unimaginable attacks, or accidents.  Yet, CIA, DIA and NSA intelligence, counterintelligence, disinformation and psy-op programs, which have  involved me, involuntarily, as a source and as a communication channel over the past quarter of a century, should one day provide proof to the Congress that all of the aforementioned events were not only predicted, but they were all created or facilitated by U.S. government agents.  U.S. intelligence programs have, at the very least, collected and internally disseminated specific detailed prior knowledge of all of the aforementioned destructive events, and then have covered up such activities through manipulated public investigations and denials.

 

While U.S. intelligence agencies have recruited myriad members of the business, academic and journalistic communities to perform some intelligence functions abroad, and at home, I have been put into the role as an information channel unwillingly.  As a former journalist and academic and as a political brainstormer with Jimmy Carter, yet essentially marginalized over the medium term, I have been used to collect and to provide information for the intelligence bureaucracy without being able to gain an audience from Congress or the press.

 

The secrets that I am most expert on is that of Jimmy Carter having been rigged into a virtually scripted presidency, which I participated in designing, in order to help protect the political/bureaucratic establishment from a continuation of endless recriminations about the failures of the Vietnam War. Carter was chosen for his role as a second transitional president, following Gerald Ford's "caretaker" ascension, by a permanent national security apparatus.   The Trilateral Commission, the Skull and Bones, the Heritage Foundation, the Santa Fe Group and other of what Karl Marx would call ruling class organizations have decisive influence over who is in and who is out, but these groups have been penetrated by organized crime over the past century because the majority of their individual members can be “gotten to,”  in one way or another, and have been.

 

Carter's essential reliability for the role of being rigged into a pre-scripted presidency depended partly upon his certification by organized crime connections. Carter had truly made a deal with the devil in order to fulfill his powerful egoistic ambitions to serve the American establishment as the nation's commander-in-chief.  His decades of humanistic public service since his presidency have also served his ego, ambitions and predispositions, but the fact that such service has helped to cover up the truth of his rigged and scripted presidency is what is more significant historically.  Such deep, dark political secrets, along with the U.S. intelligence bureaucracy's involvement in facilitating terrorism are at the center of America's totalitarian system.

 

The integration of elite organized crime influenced establishment elements with the national security bureaucracy ever since World War II has led to the current most complex cover-up of the virtually totalitarian military-industrial-organized crime complex that America has become.  Elite organized crime barons have the most secret, special and complex relationships with U.S. intelligence going back to their involvement with the OSS during World War II.  This relationship has even involved helping to dismantle the traditional Mafia organized crime activities and crews in recent decades.

 

Elite organized crime barons have been able to provide the CIA, as well as the FBI, DEA and corporate America with such important help over so many decades that a special dependency on them by ruling class America has developed, which has contributed to a fatal corruption of America. Organized crime has thousands of its own full-fledged associates, along with its extensive networks of informants, occasional assets and those in its debt, so usable and productive, that U.S. intelligence has had to become virtually synergized with organized crime over the past half century. 

 

These combined forces, which I argue help importantly to constitute a totalitarian American system, have violated human rights in many different forms, including the use of experimental forms of psychological torture. I have been assaulted several times, been subjected to biological, electronic and torturous psychological warfare over a long period of time and have been imprisoned.  In light of this darkness, for almost a quarter of a century, hope against hope, I have been attempting to share what I know with you, the reader.  I have tried since the late seventies to warn the public of the pathological evolution of the U.S. military-industrial complex by telling mainstream academics, press, corporations and politicians what I know.  But, the American system has reached the breaking point of self-destruction.  I have tried to blog to the public through Yahoo Geocities' websites with this manifesto.  This effort has been meant to unmask the evil of America's ruling class character and to stir the masses of essentially good citizens toward a new millennium revolution.

 

By way of overview, I believe the American system has become more cancerous over the past quarter of a century than former White House counsel John Dean had described during the Watergate revelations. The U.S. military-industrial-organized crime complex has been spreading over civilian society for the past two generations in order to help control the world for the special interests of the rich and powerful.

America’s national security bureaucracy, which is at the nucleus of America’s cancer, has actually made its citizenry much more vulnerable than safer over the past several decades. [9/11 was less than two months away during the July 2001 proofreading of this manuscript that you are reading.] Ambitious politicians, infighting and human nature have corrupted the U.S. federal bureaucracy.  In addition, it has been penetrated by subversive organized crime connected elements, which the bureaucracy itself has ironically recruited over the decades in order to fortify national security programs and carry out important prosecutions. This, while America’s contemporary privileged ruling class has grown its political and economic power rapidly and unscrupulously during the post-WWII epoch, accumulating huge moral and operational debts to elite elements of organized crime throughout the process. It is a history that has kept the entire system extremely unstable because of its vulnerability to blackmail.

This corrupted America is greatly influenced by a "vast right wing conspiracy" that is no mere rumor, but a functioning peopled reality. A few years ago, just after Hillary Rodham Clinton articulated her belief in the existence of such a conspiracy, Time/Newsweek (interpenetrated by industrial spies) ran an issue discussing the possible form of the “vast right wing conspiracy, even naming some of its possible members.  I believe that President Eisenhower must have meant to include this very same ruling class network when he warned America about “the military-industrial complex.” To a significant degree, the “vast right wing conspiracy” along with its liberal counterparts forms a ruling class that determines the nation’s policies, no matter which party has the presidency.  It is supported by a network of interlocking corporate executives and bureaucratic pyramids, penetrated by organized crime, which attempts to plan and control the rewards and punishments of all Americans and not just those of President Bill Clinton via impeachment hearings.

Those at the top of this system of power make the ultimate decisions regarding the programs and policies, which are oftentimes thought up or detailed by image managers and technocrats.  I have unintentionally served them, especially in the extraordinary episode involving Jimmy Carter, to which I have already alluded. I will most often refer to this entire American system as the military-industrial-organized crime complex, but may often use the familiar acronym MIC to refer to it. I will argue that the upshot of the MIC’s ceaseless efforts at control and cover-up has been the creation of a de facto totalitarian American society.

Liberal activists are just as blameworthy as the conservative ones for keeping the average American citizen in the dark regarding the truth of America’s most dark nature. The liberal American press along with mainly liberal academia play vital roles in our genuinely totalitarian America, and these influential professionals are oftentimes even more vulnerable to the bribery and threats that are introduced by lobbyists or their equivalents on behalf of enormous capitalist interests than are the politicians themselves. The more liberal the actors, the more “credible” they can be in covering up a truly insidious totalitarian socio-political system. Options to influence and to act that can impact every average citizen are privileges only of the rich and their sycophants and a public illusion of democracy is sustained for the benefit of those so privileged. America’s special interests have thousands of disguised agents working for them along with their official lobbyists and the local, state and federal governments, as well.

 

Taking a slightly broader historical view, it can be argued that the ruling class in America, protected by the nation’s military-intelligence-police community and an organized crime that at the same time blackmails it, has from the founding of the nation resorted to violence, terrorism and mass murder programs in order to grow itself and to intensify its power.  Evil has been resorted to repeatedly in order to satisfy the ambitions of America's barons of the “New World.”  These elite head our contemporary, virtually totalitarian system.  It is a system that has become as sinister as its Stalinist and Nazi adversaries of the past, only more dangerous because of its willingness and abilities to cover up its conduct and true character, and because of its vast wealth and its current hegemony.

Even just a cursory glance at American history must acknowledge that the programs of nearly total extermination of the Native American nations and the enslavement of millions of African men, women and children have provided a particularly cruel and violent racist beginning to the establishment of the United States of America. Since those formative times and throughout the twentieth century, the political integrity of every American citizen and the labor and the resources of too many foreign nations have been attacked, destroyed or brutally exploited by the American system. Meanwhile, the truly extraordinary and evil machinations of America’s ruling class have been kept thinly, yet adequately veiled by the selective memory of elementary school textbooks and the circus distractions and other concerted cover-ups carried out by the Congress, the Justice Department, the mass media and the rest of the military-industrial-Mafia complex

Inevitable and pervasive cover-ups carried out by the MIC depend upon impression management, distortions and outright lies. The cover-ups that have taken place during the post-WWII era are eventually supposed to cause even greater scandals than the original political and ethical crimes themselves, when a great unmasking begins in the near future, according to a couple of my New York Mafia contacts that practically live for this.   

Unscrupulous American barons, a corrupted bureaucracy, co-opted citizens in professional roles, America's long history of exploitation of non-whites and working peoples, organized crime subversion of the whole of American society and a refusal to debate the truth of its condition have created an America that is both doomed and extremely dangerous.  To declare that America may actually have provoked the wrath of God Himself due to its sporadic genocidal policies and its accumulation of other crimes against humanity over the centuries should not be characterized as unfitting rhetoric, even in an international court of justice.  In fact, it is no exaggeration to propose that America’s secret, essentially totalitarian system can and must be completely eliminated. Failing this, mankind itself may eventually become a fatality of its collective failure to check evil with justice and with new forms of communal vigilance. Hopefully, you will get the chance to become convinced of this in time to allow for your own meaningful involvement in the future of this very planet.

 

 Debate should demonstrate that reference to God and to a great contemporary judgment of all nations is more than merely appropriate here. It is crucial.  Indeed, facing up to the historical truth of America’s character is essential for Americans, as are parallel processes in nations all over the world.   I am hopeful that the ineluctable fall of America will soon serve as a lesson for all of mankind.  My prediction is that the looming too-late-to-ventilate unmasking of America as evil and the repercussions of such finally untimely revelations will be just one important part of the great lesson that God has in store for our entire species as the new millennium begins.  All nations will be judged, and this greatest of judgments of human civilizations since the beginning of recorded history needs to be seen in light of all of the past lessons recorded in the world’s Holy Works and other historical documents. This manifesto has been intended to be a form of arguing with the ruling class against their tyrannical maintenance of the status quo.

The American ruling class has had the whole past decade to openly discuss the truth about its character and conduct, given the termination of the cold war threat of rapid mass destruction. The deeply rooted evil of elements of this class has prevented it from undertaking this possible course of communicative remedy. In fact, these past decades have seen this class secretly involved in the murders and mass murders of its own citizenry and other peoples, all for the purpose of its own greed and of satisfying its nationalistic compulsion for America, rather than reason, to control the world.  It is fair to warn you that soon people from all parts of the world, who shall consider themselves to be heroes, will apply the universal equivalent of a judicial death penalty to America’s ruling class and to the corrupt elite of every nation.  Real programs are underway in different parts of the world for a prolonged violent epoch to unfold in the decades ahead—not just some domestically inspired unmasking and fall of America. I believe that this must be part of God’s design and that its purpose may be to give mankind the chance to find salvation on earth. I am certain that God Himself shall inspire the courageous participation of men and women everywhere throughout the Judgment of Nations. [Nothing has been edited here since 1999.]

Scientists and historians should eventually make their own contribution to a higher consciousness in the new millennium and may help teach the adherents of the traditional religions to adapt to contemporary reality, under the one God of Time, Space and Life. I have been trying to reach such a scholarly audience in time to influence the Judgment of Nations.  After a long period of generalized global violence and chaos, I believe that finally the common citizens everywhere on our planet will come to understand the lessons that God has planned for all of us to learn. The working classes will recognize themselves as a collective Messiah and will act accordingly.

This manifesto was originally issued on August 24 1998 under the title of "An American Revolutionary Manifesto" and subsequently under the title of “A New Millennium Revolutionary Manifesto,” which has a 1999 U.S. copyright registration. I have also had occasion to use “The Judgment of Nations” and several other titles as working titles while proof reading and revising over the years. Copies of some of the versions have been mailed or sent electronically one or more times to, among others: [then] Vice President Albert Gore, [then] First Lady Hillary Clinton and the New York City branch office of the FBI; Senators Trent Lott, Arlen Spector, [then Senator] Daniel Patrick Moynihan, Charles Schumer, Christopher Dodd and Richard Lugar; Representatives Newt Gingrich, Charles Rangel and Sue Kelly; Mayors Tom Murphy of Pittsburgh and Rudolph Giuliani of New York, as well as to the NYPD’s Internal Affairs Bureau;  the AP, UPI,  New York Times, Washington Post, New York Review of Books, GQ and Playboy Magazine, ABC television and the William Morris Agency; the Carter Center and the University of Pittsburgh; and, several foreign leaders and officials and members of the press, including ones from Great Britain, France, Italy, Cuba, the former U.S.S.R., Russia, China, Mexico, Iran, Libya, and Nicaragua.
 
 

2. BACKGROUND

I am just a teacher by profession. I have given speech improvement classes to special education children in the New York City school system and I have also been a university public speaking instructor. For the past fifteen years I have been giving English classes to native Spanish language speakers here in Mexico, where I have been writing this, and also in Nicaragua. I consider myself a fairly good political analyst and an adequate writer.  A little background on my early years might help to explain why I chose to become a teacher and share my knowledge with others.

 I am certain that some conversations one of the older Sicilian boys on my block in Canarsie, Brooklyn had with me when I was just a small tyke remain significant today.  That teenager predicted nearly half a century ago the fall of America to take place around the time of the start of the new millennium.  He had also just become the youngest “made” member, up to that time, of one of the five major families of the Mafia in New York. 

My political conversations with this significant thinker preceded an incident in which I had been steered into an ongoing vice operation being carried out by one of the other local boys. Many of the Canarsie teenagers were trying to get acceptance by the Mafia families and one of them was involved in practicing exploratory sexual penetration on a group of the little boys from the neighborhood. Steered into the rather bizarre scene by a member of my own family, I quickly and defiantly opted out of my initiation and soon became the object of a lifelong vendetta pronounced on me by the Mafia commission as an "at least temporary substitute" for being murdered by the young teenage Mafia wannabe. The vendetta was supposed to involve and has involved endless death threats, other harassment, physical attacks including several involving biological warfare agents and a life constantly intervened upon intentionally to prevent my being able to have a long lasting good job or family of my own as a specifically articulated part of the lifelong vendetta pronounced upon me.

It’s rather natural for lay psychologists and programmatic for Mafioso to respond that I do not wish to take responsibility for problems of my own making in life. Delusional and paranoid might be sympathetically or maliciously suggested. I almost wish that were so.  A person can change his or her psychology and I have been very interpersonally receptive and responsive throughout my entire life to friendly psychoanalysis.  I admit mistakes. I change. I can be quite self-effacing and undertake serious, educated self-analysis.  The fact is that my entire story is true down to the smallest detail, and it is also a fact that the U.S. government has been willing to join and add onto the Mafia activities directed towards me over the past several decades.  What may seem unusual is for an alliance between the government and the Mafia to be directed towards a particular individual instead of, as has sometimes been reported, toward a group or a nation.  Nevertheless, given U.S. policy through history in assistance to genocidal American settlers, slave traders, the Somozas, SAVAK, Guatemalan death squads, Batista and Miami terrorists, DINA, the Tonton Macute, Ferdinand Marcos, Saddam Hussein, and many other mass murderers, the general idea of the kind of alliance that I have suggested should be readily assimilated.  

One day, a couple of weeks after my conflict with the adolescent vice racketeer, my friendly, adolescent seer turned his usual worldly commentaries to an explanation of my fate to me. He explained the causes, nature and dimensions of the Mafia vendetta against me. He served as kind of a link between the other elements in the neighborhood and me. He went on to tip me that he was certain that even the U.S. government would eventually help to carry out this Mafia vendetta against me. A quarter of a century later, after suffering intermittent proofs of the Mafia commission vendetta, Jimmy Carter provided a clue to the most insidious aspect of it during my long conversation with him.  Carter specifically warned me that he thought the U.S. government would use new advanced technology to persecute me--even though he expected to be heading the government as its president. The U.S. government has really worked with elements of the Mafia over the decades. Their evils have combined, not only against me personally, but against our world, contributing importantly to the unleashing of ubiquitous corruption and endless wars.

Many years since my early childhood in Canarsie,  I have made the educated guess that the results of the kind of sexually abusive young boy training that I had glimpsed back then has been used to seduce some of the Catholic priests who have appeared in headlines over recent years scandalizing the Church. Blackmailing priests to obtain information of confessional indiscretions by parishioners, as well as blackmailing pedophile judges and police has been a pillar of organized crime penetration of the American establishment over the decades.  Importantly placed pedophiles will do anything to avoid exposure to their families or colleagues or the public while, at the same time, they may ironically integrate their slavish submission to blackmail into their psychopathic personalities.  My mentor suggested to me that these tactics are one of the “pillars” of New York church of corruption – the Mafia.

Many variant kinds of training, grooming and connections with every class of professionals from an early age or at other key points in their lives has been more lucrative and a stronger base for the establishment of organized crime power than the traditional vice rackets themselves. The highest elite of America's organized crime maintain their influence over thousands of establishment professionals whom they have groomed or connected with over the decades, even while such elite criminals have become key elements in dismantling the traditional rackets and crews of ordinary Mafia hoodlums.  Their tirelessly planned and well-orchestrated programs of feeding ordinary criminals, ethnic minority gangbangers and drug mules, as well as their own soldiers to the FBI add the greatest carrot to their arsenal of sticks in their tremendously successful positioning of themselves within the U.S. military-industrial-organized crime complex.

An organized crime asset embedded in a local, state or federal bureaucracy, the court system, a corporation, a union, the media, a professional career, a small business, a school, the sports or glamour world or anywhere else might only be asked for small favors on rare occasions. Perhaps an organized crime-helped establishment professional would be asked for a bit of inside information, an introduction to a potential mark, help getting someone a job, help to reject or damage someone as a means of punishing them or setting them up for something else or some other, oftentimes seemingly small, favor.  Occasionally, a developed asset might even receive an invitation to do something patently illegal or even to become a full-fledged associate of the Mafia, but organized crime assets are everywhere in America today.   They have helped to subvert America and have helped to intensify the commitments of anti-Americans to resist and even to destroy America's influence in the world.  The extensive system of organized crime assets are part of the reason that the U.S. national security bureaucracy has grown to depend on the secret establishment Mafia elite for information and operational assistance in many of its efforts.

My own father had been under the wing of some Mafioso since he was a teenager, and by the 1970's, my mother used to sit around with some of the different Mafia family women.  She once told me that Carlo Gambino was the most charming gentleman that she had ever met in her entire life—"with the exception of course" of my father. My father once mentioned to me that he had finally achieved some kind of formal association with the Mafia, but neither of my parents ever indicated to me that they knew anything about criminal activities, only some bits of social gossip.

In fact, my childhood had become fairly normal after my family moved to Queens, even with or even as part of the pronouncement against me of the Canarsie vendetta.  My hard- working parents were able to achieve regular middle class status and they continued to vote a straight Democratic ticket, except for their support of Nelson Rockefeller for two terms as New York governor.  I was politically just about the same as my parents. Even when I became an active anti-Vietnam War protestor in the sixties, it wasn’t as a member of the radical Students for a Democratic Society (SDS).  Nevertheless, I was a campus leader, did cooperate with the SDS and even once heard a rumor that got back to me about my possibly being a part of the Weather Underground.

In spite of my having gotten Mafia inspired attention in one form or another for most of my life, or perhaps partly because of that, I am pretty certain that I have gone on to receive perceptible and interactive evidence of God’s interest in me as an adult. This has been particularly true over the past sixteen years since I took up exile in Managua, Nicaragua in the mid-80s. My exile, forced upon me by NYC police and federal secret police agents, has continued in Mexico and other parts of Central America to date.

I believe that God is a higher intelligence within this universe, as I will explain later.  I have been developing what I believe to be very reasonable inferences about higher intelligence. It is quite possible that It, or using the more familiar and popular He, has allowed His agent or His agency, commonly referred to as the Devil, to develop a very special relationship with organized evil and crime in the world as a dramatic means of teaching mankind lessons over the millenniums, given that humans may naturally be disposed towards a certain amount of deviancy and criminality within certain environmental contexts and conditions.  I have been tipped that some elements of the American Mafia have taken on a very special role in this divine education process. While the acceptance of such an obviously self-serving tip may be seen as nothing more than naïve on my part, there may hopefully be some real truth to it. I am just suggesting that some element of the Mafia may actually be a providential part of a process meant to help clarify man's nature and the attendant need for global unity and transparency.  Nevertheless, it seems likely that mankind will experience additional world war, economic collapse and devastation before religious, nationalistic and ideological divisions give way to a concerted program of global cooperation and a philosophy of unification of the human species.  The Devil and its disciples have actually worked to promote division in every respect, having evolved from individual and small group efforts, to inter-tribal, interstate and international efforts as human societies have evolved.  At the same time we have been provided with tips all along the way.  Even though God's saintly prophets have ended with Mohammad, we continue to be delivered signs and messages.

I am reluctant to say what I am going to here because I have already opened up a few grounds that are bound to make my credibility highly vulnerable.  I can only ask the reader to suspend her or his disbelief in the hope that my telling is interesting enough to carry her to a future when my assertions, reports and analyses may be validated.  I want to tell the reader here, at this point, that I believe that higher intelligence has communicated to me. I do not suggest that this makes me some kind of prophet, as when He has communicated to others in the past, and then finally to Mohammed. I suggest that this contemporary communication to a human has been because I am an independent researcher, a person who has (or was set to have) my particular history, coming out of New York City, the Mafia, American politics and academia.

The messages I have gotten have not been some kind of voice in my head.  I am a university trained speech and language expert, and I believe, to come right out with it, simply, that a higher intelligence can imitate natural language forms by modulating the wind and the rain, among other methodologies. I have several very strong reasons to believe that my unaided observation/experiences have been real, which I will not go into detail about, here. Having said this, I only have one significant, shareable report to make at this time and here is the exact language I believe I got from higher intelligence:  “If they don’t listen to you, what you say will happen within about two hundred years.”

In the years leading up to this experience,  I had often argued that I believed the planet would become uninhabitable due to rising oceans covering over the landmasses unless mankind worked together to stop it. That is what I thought the real decodable material communication, which I believed came from higher intelligence, referred to. I had immediately thought of the irony of God’s promise to Noah that He would never flood the earth again. Since then, I believe a greater challenge for both me and the public is involved, and that an enigma may very likely be involved in what exactly I should be saying since that contact. Nevertheless, I am really not quite certain what I am supposed to say in order to try to help mankind save itself, whether I am supposed to goad, persuade, use reverse logic, warn or beg, or how to proceed in light of what I see as the enigma of: “If they don’t listen to you, what you say will happen within about two hundred years.”   I can only go on and share with the reader the facts of my experience, along with what I think and what I believe.

For one thing, I believe that this God of mine might have been involved in my getting born in the first place. I was conceived a short time after the first atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima and came to term successfully after my mother had suffered two miscarriages. A couple of the Italian women on our block told me when I was about five years old that they thought my birth had been like some kind of miracle and that I should remember their remarks in the future.  My birth put me just at the beginning of the baby boom generation right along with President Bill Clinton [and, George W. Bush]. Let me make clear that I have never wanted to be the president, nor do I think I am Christ, but I do believe that my story may be part of a kind of second coming.  The main thing is, though, I believe that mankind can only be saved on earth through a collective effort. I am convinced that the nations and its peoples need to unite or that mankind will perish, and that there really is not much time left. [This was all written in 1999, before the later scientific consensus on global warning and Al Gore’s “An Inconvenient Truth”; in fact, this effort here regarding Jimmy Carter, the rigged U.S. presidency, a totalitarian America, and too many cover-ups may someday be seen as the mother of all inconvenient truths.]

Countless lessons have been taught me along the way to my role in the warning that this manifesto represents. Some of these lessons have taken the form of advice; various have come as goads and others as punishment. There have been straightforward lessons and enigmatic ones. I have been permitted to experience certain stretches of leisure, participate extensively in team and individual play and allowed various instances of delight, even ecstasy. As well, I have been made to suffer, to have pity for mankind and I have been helped to endure. The cumulative effect of all of this is that now I am ready to say what I have to say.   A myriad of people has emerged to help groom me to take a potentially key communicative role as the time of judgment approaches.

The most important message I have, for the long term, even though the political observations and revelations I offer here are crucial and should be publicized, is about the environment. The deterioration that is evident on the planet now is a result of the abuses from just decades ago and there will be no way for man to reverse the effects of what will happen even hundreds of years from now, within just one or two more generations. Time is of the essence. This is the warning above all else of this work.  We are very likely on the brink of a judgment of nations, as the Seventh Day Adventists put it, and we still need to work arduously in order to learn the lessons of history. We need to integrate the lessons of the past with those of just ahead, as international war, civil war and revolution, and natural disaster, including wild climactic phenomena, impact the entire planet. Judgment Day needs to be seen in historical and scientific terms as well as in theological ones.

On top of this, America has accumulated a tremendous backlog of publicly undisputed crimes against humanity, including ones against its own citizens. The inevitable cover-ups by the American ruling class, that is, the national security related agencies, the politicians, the press and the elite elements of the organized crime establishment, has been assisted in a huge, all-encompassing cover-up by an intentional holding back of timely critical revelations by various elements within the international intelligence community.  I alone, as far as I can be certain, have been trying to warn the American public about this situation and I will get to a discussion of several of the most serious scandals waiting to confront the United States in just a few moments [election 2000 has been created since this writing].

Since Jimmy Carter's election in November 1976, I have been subjected to a long series of human rights violations by the U.S. government, some of which Carter warned would happen to me, including certain specific acts of physical violence. Such so-called counterintelligence measures have been far more brutal than those that I had previously experienced as an anti-Vietnam War activist in New York City during the 60s.   My mother and father have both had the exact timing of their deaths implemented for the convenience of the U.S. federal persecution against me.  I have suffered assaults and arrests and literally countless threats against my life. I have been violently uprooted from my home and intimidated into living in exile. I still remain the subject of inhuman experiments that involve electronic, biological and chemical interventions in my life. Continuous U.S. government programs carried out against me, including electronic sleep deprivation activities, have psychologically and physically tortured me. All of the same government programs originally begun in the United States have continued to be used against me during my coerced exile in Central America and Mexico.

 A veritable United States secret police network has indeed carried out a long series of death threats, violent assaults and torture against me. To be suggesting here that America is a great totalitarian despotism comparable to Nazi Germany in terms of its inherent evil and its threat to mankind may not be seen  merely my own personal reaction in the future. The final century of this millennium has already seen the rapid rise and fall of two unique earlier totalitarian empires that had been oriented toward world domination. The blind madness of the German third Reich entailed its violent destruction by the allies. The corrupt ineptness of the Soviet system, which disabled its historically traditional, obsessive attempts to compete with America's own much less relatively expensive military program throughout the post World War II period was self-recognized and entailed its own, finally intentional, self-dismantling by Mikhail Gorbachev.

The United States of America, like Hitler's unself-diagnosed psychotic Germany, intends to maintain its empire. None of this century's grandiose empires can be analyzed by just using the broad general insights or specific systems offered by some of the famous historians of the past.  Therefore, I will apply my own interpretations of America's political condition, suggesting that the United States has a fundamentally incomparable and unique system of societal corruption and established institutional psychosis, which will be discussed throughout most of this manifesto. God willing, America's impending fall will not have merely provided opportunities for the spite, revenge and other sadomasochistic acts already being contemplated by personalities and groups from different camps at home and abroad. With foresight and a broader perspective, America's fall can in fact become the most essential part of a complex of decisive historical lessons and lead to the salvation of all of mankind.

 

 

3. SCRIPTING THE CARTER PRESIDENCY

 

 Jimmy Carter and I had the modern day equivalent of a prophetic episode in April 1976. We brainstormed together on the mezzanine floor of the Pittsburgh Hilton Hotel for about and hour and fifteen minutes during the presidential primary campaign that year. Mayor Pete Flaherty looked on, while a U.S. Secret Service agent monitored the entire interaction and a Carter aide took notes. The main contents of the conversation were organized by our following a schema of concepts I had been working with at the time for my doctoral dissertation, a subject that Carter encouraged me to share with him during our meeting.

 

The Perforce Model

 

I will outline the main aspects of "A Model of Purposive Speech Communication," the dissertation prospectus that was approved by my doctoral committee of the Faculty of Arts and Sciences of the University of Pittsburgh on November 4, 1974. Then, I will present a brief review of some of the projections of foreign policy that Jimmy Carter and I discussed during our campaign trail conversation, which emerged when the candidate allowed me to guide an experiment in policy brainstorming with him, using some of the concepts from my thesis in progress.

 

The original title for the doctoral dissertation had been "A Framework for Freedom of Speech." My committee chairman persuaded me to use somewhat more technical terms from the field for the thesis title, e.g. 'purposive' instead of 'freedom', as he was in the communication area, the less arts, more social scientific side of the large University of Pittsburgh Department of Speech Communication. As I was in the rhetoric and public address area and as my intention in developing the model was primarily to use it as a teaching tool to help my students understand their freedom of speech, the original title seems appropriate to me for this current effort. The model and its presentation still need some work before the dissertation could be ready for a formal defense before a doctoral committee, but it may turn out to be historically significant nonetheless.  I came to the University of Pittsburgh in 1972 from Queens College where I had been a very active anti-war protestor and had been working on developing an overview of the individual person's freedom of speech in order to help to explain the lack of political power of the average citizen. My dissertation work at Pitt continued that project.

 

The Perforce Model, as the centerpiece of the Framework for Freedom of Speech dissertation prospectus, organizes the variables that a potential public speaker would need to consider for assessing his or her possibilities to influence politics or social change—a primary goal of the public speaking program at the University of Pittsburgh. I will briefly share with you now the doctoral submission and then that which came out of my talk with Jimmy Carter, when we used some of the Perforce Model's formative concepts in order to project his possible future policies, in the middle of the presidential primary campaign season.

 

My dissertation prospectus originally began with a discussion of different thinkers' conceptions of freedom in general. Causality, determinism, free will, free choice and such inexorable metaphysical quandaries would be operationally resolved for the student by positing some degree of free will and then by accepting the concomitant responsibilities of the fundamentally political and moral challenges of a democratic society. From Plato, Aristotle, Cicero and Augustine, through Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau and Kant, to Russell, James, Moore, Lucas, Pike, Ayers, Skinner and many other thinkers, I reviewed some of the major arguments about freedom. Then, I turned my focus to the main conceptual schemas that I would use to form a concept model of the potential public speaker's possibilities to use speech to influence social change.

 

I finally settled on Bronislaw Malinowski´s schema of freedom of action, which argues that a free act should be looked at in term of three phases: Freedom to plan, freedom to do (which I changed to "execution" for the model) and freedom to get results. This philosophically developed schema represents a very politically conscious format for the public speaking student to attempt to realize.

 

The other main schema that I incorporated into my model was derived from John Canfield´s philosophical analysis of the senses of "can," which he discussed in terms of the ability, opportunity, rules-consistency and ill-consequences free senses of "can." I compare Canfield's contemporary model with Aristotle´s "four causes", the efficient, material, formal and final causes and also with Kenneth Burke´s dramatic pentad: agent, scene, act, agency and purpose in order to help justify my model and to make it more vivid and flexible for discussion.  The model and an explanation follow.

 

 

 

The PERFORCE Model: A Framework for Freedom of Speech

Aristotle’s efficient cause, the "doer of what is done," is telescoped into the hypothetical doer's "faculties" in my concept model (thus, the student would focus on the faculties of the doer under consideration/the doer being studied/analyzed) and I selected this term, which I use in place of Canfield’s  "abilities" sense of can, in order to help form the models’s acronym--perForce.

 Aristotle’s ancient material cause becomes the "opportunity" term in my perfOrce model (cf. Canfield’s “opportunity” sense of “can”), i.e. all the materials in time and space that the doer needs to realize his or her speech action.  Of course, the model helps to direct the analyst to consider such material factors throughout all of Malinowski's stages of  freedom:  Planning, Execution and Results.

 Aristotle's formal cause in a speech act should be illuminated by an exhaustive review of the socio-political "rules" systems only suggested in the model.  Canfield argues extensively in his presentation of the Senses of Can that one ought to consider rules-consistency and not simply rules simpliciter when considering this sense of can. Rules becomes the R in perfoRce.

 For Aristotle’s final cause, I use the term "expediency" in the perforce model (a goal-insistent supplement to Canfield’s senses of "can").  Marxist and other students may be interested in arguing my own ethical perspective because I use expediency as the catch term for final cause. Please do: It may be a bit forced to fit into the acronym perforcE.

 Going a small step back into my PERFORCE model, outside of Aritstotle’s paradigm, my “Costs" is intended to encompass Canfield's "ill-consequence free" sense of “can.” Thus, a thoroughgoing discussion of a subject's freedom of speech is meant to be brought into play in the classroom, through the consideration of each "sense of can" in terms of planning, executing and realizing the results of a speech act.  This synopsis may be much too brief for the general reader.  Much of this work in progress needs more elaboration to become the complete memoir/manifesto/textbook that it should be.  I hope students of Kenneth Burke might be interested in taking it from here, in the future.

Professor Kenneth Burke specifically discusses the close relationship of his own dramatic pentad model with Aristotle’s "four causes" in a Grammar of Motives.  This manifesto is not the place for an extended review of that, but just to sketch the equivalencies, Burke talks about his agent in terms of Aritsotle’s efficient cause, act in terms of the formal cause, scene and agency as material causes and purpose as final cause. I want to introduce Burke’s "dramatic pentad" here for the purpose of presenting some of the journalistic aspects of this manifesto as the "pentad" served as the opening conceptual springboard for the extraordinary content of the conversation between candidate Jimmy Carter and I during the 1976 presidential primary campaign.

I might also just mention that a noteworthy way to help convey the crux of the Perforce Model for students and readers interested in the speech, communication and journalism fields is to point out that my model compliments Harold Lasswell's seminal communication theory question: "Who says what to whom through what channel with what effect?" In my model it becomes, who “can” say what to whom through what channel with what effect? Thus, using my conceptual schema, we find ourselves drawn into the realm of possibilities and freedom.

I completed my concept model by filling it in with a non-exhaustive, merely suggestive, set of terms from the field of speech communication, philosophy and other related fields, which I often reflect upon in my own communication activities and which I still work on for the purposes of further structural development. My model is intended to provide the student of public speaking with a wide range of materials to discuss in relation to his or her potential to influence social or political change in the real world. The model is intended to take the student into considerations that go beyond the classroom exercise of making a speech solely for his classmates and a grade. It is meant to be flexible and is always open to suggestions.

 

The Carter/Krangle Conversation

 

I had my long conversational experiment with Jimmy Carter at the Pittsburgh Hilton Hotel on/or about April 11, 1976 between approximately 11:55 AM and 1:20 PM, after I accompanied him from the elevator across the mezzanine lobby to his scheduled meeting with the Pittsburgh Black Caucus. The Secret Service had tried to separate me from Carter after I had swiped open the almost completely closed elevator door that Carter and three or four agents had just entered from the hotel’s ground floor before I caught up with them after the meeting we had just finished in Carter’s primary campaign headquarters some blocks away. Once I got into the elevator an agent pressed the button for the 18^th floor and we ascended rapidly. One of the agents asked me to get out of the elevator when we got to the floor entirely of guest rooms and I did so, but then realizing that I was merely being dumped, I turned to Carter and just stared into his eyes. The candidate simply ordered the agents to “Let him on.”

 

When the elevator descended back down to the mezzanine floor (just one floor above where we had begun) Carter and I walked together making small talk until we reached the other far end of the floor where I went through the motions of introducing candidate Jimmy Carter to Phil Carter, a Black Caucus leader, outside of the door of the appointed reunion suite. Jimmy apparently already knew Phil, but I was very excited to be with the candidate. I actually entered the meeting with them, but I was asked very nicely to leave so that former Governor Carter remained the single white face in a room packed with Caucus members—nearly ethnic purity!

 

Phil Carter knew me in the first place because I had been running my own campaign as a delegate candidate of Jimmy's to the Democratic National Convention and later the Afro-American community gave me a lot of votes. I almost became the first outsider in Pittsburgh to get elected as a delegate to a national party convention. Ironically, the truly historical, yet still covered-up encounter of mine with Jimmy Carter came just a few days after his impromptu Pittsburgh press conference over the nearly infamous "ethnic purity" comment he had made. I was at that conference and Carter and I maintained direct eye contact for nearly a minute at a time, several times, during the seemingly endless interrogation of the candidate.

 

Ed Bradley of CBS acknowledged to me that he had noticed the long eye contacts between Carter and I after I approached Bradley and mentioned it to him, outside of the conference. He interviewed me for a few minutes, but I asked him not to take any notes. I quickly told him about my doctoral thesis in progress and described the Perforce Model as a kind of a matrix in form. Bradley said that he thought it sounded interesting, that he would call it a grid and that he would remember our meeting. A few months later, when I ran into him at the 1976 Democratic National Convention at Madison Square Garden, he insisted that he couldn't remember meeting me or talking with me in Pittsburgh, a few months before.

 

When Jimmy Carter came out of his meeting with the Pittsburgh Black Caucus, he agreed to take a photo with another delegate candidate and I.

 

Photo of Krangle, Carter, Kevin Walsh

 

We went on to speak for an hour and fifteen minutes. He encouraged me to talk about my thesis in progress and I gestured how my model contained Malinowski's and Canfield's concepts using the air as an imaginary blackboard. I gave a few examples of the communications and philosophical terms within the interior of the grid. Then, earnestly wanting to possibly impact history, I suggested that he and I apply my model to a step-by-step type approach to peace in the Middle East, "…in case your all-parties Middle East peace plan fails to materialize."

 

Carter agreed to speculate with me and I proposed that we begin our exercise by following the concepts in Kenneth Burke's dramatic pentad, instead of using the senses of "can," because of the interpersonal and dramatic rather than public speaking format of the purposive speech communication we were about to project. The premise that Carter agreed to for the purpose of our exercise was that Carter was about two years into his presidency, his all parties Middle East conference approach had failed and that he would change his strategy and call for a meeting with just two of the Middle East leaders. I convinced him that he, as President, ought to represent the United States through his own direct involvement in the negotiations we agreed to project. Carter asked me if I “really thought he should.”

 

Beginning with the “agent” concept of Burke's model, candidate Carter offered Anwar Sadat of Egypt as a most likely participant in our projected meeting for 1978 and then he said he would go out on a limb in projecting Menachem Begin as the possible Prime Minister of Israel by 1978. These men would be the two personalities (“agents”) that Carter decided he might personally work with in a return to the step-by-step approach to Middle East peace envisioned during our exercise. I got Carter to work off of Burke´s term "consubstantiality," in order to identify what he and the other two agents of our drama had in common. Carter responded that all three of them were very religious and that they were all very interested in peace and so I advised him to use those motives as interpersonal themes in the meetings that we were in the midst of projecting.

 

I suggested Camp David as the scene for their meetings, the exclusion of the press and that Carter, as President, keep the meetings going for as long as necessary. Carter suggested exactly 13 days of meetings and we agreed that Carter would probably have to rotate his time in dyadic communication sessions with Sadat and Begin with all three rarely being together. We actually discussed such details as the walk through Gettysburg with Begin and showing the film Patton, as part of the atmospherics, specifically for the purpose of reinforcing the existing motives for peace.

 

The act to be achieved at Camp David that Carter and I articulated at that conceptual juncture of the unpacking of Burke’s model for the specific purpose of our exercise that day would be a peace treaty between Israel and Egypt within the framework of a broader peace in the Middle East. I worked with Carter on this concept for just some few minutes during our conversation and we devised the two-document approach in a couple of minutes of our projective exercise. We named the Framework for Peace as the principle document in our session in April 1976 and Carter told me what he thought the name of the other document should end up being called. Carter projected some details about the documents including that they would be initialed around September, 1978 and that then they would be signed later in a ceremony around March, 1979, after we agreed that "... the other Arab parties and the Israeli public would have the chance to react in between the initialing and the signing, before the act became a done deed." Carter and I specifically worked out the detail of the hand clasping that was carried out by Sadat, Begin and Carter at the signing of the Camp David Framework for Peace accords almost three years after our conversation including the placing of Carter’s second hand underneath their three interlocked hands.

 

Then, we naturally, or perforce, if you will, moved into a consideration of costs, or consequences, of the projected act and I asked Carter if we could depart from the Burkeian model and return to the senses of "can" model in order to discuss the possible consequences, including unintended ill-consequences, of our projected treaty for the entire region. I actually had to pressure him into discussing the consequences of our Camp David Framework for Peace after Carter responded to my request by saying: "I was afraid you'd ask that."

 

Nevertheless, we treated the question of costs for around twenty minutes and it represented our longest focus. We began talking about costs based on my mundane suggestion regarding how much money he might have to ask the Congress to appropriate for the implementation and support of the treaty. Following a rough dollar estimate by Carter, I motivated him and reinforced his intuition and the application of his accumulated knowledge about the personalities and the history of the region in order to consider the possible unintended consequences of the Camp David Framework for Peace that we had just finished projecting in considerable detail.

 

Carter paused and then offered, "Well, the Iranians could have a revolution.'' We went on to have that which has turned out to be a modern day analogy of a prophetic conversation. Carter predicted that the Ayatollah Khomeini could lead the Iranians in a religious revolution against the Shah in 1979, there on the mezzanine of the Pittsburgh Hilton Hotel, in April 1976.

 

We envisioned the Iranian revolution that would in fact occur three years after our conversation about it including some very specific details of the press coverage of Khomeini. Carter discussed with me how his administration would react, or not react, especially details of the ‘Houston mission’ that Carter outlined and rationalized there during our campaign encounter. We projected the success of the revolution and Carter spoke of the Shah's wandering exile in accurate detail (as it would turn out). Carter specifically projected the Shah’s future bout with cancer and then finally the Shah’s need for treatment that Carter insisted would only be available in the United States: Carter explained to me that “Rockefeller will make me allow the Shah to take treatment in New York. Carter went on to precisely predict the embassy hostage crisis in Iran and its exact length of 444 days and finally the return of the hostages to a President Reagan on January 20, 1981. I had previously suggested to Carter that he might very possibly serve only one term as president and Carter said in that case that Hamilton Jordan would wind up writing a book blaming the Iranian hostage crisis for Carter’s failure to be re-elected.

 

Carter and I did not end our conversation with the projection of the Iranian revolution and the succeeding events in relation to the embassy hostage crisis. I urged him to predict other events in the region and Carter described the Afghanistan revolution and the Soviet intervention that in fact unfolded three years after we spoke. I persuaded him during our conversation to act out with me how he would respond to the Afghanistan situation as if I were his national security advisor and an immediate decision needed to be made. The actual sanctions that Carter did finally impose on the Soviet Union three years later had been detailed by the two of us in our dramatic experiment, including the boycott of the 1980 Moscow Olympics and the cut-off of U.S. subsidized wheat shipments to the USSR

 

The brainstormed script that Carter and I developed in April 1976 on the Pittsburgh Hilton Hotel mezzanine even included Carter’s projection of how he would finally win the presidential campaign competition against President Ford: Carter declared to me that, “ Ford will say ‘Poland is Free’ when we debate and will look foolish.” I commented to Carter at that moment about my having had advanced knowledge of how JFK might win his debate with Richard Nixon in 1960 and expressed disbelief that he was telling me how he thought his election might be fixed, also in a debate.

 

Carter also conspired with me to accept getting hit in a car crash in the future at the time of out projected Camp David Framework for Peace meetings, which would generate a cash settlement, as a form of reminding me to keep my mouth shut about the projections we had just finished working up for his presidency. For my own part, I had not been instructed by anyone about what to talk to Carter about, except for a single suggestion that Robert Friday had made to me about getting the U.S. to stop subsidizing American wheat shipments to the Soviet Union. I also had absolutely no intention whatsoever to act as anyone’s or any group’s agent when I encountered Carter for what turned out to be our lengthy conversation. Due to the fact that I think the parts of my conversation with Carter about the debate with Ford and the car accident sound incredible, especially given Carter’s public persona of goodness, I do not feel it helps my account here to include either detail in this report. I do so because both bits are absolutely true and will be important for the development of a real understanding of the power that the American military-industrial-criminal complex (discussed in the units ahead) has over individuals, including former President Jimmy Carter: I have no doubt that some of the effects and implications of this reality on former presidents Reagan, Bush, Clinton and now President George W. Bush will also be forthcoming during a very long unmasking process that will be part of the fall of America and the Judgment of Nations.

 

Documentation

I gave a substantial summary of the main foreign policy themes of the conversation (discussed ahead) right there at the scene of the interaction itself to then Mayor Pete Flaherty immediately following my long interaction with the presidential candidate.  Carter himself, a U.S. Secret Service agent and a Carter stenographic aide still remained engaged with me during my recapping to the Mayor, while a reporter from the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette looked on.  This was one of several intentional efforts on my part to try to insure the existence of a historical record of my impromptu policy development brainstorming experiment with Jimmy Carter. At the very beginning of our interaction I had announced “the only circumstances under which I would attempt to kill a future president Carter” in a possibly successful, somewhat wild purposeful bid to cause the Secret Service agent covering us there to record our entire conversation, which I may have accomplished when the agent responded to my projected threat by speaking directly into his up-to-then concealed shirt cuff microphone and then by subsequently maintaining the microphone visibly extended for the whole next hour or so out toward Carter’s and my conversation. Whether the conversation came thusly to be electronically recorded by the Secret Service agent’s office contact whom the on-the-scene agent requested assistance from by using his then only partially hidden electronic device I am not certain. Nevertheless, I am now quite certain that the U.S. government has some kind of transcript of the long Carter/Krangle conversation.

I soon gave the first very detailed and extensive away-from-the-scene report of the entire hour and fifteen-minute, April 1976 conversation between Jimmy Carter and I that same afternoon on which it occurred to Robert Friday of Fox Chapel, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. He was one of my housemates at the time, a teaching fellow colleague at the University of Pittsburgh and he had steered me into becoming a delegate in the first place and later hyped me (with nearly no specific instructions) to impress Carter when Friday believed I might possibly get to meet the presidential candidate. Near the beginning of my report to Friday, he expressed fear specifically in terms that he would “be killed for knowing about the conversation,” but then Friday quickly recovered and suggested that he could have the whole thing “taken care of” in the department, after I kept insisting on giving him more and more details in spite of his very serious and genuine near panic. 

 The following school day I spent almost an hour with the head of the Rhetoric and Public Address area of my department at the University of Pittsburgh, Professor Robert P. Newman. We discussed most of the details of the foreign policy aspects of my session with candidate Carter as well as some of the political, rhetorical and personal nuances. Newman demonstrated profound interest during my long oral report and responded to me in unique and memorable ways.  Friday and Newman have played key roles since that time in keeping the account that I related to each of them about the conversation between candidate Carter and I secret from the press and the public in general.

In a joint session the following week, I gave a detailed account, analyses and interpretations of the conversation between Carter and I to Professors Nancy Metzger and Terry Pickett of the speech department. Dr. Metzger provided some of her own critical points of view. I also told a whole classroom of my own students about some of the scenarios Carter and I had developed in an unforgettable lecture that many of them will almost surely volunteer to verify when any form whatsoever of an account of the conversation between Carter and I is finally made available to the general public.

I gave an overview of the conversation and related significant details of certain sections of it throughout the spring and summer of 1976 to various friends and colleagues including Professor Jack Matthews, then chairman of the speech department, along with his wife, Hannah. I repeated similar reports in other sessions with Professor Otis Walter, Professor Theodore Windt and teaching fellow Richard Vatz, all of the Speech Communications Department of the University of Pittsburgh, at the time. Each person in this latter group signaled to me in one way or another that Bob Friday’s determination to “take care of” his avowed life-threatening awareness of history-in-the-making had taken effect.  Walters told me that I shouldn’t expect anyone to believe him if he should tell them what I had related to him at any time in the future.  I had had to make a sort of deal with Windt to listen only to a circumscribed version of some of the conversation while Bob Friday was present.  Vatz suggested to me that none of my tellings of the conversation would constitute proof of its content in the future.

At the Department of Sociology, I spoke to Professors Burkhart Holzner and Jiri Nehnavasja in separate sessions and also Prof. O.K. Moore and his assistant, Linda Burns, in a joint session about the dramatic conversation I had had with candidate Carter.  I related specific details of the presidential policy projections Carter and I had developed to each of them.  Moore specifically asked me not to say that I had told him in the future if that were possible, Nehnavasja asked if I should be telling him and Holzner expressed mainly fascination.  I told some graduate students in the Department of Philosophy about the nature and content of the conversation and at least a dozen others, some of whom I will not identify here, all in 1976 before Carter was even elected.  I told each and every individual and group, before divulging the content of the conversation between Carter and I that they could not share my account with the press.

I had an elaborate interaction about the conversation with Carter's Pittsburgh campaign organizers, the Lupovitz family. I was asked to direct my report and commentary to Laura, in the attentive presence of her mother, Sally, and her brother, Andrew. Andrew had been with me at the Hilton Hotel minutes before my meeting with candidate Carter, on the very day of our extraordinary encounter.  Sally warned me that I shouldn’t get Andrew in trouble in the future no matter what happened.

I gave a broadcast on WYEP-FM, Pittsburgh's Community radio station in the autumn of 1976, about the entire Afghanistan section of the conversation. I wanted to possibly have warned the Soviet Union about the situation which Carter had told me during our session would turn out to be "...the Soviet's Vietnam...if they actually do invade Afghanistan...."  I immediately got a couple of call-ins including one that compared my talk to Orson Wells’ “War of the Worlds.”  I also told then Senator Birch Bayh about some important parts of the conversation that fall while I drove him around Pittsburgh for a whole day of campaigning for Jimmy Carter. 

I told Heather Clark, at the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies at the time, almost the entire content of the conversation, in several sessions in 1976 and 1977.  Heather asked me if she could in turn tell her old friend Luke the entire story and she also helped me get the chance to mention the conversation’s themes to her SAIS adviser Professor Riordan Roett in a short conversation.  Heather was also with me at the University of Pittsburgh when I told Professor Reid Reiding of the Center for Latin American Studies the gist of the session I had had with Carter. Clark and Reiding together suggested that I should relate the entire story of the conversation to Father Ed Cleary of the University of Pittsburgh, which I did a few days later in a rather lengthy session.

I had begun to tell another of Heather Clark’s friends, Gregory Ruff, of Ligonier, Pennsylvania, the story, during a telephone conversation, in the fall of 1976. He asked me if I wouldn’t mind telling his father instead of him, after he got the gist of the political content. Greg put his father on the phone with me and he and I spoke about the Carter/Krangle conversation for about twenty minutes. Mr. Ruff was the Republican Mayor of Ligonier at the time and he told me that he felt obliged to ask me to consider whether or not I really wanted to be sharing my story with him at all.

Professor Otis Walter also had questioned whether or not he was the right person to be telling, because, he advised me, "they'll never believe me later on,” as I mentioned earlier. I told him that other people knew and that I wasn't telling him for that reason, only that he should know for his own information, and with that Dr. Walter listened through an elaborate enough session.

As I also mentioned, Robert Friday had expressed fear and a kind of panic when I insisted on giving him all of the details of the conversation and this occurred for the only time in our close collegiate relationship of more than four years. Dr. Metzger wondered if it was ethical for me to discuss the conversation, but I explained my motives to her and she and Dr. Pickett and I had a long session about the conversation in political terms as well as in terms of our field of speech communication. Sally Lupovitz was critical of my taking such freedom with the conversation I had had with candidate Carter, although she finally advised that my telling be directed to her daughter, if I insisted on doing it at all, even though she was there for it along with her son.  One of my students in the class that I had told was also slightly critical of my telling.

There were few other criticisms, albeit some minor resistance or caution on the part of several people, including all three professors from the sociology department. Yet, every single person I told listened with fascination and several were awed and a congressional committee or the press should find adequate testimony from among such an ample group.

 

There are quite a number of others I told that I have not mentioned here and these tellings went on for years. In 1979, just before the U.S.S.R answered the Afghanistan muhajadeen revolution against Moscow’s government in Kabul, I told Ward Moorhouse, then a reporter at the Christian Science Monitor, Edward Peck of the law firm of Battle, Fowler, Stokes & Kheel and Roy Innis, the head of CORE all about the Afghanistan segment of the 1976 Carter/Krangle conversation including its original Camp David Framework for Peace context and the sanctions that Carter had decided upon back then just a month or so before the USSR crossed over into Afghanistan

 

 Motives for Cover-up of Carter/Krangle Brainstorm

If to produce awe in my listeners did play some role in my conduct as I went along, it was not my fundamental motive in telling so many people. My main motives were to turn the conversation into a future legend (Robert Friday countered with "myth" to me in the first discussion we had back then about the conversation), if its content were to actually become realized during a future Carter presidency. I was also willing to see if the conversation would emerge publicly before Election Day without my going directly to the press with it. In any event, I needed to share what had happened with people and to begin to put it into channels that I believed would democratize it--sooner, or later.

Since the assassinations of the sixties, the Vietnam War and Watergate, I have not had a great deal of trust in politicians, and in spite of Jimmy Carter's rhetoric about the truth, or perhaps partly because of such rhetoric, I did not completely trust him either, even though I was his delegate candidate. His employment of the "ethnic purity" tactic in order to beat George Wallace in the Pennsylvania primary was Machiavellian and his continued silence to date regarding the history we envisaged together in Pittsburgh in April, 1976 needs to be fully explained. Finally, in a democracy, all loyalties must defer to the truth.  Without truth as the anchoring good and right in a society, all notions of loyalty are merely tools of demagogues.

President Carter will have to explain all of his own motives some day for sharing his predictions and perspectives with me that afternoon as we got into the application of my model to an analysis and projection of the possibilities facing his future presidency. One reason for his openness may be that I had pressured him, using a variety of persuasive tactics, including the very structure of my concept model itself--The PERFORCE Model (an acronym of the principle concepts used to form the framework of the model). 

Another reason that I have deduced for Carter’s openness with me, through almost daily sessions of intensive political analyses over the past several years, is that Carter had made a deal with the same people who steered me to him in the first place for him to confide in me in exchange for their very significant support of his campaign.  These elements, which I cannot specifically reveal, are very possibly either intentional or themselves manipulated parts of the subversive forces that have been aiming to orchestrate the fall of America to occur around the new millennium during the past fifty years or so.  Elements such as these have been persistently facilitated by the entire military-industrial-criminal complex, including George Herbert Walker Bush and Henry Kissinger, who must have okayed and even have helped Jimmy Carter to become the Democratic presidential nominee and then the winner of the fall election against President Gerald Ford after Carter and I had developed a virtual script for Carter’s presidency.

The most direct proof of the content of the conversation lies with the U.S. Secret Service agent and the Carter aide, both of whom monitored our every word extremely carefully at the time of the occurence of the conversation. In addition, there are the literally dozens of professors and students to whom I reported some, most or all of the contents of the conversation in various sessions (already mentioned), during the following days and months (and years) after Carter and I had had our historically enormous brainstorming session. Some of them would confirm my leaks about the Carter/Krangle brainstorm event if it ever became investigated or a media story.

Circumstantial evidence includes seeming mere innuendo, such as that Ward Moorhouse became an NBC vice president after semi-publicly denying that I had told him anything about Afghanistan. And, that which might be argued as my sour grapes: Professor Robert Newman implemented his right, albeit not an obligatory one, to terminate my teaching fellowship at Pitt in January 1977, just as Carter was being inaugurated.  A few years later Newman let me know that he was helping to cover up the details of the conversation I had had with Carter.

 Political communication was Newman's specialty and he could have let me continue work on my doctoral thesis during Carter's first year in office and continue to get my insider input, which he had absolutely eaten up during my reports to him the year before, in contrast to his usual stolid comportment.  I actually was ready, willing and enthusiastic about leaving Pittsburgh to go for a job in the Carter administration or return to New York, where I intended to get a real paying full time job and continue work on my thesis. Yet, Newman could have and should have wanted me to stay on at Pitt.  He thought I was bright, he had written a letter of recommendation for me to that effect and included his observation that I had rated in the top 10% of teachers in official university-wide student surveys.  Besides, nobody had ever reported the details of a scripted and rigged presidency to him before--and, the rigged part had already been executed exactly as I had advertised.  I had also authored Carter's tactic of inserting "You can depend on it" for Carter's convention acceptance speech and had given Newman prior knowledge of that. 

Neither the U.S. Congress nor the Fourth Estate has investigated the fact of the dramatic scripting of the Carter presidency that took place almost seven months before Jimmy Carter was finally, narrowly elected. In fact, all of my confidants have kept their knowledge a secret from the public for all of these years. My parents are both dead and my old friends do not have the credibility that some of the academics from the University of Pittsburgh have, who were the first people I had told. Many of those academics have transferred to other universities and those who remain have refused to discuss the issue with me.

Nevertheless, although none of my confidants taped my sessions with them, a la Linda Tripp, they have all gotten to see the history on the TV news that I had told each one of them about beforehand, as proof of the fact that I had been involved in the most far reaching forecasting. The Camp David Framework for Peace, the details of Carter's and my envisioning of the Iranian Revolution, the Afghanistan revolution and the sanctions against the USSR and many other events of the following four years were all discussed by Carter and I in 1976. Carter and I had created a virtual script for his presidency in April 1976 and dozens of people know about it.

 

1976 Democratic National Convention Jimmy Carter and His Delegates Flyer

 The truth about the conversation will continue to impact America and the world very powerfully. The totalitarian methods and infrastructure that are being used to cover it up have already taken an incalculable toll on American society. The cover-up has enabled the extension of "The Fixing of the Presidency" (section 5) and a widening spiral of corruption and psychopathological politics that will aggravate an epic of prolonged worldwide violence, perhaps in proportion to how long it will have taken to bring the truth into the public arena and to understand all of its implications--and, of course, an accumulation of many other dark secrets of an evil, corrupted American system.

 Carter himself indicated to me during our conversation that there existed a permanent government in America and some "they" behind it who he would be serving if he were to become president. He told me that "they" would prevent him from doing certain things even as president, including the issuing of a White Paper on Iran, which Carter and I discussed as a possible way of preempting our very detailed envisioned embassy hostage crisis. He also indicated that he wouldn’t be able to intervene to help me when the government would start to persecute me in the future saying “…why should they ever stop….”

"They" have accumulated an enormous backlog of lies and deceptions that must be dealt with by the public in open, democratic forms, including the unmasking of a generation of rigged presidential elections, horrifying government practices amounting to what I will often refer to as Gulag Omnius and government orchestrated stock market manipulations. There remain the seemingly interminable cover-ups that will turn out to be the principle cause of the tremendous fall of America that lies just ahead and I am going to discuss these issues in more detail in the following sections of this manifesto.

Carter continues to serve "them", those in the military-industrial-criminal complex, by deferring to their corrupted cum delusional conceptions of national security, instead of recognizing how sane and crucial it is to admit the truth about our history. I believe that it has become standard operating procedure on the part of representatives of the establishment to write off some of my descriptions, analyses, interpretations and evaluations of events presented in this manifesto as idiosyncratic at best or the reactions of someone angry at not having received credit or of someone disappointed by failure. Similar diversionary tactics have oftentimes been employed in the past to reduce an individual’s or a group’s credibility. Such measures are routinely taken against government whistleblowers and many other honest Americans who have been persecuted by government agencies.

The outcome of the conversational experiment undertaken by Carter and I has become history, but the communication event itself remains an extraordinary secret part of American and world history. The occurrence and the content of the conversation has been covered up by a huge, decades long federal program that involves human rights violations, torture, and crimes against humanity. The cover-up includes activities that I will discuss in a section ahead entitled "The Omnius Gulag," some aspects of which Carter and I actually discussed in our session in a final segment that lasted over fifteen minutes.

 

The revelation of the truth to the public is not just a personal matter for me and it is not at all a question of getting credit or benefit for myself. I genuinely hold all of the opinions that I express throughout the manifesto and all of the events and analyses that I present are true and accurate to the best of my knowledge. I believe that Truth and Justice must come to dominate the new millennium or mankind will be destroyed. I believe that it is my historical obligation, my mission, under God, if you will, to point the way to the Truth as I understand it and to emphasize these enormous issues in general. This is essential in order for mankind to have a road to salvation, after the tremendous worldwide violence that is just ahead.
 

Finally, I would just like to add here that while the most concentrated and extensive focus on an American president, Watergate notwithstanding, has recently centered around sex and possible sex (Monica and Paula), the incomparably more important historical event that is being reported here has received absolutely no public attention. The prolonged scandals of the Clinton administration provide "perspective by incongruity" to the non-sexual, yet intimate and intense encounter of mine with presidential primary candidate Jimmy Carter (Kenneth Burke developed the term “perspective by incongruity”).

 

Mohammed Ali (center), John Lennon (front), Yoko Ono (kneeling, bottom left)                                              at Kennedy Center, January 19, 1976.  Photo by Mark Krangle covering event for WYEP-FM Pittsburgh

 

Carter and I had elaborated a virtual script for the biggest events of his soon-to-be-won presidential administration, which he later enacted in detail as president of the United States. In addition, Carter conspired with me on a plan that threatened my life and went on to suggest he would have to ignore future actions by the U.S. government that would annul my freedom. Carter told me that I “... would be looking for a life...” and would “...wind up twisting slowly in the wind.” The U.S. Secret Service agent listened intently to every single word of our conversation that day during the 1976 presidential primary campaign. Since then the Secret Service has helped to cover up the truth of the Carter/Krangle conversation and has also helped one of the most vicious persecutions of an individual that has ever been carried out by any government at any time in recorded history.

 

 Above all, the entire, extensive, totalitarian, U.S. military-industrial-criminal complex has been denying the role of higher intelligence, as well as (or, partly through the agency of) the underworld, in the Carter/Krangle conversation.  The CIA's rejection of this history and the concomitant opportunities to attempt scientific validation of the participation of higher intelligence, through a democratic sharing of unwarranted campaign secrets, is a hideous, perhaps fatal application of totalitarian America's political power.

 

Suggested Research

1. Outline some of the possible rationalizations that former President Jimmy Carter and the U.S. government could be using for the cover-up of the Carter/Krangle conversation? Should the government be involved in carrying out a persecution and a covering up of any campaign conversation, under any circumstances whatsoever?

2. What are the implications for American society when university professors, public school personnel, members of the press and business community and average citizens have been willing to assist persecutory activities and cover-ups by the government regarding a campaign conversation?

3. What can be gleaned about the nature of the American socio-political system from the statements that then presidential primary candidate Jimmy Carter made about the U.S. government during the conversation?

4. What are the pros and cons of government secrecy? Who should decide how to weight the conflicting arguments that are typically involved? 

            5. Use the Perforce Model to develop an overview of your own freedom of speech.

 

4. The Military-Industrial-Organized Crime Complex

Will the truth about the virtual totalitarian nature of American society awaken the working class to ask what it can do to establish a new model of democracy and social justice? It is not only America's own future that depends upon such an effort. Regional, religious and ethnic hostilities all over the world, as well as a precariously interlocked global market system have shown clear danger signs to a public whose government mainly serves oligarchic special interests and its own parasitic existence.

America as a totalitarian system is not an entirely new perspective. Norman Mailer wrote a piece during the Vietnam War explaining his own reasons for referring to the American government as totalitarian. I ran into Mailer in front of his place in Brooklyn, New York in 1983 and he suggested to me that I write to him about some of the matters that I am finally addressing here in this manifesto. I quite physically ran into Mailer while the car he was in blocked me near his Brooklyn home (the address of which I have lost).  Mailer insisted that I rolled into his car intentionally and he aggressively challenged me to get out of my car. I had to remind him that he knew me since I had escorted him to the rooftop of the Queens College Academic building 14 years earlier. At that time, he had been running for mayor of New York and luckily, one of the other student leaders of the anti-war movement, which had taken over the Queens College campus in 1969 with me, a small group of my friends and about two hundred other students, suggested to me that I be Mailer's guide around the campus, which I accepted. That student was Michael Schoen, who later became a career reporter for the CBS Radio News Network.

  In a previous decade, President Dwight Eisenhower had issued one of the most important contemporary warnings to the American public about the nature of our nation’s system, just as he was about to leave office—to beware of the "military-industrial complex." I have been using the term totalitarian along with Eisenhower’s construct (with the addition of "criminal") and will continue to do so throughout the manifesto. Today, the personnel infrastructure of the military-industrial-criminal complex includes an enormous and still expanding accumulation of full time, part time and one-shot manipulative and despotic roles: The system has become truly omnipresent.

Countless members of the mass media, academic, medical and other professions, as well as corporate America fill the roles in America's secret totalitarian hierarchy. Just about any member of the general public may be called upon, along with career bureaucrats and politicians from all levels of government that make up the mass of the permanent organizational system.  Part of the explanation for the current ongoing situation of a vast citizen participation in the military-industrial-criminal complex conspiracy includes the observation that no American is ever further out of reach than one or two steps from significant political influence or control over his or her important decisions or even sometimes seemingly small acts. A totalitarian America, much more extensive than even Hillary Clinton’s complaint of a "vast right wing conspiracy," includes tens of millions of citizens. Among them are selectively privileged members of the working and small business classes that are directly dependent on higher ups in a virtual pyramid of complete control over the rewards and punishments of every citizen of the United States.

Through a close colleague, a relative or even through an apparently casual encounter, a 2-step flow of advice or suggestions can be determinative in manipulating a citizen’s pattern of conduct or some single act on behalf of an integrated military-industrial-criminal complex. (The identification of a 2-step flow entered sociological literature in Paul F. Lazarsfeld, et.al, The People’s Choice, New York: Columbia University Press). This has become part of a pervasive system that includes the police, secret police and political, industrial and professional barons (including academics). America’s white Protestant ruling class, which controls the national election system and United States policies, as well as the majority of the largest corporations of the world, together with its numerous Catholic and Jewish accessories, genuinely represents the most intricately operated totalitarian power in all of history.  Paul F. Lazarsfeld has demonstrated that religion is one of the most important indicators of voting choice and in the U.S. this has meant an almost exclusively Protestant presidency. Prof. Lazarsfeld was a teacher of mine when he was Distinguished Visiting Professor at the University of Pittsburgh in the 1970s. We became personal friends, as he used to visit the house of my very close friend Mary Lou Clark (author of Dinosaur Books for Children), where I was living.  Ms. Clark was Professor Lazarsfeld's assistant on a very long-term project studying the North Dakota Ojibwa Indian tribe and struggling against the Bureau of Indian Affairs.

The United States of America is in reality a full-blown pathological anti-democratic system. Irreparable damage has been done to America due to the crimes that are still being accumulated during an extensive epoch of diabolical ‘complex’ cover-ups.  The conversation between Jimmy Carter and I should have been made public years ago and the calculated unmasking of such a great backlog of extraordinary secrets can be expected to interact in the near future with wars, market crashes and other forms of chaos. It is for these reasons that I have been trying to urge the White House, the federal agencies, the Congress, the academics, the press and former President Jimmy Carter to start dealing with this material now—before the inevitable global disasters begin to unfold full force, accompanied by an irreversible deepening of America’s socio-political pathology. Instead, the military-industrial-criminal complex is prepared to institute martial law, according to information given to me by a ‘complex’ insider, if the future should indeed present external instability and further domestic terrorism. 

In this light, some of the recent high school massacres and other mass murders may actually be welcomed, according to this same source that has access to national security operations’ personnel gossip, rumors, leaks, data and contingency plans. This young man explained to me that members of the national security community are predicting that, "It should only take a very few future terrorist events to get the public to accept the need for martial law all across America," and, then he added, "if that should ever really become necessary."  If martial law should actually be imposed in the future, then trying to bring formal charges against a federal agency for cold war and post-cold war crimes against American citizens, including my own decades long persecution, would be a great irony and mere pseudo-event. The U.S. Congress has been engineered to tolerate even the most repressive of executive branch activities, when national security directives and CIA involvement are used as justifications. Under such circumstances, violence may truly be the only means to argue for Truth and Justice. The American Revolution of 1776 was fought against similar forms of executive and legislative tyranny.

All of this is not an exaggeration or some type of new millennium hysteria in any respect. It is not the case that a sober analysis would prove that the American system is really just a matter of a great middle class coalescence of interests, attitudes and opinions functioning to neutralize any significant differences between the nation's two dominant political parties. The reality is that dedicated actors in scenes behind-the-scenes preplan all of the nation’s major policies, proceedings and even ----gates in order to satisfy the great special interests at the top of a military-industrial-criminal complex pyramid of power. While foreign policy and national security matters are the natural domain of America’s secret permanent center of power, no legislation is free from efforts to orchestrate the outcomes of debate exercises.  A real ongoing conspiratorial clique operates both the Democratic and Republican parties, the policy making machines and the overall socio-economic system of the nation, using tens of millions of professionals and average workers, from federal, state and local governments and private enterprise as its soldiers.

Authentically effective adversary proceedings witnessed on C-Span or followed on the news are mere appearance. Such theatre may hardly be self-believed by the participants themselves who are scripted in the scenes behind-the-scenes with the assistance of the permanent technocracy. These members of America's ruling class conspiracy, along with a partly permanent and partly revolving cast of political staff people help to plan out key parts for appropriate legislators and executive branch representatives. They take into account the positions of aggressive committed politicians who have come out on any issue slated for a major airing.  The performances that are unfolded before the public are scripted or predicted and offset by a top-down hierarchy including helping to provide adequate excuses to the patrons, intimates and activist followers of the great political barons of America (and even to some of the barons themselves as well) for why things could not turn out the way they wished. Why opposing approaches to an issue or policy (including the hundreds of taxpayer funded staff hours of preparation for scheduled losing legislation) could not win the day is explained to the public in the theatre of legislative activity that is covered by the press. The sum of the performances seems to prove that the legislators had tried to win and could have indeed won if only not for the President's veto or the unwillingness to compromise of the opposition.  Nevertheless, such attitudes and facts that will determine the outcomes are well known ahead of time by the master planners as well as by many or most of the politicians, depending on the specific issue at hand.

Meanwhile, the pharaohs at the top of the irresistible totalitarian hierarchy had already selected and insured the selection of these exact 100% predictable and controlled executive and legislative branch actors. The chosen cast of characters consistently assures the maintenance of the very concisely defined parameters of legislation that had long since been projected to best serve the emperors’ conceptions of the needs of America.  "Innocent" legislators are able to be operated by their own savvy, connected personnel who have been intentionally penetrated into influential staff positions or "turned" once on the inside by higher-ups in the totalitarian pyramid of power in America. The half of America that actually votes in elections enjoys the arguments that are finally acted out in the electronic political theatre, based on the traditional elephant and donkey party themes.

The passing of legislation or putting off of issues of public importance is able to be programmed, sometimes even years in advance, because America’s politicians, congressional staffs, mass media personnel and almost everyone else are willing to do anything to avoid being cast aside or having their careers entirely destroyed. They all want to remain ingratiated to the system as a whole, which generates the scripts that are performed from the top down.  There is not a single person who is not vulnerable to the knowledge and the tactics that the military-industrial-criminal complex can bring to bear against any individual. Thus, it is rarely necessary for overt threats to have to be made. Everyone feels covered politically or professionally since all of the relevant arguments are always appropriately included in the pseudo-debates as well as in the evening news sound bytes, every time an issue reemerges in a new package destined for passage or for failure.

The organization of totalitarian America is both formal and informal and its dominance over society surpasses any of the well-known recorded despotic regimes of the past, particularly because it remains so masked. Elements within the establishment structure have strategically taken over much of the territory and methods of the old Mafia crime families, in addition to their application of the traditional forms of ruling class control. Large campaign contributions, sometimes illegal ones and oftentimes semi-legal ones made by loosely knit bands of "fronts" help a permanent ruling element to dominate the agendas of elected officials in their scenes behind-the-scenes.  The post-depression, post-wars America of today is even more conformist than the America about which Alexis de Toqueville once wrote. In spite of the country’s countless mavericks and even your own very personal way of doing some things, almost every working person wants to fit into the system as much as his elected representatives do. No one wants to get punished (docked, fired or refused funding for reelection) for spoiling the big plans of his patrons or employers in a system that offers so many material rewards, comforts and pleasures. Besides, economic punishment can be augmented by threats to one’s prestige, career or even one’s life.  Networks of federal and local police informants and agencies have helped to create personal dossiers on tens of millions of American citizens, further aided by electronic information collected, stored, sold and traded by private industry computer systems. The expanded, ‘new and improved’ U.S. military-industrial-organized crime complex has set its sights on the maximum exploitation of each and every individual in the United States of America (and the world as well, beyond just the first few levels of the leadership classes).

 The truth is that all of the rich and connected political candidates and potential candidates in America are a part of the same single totalitarian military-industrial-criminal complex, sometimes fully aware and sometimes only partially aware. This includes the Clintons, Al Gore, Bill Bradley, Donald Trump, Pat Buchanan and Ralph Nader as much as George W. Bush, Elizabeth Dole, John McCain and Steve Forbes. A single master plan is designed for America’s election processes in order to fool the American people into believing that they have an effective aggregate role in choosing the winners and I have been involved in or tipped about these activities for more than a quarter of a century. Pat Buchanan’s or even Ralph Nader’s role in the year 2000 may just be to demonstrate that the two-party system is the only "fair and reasonable" way to pick a president. All of the political contenders themselves may even self-believe that their being highly competitive achievers (albeit perhaps a bit lucky at various junctures throughout most or all of their lives), plus having certain political principles, ideas and experience is what really provides the fundamental explanation for their roles in the presidential sweepstakes.

     The voting public is consistently being manipulated every step of the way. The motive for the most elaborate secret totalitarian system in history is power. The motive is to provide a totalitarian system of great special interests with the outcomes it knows will serve it in the short term, believes will serve it in the medium term and prays will serve it in the long term. The same interests that are to be served by the pre-selected winners of the primary processes secretly encourage (through intermediaries) and secretly fund (to some extent) the entire pack of destined losers. Afterwards, the somewhat popular personalities among the groups of losing candidates help reunite all of the special issue and fringe constituents of their party for the great fix of the fall campaign. All of the candidates must also consciously lie or otherwise deceive and distract attention from the truth about a totalitarian system. Hillary Clinton’s vast right wing conservative conspiracy, in fact, really includes Hillary herself and she cannot be completely unaware of it.

Just posit for a moment that the braintrust that serves the totalitarian complex has projected that the best political configuration to begin the next presidential term would be to have a Democratic President, a Democratic House of Representatives and a Republican Senate. The motives might include the need for America to go to war (always started by a Democratic president) in order to maintain a strong economy and to distract attention away from political scandals regarding widespread corruption throughout the entire system. There already exists a very probable set of domestic and international scenarios for the next several years that are managed by U.S. intelligence technocrats. The U.S. military-industrial-criminal complex hierarchy has already selected a cast of political characters who can best carry out the contingency plans that have been designed to keep America’s special interests in control at home and abroad. Thus, Al Gore could be programmed to win, along with a Democratic House, in order to help process through a bipartisan war effort and cope with a host of scandalous issues waiting to confront America. Regardless of who has, in fact, been programmed to be president in 2001, the winner will face enormous problems including some truths about the Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton administrations that will shockingly compete with still further revelations to come about the Reagan and Bush administrations.

On the other hand, George W. could in fact be scheduled to win for the very purpose of facing the investigation of his own father and a whole host of other aspects of the fall of America. A President George W. might be able to keep America out of foreign wars during a special investigative processing of the federal bureaucrats, politicians and others involved in a half a century of accumulated crimes and wrongdoings, while a President Gore probably could not.   The secret establishment in the scene-behind-the-scenes may be hoping to substitute a lot of mortification in a new Bush administration for a certain amount of the violence that America is bound to face in what will only be able to be called the Judgment of Nations during the generations ahead. 

Who can best handle the scheduled domestic programs and conundrums and the policies programmed to enable America to dominate the global forecasts, provides the key to understanding who has already been chosen by the top of a secret American political hierarchy to serve the system as a whole as president. The voting public will be brought along after having their opinions about endless details tapped in hundreds of unpublished statewide and national polls. The final result is facilitated by a controlled "free" press that will be programmed to cover planned (pseudo-) events, scripted debates and embarrassing set-ups, as has been done for more than a generation now.  I can only add here to the assertions about my own direct involvement in scripting the presidency and receiving tips about aspects of rigging the presidency (next section), that the desire of the corporate media world is always to have close races, especially in presidential elections. The press therefore emphasizes or underplays events, incidents and revelations in ways that will try to assure a maximum of public attention in order to make money for the media corporations. This reality makes dramatically timed and sometimes even subtle input by master manipulators decisive at each and every stage of a long campaign process.

The political arena is not the only area of control by a military-industrial-criminal complex in our real full-blown twentieth century totalitarian system. Small events reflecting the set-ups in electoral politics exist throughout the American corporate, small business and professional communities. There are the chosen, the temporarily sacrificed and the perennial losers in every field of American activity. There are the super-privileged and there are the enemies' lists that neither began nor terminated with the presidency of Richard M. Nixon.

Some examples of setups outside of the election process can be gleaned from the significant percentage of failure by small business people who had in fact been intentionally steered to "dead" spots in shopping malls or commercial zones to the benefit of real estate corporations, lawyers, financiers and remodeling companies. Winning spots go to the chosen few. In the meantime, small businessmen farmers are constantly subjected to the tyranny of the government, the banks and giant agri-businesses.

One gigantic example of the insidious working of totalitarian America in the "free" market is the industry of illegal drugs, which is the most lucrative enterprise in the world. Local police and federal agents have an intricate and completely organized system of protection of the major traffickers, wholesalers and smalltime distributors. In addition, wealthy members of the business community participate by bankrolling different ethnic gangs from across the Americas.

Police and others in the totalitarian infrastructure hierarchy oftentimes tip the drug addicts, who always have a need to develop new addicts to help them to manage their own addictions economically and operationally, about new possible targets for addiction. Individuals who are vulnerable or who have been especially set up to experience losses (money, jobs, careers, girlfriends, etc.), in already difficult ghetto environments or in middle class adolescent crisis, may be suggested to drug addict corporals for recruitment. Such targets could receive the treatment after just a simple signal from an ambitious cop on the pad, such as: "Wouldn’t Johnny be just as well-off taking heroine?"

The hundreds of billions of dollars gained through the sales of all illegal drugs every year in the United States is duplicated in spins into government service industries and legitimate business. The aggregate of average working persons has to pay a couple hundred billions of dollars in costs for processing a segment of the apprehended drug users and dealers through lawyer services, the courts, prisons, the welfare system and sometimes rehabilitation services. Insurance rates for homes and autos cost significantly more because of the criminal activities that just a small percentage of the nation’s drug users carry out on a daily basis.  Jewelry stores, electronics and home appliance centers and other businesses wind up having to sell many consumers, who have been victimized by burglaries, new replacement items, even several times. Meanwhile, some pawnshops, second hand stores and street venders get to sell stolen items to a population that might otherwise never have been able to afford to buy them new in the shopping malls.

The drug business in America is one tremendous aspect of a totalitarian system of special interests that directly and indirectly profits from negating or ruining many people’s lives. This includes the intentional use of specific individuals as drug addicts for a certain period of time, then arranging their incarceration in mammoth prison businesses for other periods of time, all the while terrorizing the average citizen and making him pay for it.

 The right to access the minds of the general public through the advertising of many legal, yet unhealthy products provides another example of how the prerogatives of special interests create potential harm to the average citizen. The soft drink, cereal and toy manufactures, for example, in their endlessly repetitive attitude-forming advertisements, are not teaching the consumer anything beneficial, especially young children. Nevertheless, products with high sugar content have been imbedded into the minds and routines of Americans from the time they are born. The overuse of these products by people throughout their entire lives can account for some of the high incidence of diabetes and heart disease among Americans. Alcoholic beverages have probably contributed to as many deaths and as much disease in the United States as tobacco.  Even credit card advertising and distribution practices may play a significant role in ruining many people's lives. Therefore, it is not due to any sympathy for the tobacco manufacturers to ask if it is not unjust that they alone among the major consumer product enterprises have been singled out for the multi-billion dollar wrongful death and negligence class action suits in many states of the nation and now face federal suits. Big alcohol, soft drinks and cereals, among others, should all be defendants in class action suits and all of these corporations should face criminal prosecution.

It is working class men and women and their children that are most vulnerable to the virtually uncontrollable access to their minds that special interests have taken advantage of. The American establishment has allowed children to be continuously incited almost from birth to make demands for material things (Barbie, GI Joe, Mickey and McDonald’s, etc.) from their parents over recent decades and the consequent damage to the prestige of the average low-paid worker has resulted—along with tremendous increases in family breakups.  This type of sociological pattern may be even more damaging to children, families and society in general than violence in the media.

Meanwhile, the rich can provide their youngsters with private tutors, tickets to professional athletic events, theatre, travel, wardrobes, career opportunities, etc., and they have the ability to satisfy their spouse's material needs as much as to consistently demonstrate to their children that they can satisfy such needs. Thus the rich are in a much better position to prevent the enslavement of their own children to forms of corporate tyranny that actually compliment street and schoolyard tyranny.  The unjustifiable rights of corporate America to access the public’s minds through mass media this century is just one part of that which has created a contemporary dehumanization of the common man, throughout Western civilization. Every citizen has become a target of systematic, tyrannical exploitation.

Today’s ruling class has expanded exponentially during the twentieth century and it has created dominance patterns that are much more deviant (albeit perhaps less blatantly brutal), than it has traditionally used over the millenniums. Intense, desperate competition among the new masses of barons of industry, government and the professions has produced a hierarchy of power which has accumulated so many secret transgressions over the past several decades that the fundamental nature of totalitarian America must be characterized as pathological and sadomasochistic, with psychotic dimensions at its core. The young field of sociobiology, along with political science needs to pay special attention to deviant elite class behaviors that have accompanied population and economic growth with intensified intra-ruling class secret warfare.

Cover-ups made of lies, deception, distortion, persecutions and murder secretly dominate the world of business and politics. While many of the participants may not be fully aware of their own roles, a schizophrenic system of defensiveness and aggression pervades the American ruling class from the top down. This condition may turn out to count as societal paranoia to the psycho-historians of tomorrow, even while it is fully informed outright evil that dominates key posts throughout America's military-industrial-criminal complex. The mass media uses its sporadic exposés (few follow-ups, no crusades) to help maintain the pretense that checks and balances exist in America.

The system is able to keep most people in line and to recruit almost anyone into programs and plots designed to expand its locus of preeminent control. In addition, it selectively and ubiquitously steers individuals into the tasks and careers, scams, addictions and routines that suit the system’s overall designs as well as its specific needs. No one is free from this in America.

The executive and congressional branch unanimity in the current emphatic call for no limits to growth (no matter what is secretly being done to insure it) is a part of the natural final stage of recent capitalist dominated history. Karl Marx’s predictions that capitalism would reach a stage of competition where it would at last destroy itself is now on the brink of realization because America’s establishment has been unable to apply consistent, legitimate checks to its ambitions.

In contrast, much of the history of religion, as well as many of the insights of modern science have strongly argued for limits, temperance, discipline and self-control. The laws of the Hebrew Bible and of the Koran, the teachings of Jesus, the wisdom of Confucius and Buddha and the practices of many indigenous American religions stand out.  Hinduism, Shinto and a host of other religions expand this list of rule-bound systems that have as much relevance today as they had when they were originally formulated—all under the same one highest intelligence of the universe. Such systems demand limits on the members of their societies. The lessons to be learned from them, as well as from the dictum that a polity ought to be governed by laws and not by men, are all overwhelmed in today’s totalitarian America—in spite of so much preaching on the part of those in power.

The arguments expressed here about totalitarian America may seem radical only because you have been trained all of your life by the very system of education, mass media, politics and big business that continue to dominate the events and information that form the basis of your adult opinions. The American people are among the hardest working, most generous and ingenious people in the whole world, but we are living inside of an insidious secret political system that caters to big special interests and the bureaucracy's own privileges.

Suggested Research

1.         How common are the smaller conspiracies in American life? How many average American citizens have been asked to participate in a set-up of a friend, associate, school mate, work mate or acquaintance in order to benefit themselves or someone else economically, socially, sexually or politically? If it could be shown that there exists a pattern of this type of activity nationally, along with a class of victims and a class of perpetrators, could this be included as evidence of a totalitarian America?

2.         Why hasn’t a sociologist or a section of the FBI offered the average American citizen an inventory and an anatomy of conspiracies and set-ups, following Erving Goffman or Eric Berne— giving us The Presentation of Set-ups in Everyday Life or Conspiracies People Play?

3.         How have major conspiracies against the average working person and child, such as special interest mass media advertising and the rich in control of all elected offices, helped to destroy the American family?

4.         The American taxpayer is still paying off the hundreds of billions of dollars that Congress appropriated for the bailout of the U.S. Savings and Loan institutions. The excuse has been that the Savings and Loans "lost" the funds in bad transactions. Where can each dollar be "found?" Where was every one of the hundreds of billions of dollars invested? Were not entrepreneurs in some fields, e.g. real estate, construction, oil drilling projects, etc., etc. direct beneficiaries of every "lost" dollar. What different explanations might be able to provide a possible answer to how so many different S&L money managers were able to make such similar bad investments over such an extended period of time? Has a very similar pattern of "losing" the money of masses of working people unfolded in Korea, Brazil, Mexico (Fobaproa), Russia and various other nations, leaving the working classes to have to pay off the debts? Who has gained in each of these cases and how much has been won?

5.         What percentage of people of voting age in each U.S. State has actually voted for their local, state and federal elected office holders? Create an in depth survey to learn the details of why the majority of Americans do not vote in most elections. How does government secrecy at all levels of government contribute to citizen apathy and the existence of a totalitarian America?

 
5. THE FIXING OF THE PRESIDENCY

 

 Theodore White and I spent some time together at the 1980 Democratic Convention at Madison Square Garden, where I was covering the political action as a volunteer reporter for Pittsburgh's community radio station, WYEP-FM, just as I had done four years earlier. We chatted for a bit, but I did not tell Mr. White that his Making of the President books barely scratched the surface of the real factors that determined the presidential election winners. For one thing, he was so nice, but I also felt a need to be self-protective about revealing to him just how ineluctable the genuine fixing of the presidential election outcomes really was.

 The term "fixing of the presidency" is ambiguous and connotes rigged elections, but it also refers to a pre-programming of White House policy, which will be discussed just ahead. A kind of neutered Presidency ought to be considered as well under this concept. No doubt there are many Americans who wish that this could have been the definition of a fixed presidency that had been literally applied to Bill Clinton. For some other connotations of a fixed presidency, perhaps one should include Arthur Schlesinger's The Imperial Presidency and William Reedy's The Twilight of the Presidency.

I was under a most intense program of U.S. government secret police surveillance at the time of my covering the convention with Reedy and my life had already been threatened several times. This situation has actually intensified over the nearly two decades since then. My knowledge of presidential fixes had always come about under some rather unusual circumstances and a complex of powerful elements have been making certain that my ever increasingly cogent analyses and overviews would not receive public attention before it was time.

I had been given advanced information when I was only a teenager that presidential contender Richard Nixon would have only light facial makeup over his harried afternoon beard stubble and that it would make him appear gruff in comparison to the younger clean-cut John Kennedy. I was told that that factor would affect the outcome of the presidential debates later that same day and that Nixon would "almost definitely lose the polled television audience and probably the whole debate."

More than just that canny New York City wise guy tip had already been channeled to me. Years earlier I learned that a Democratic president would be required for the administration following Eisenhower's in order to move America into the next shooting war against communism. This was so, I was advised, because the Democrats always had to begin the wars: The sons of the working class would be the ones to do most of the dying and the Republicans could not shoulder the social responsibility.

JFK was going to have to win the 1960 election and Lyndon Johnson was put on his ticket specifically in order to follow through on the projected long term Vietnam War. Men such as the Dulles brothers scheduled that war during the Eisenhower administration, just as they had planned the invasion of Cuba to be carried out in the following presidency. Johnson was put on Kennedy's ticket "just in case JFK got killed," according to my well-connected informant, who explained to me that John Kennedy was hated by those for whom he would initiate the Vietnam War—and others as well.

Yet my early childhood and teenage history lessons and even my later direct involvement in presidential politics as a Carter campaign organizer and delegate candidate were suppressed in my mind while I was watching the Jimmy Carter convention proceedings at the Garden with Teddy White. That lapse occurred in spite of my journalism training and my current role as a reporter—or perhaps, because of such background in an American system that finally only consistently rewards those who do not make waves.

In contrast, a courageous historian will someday explain the details about a conservative anti-Roosevelt clique (now, Hillary's vast right wing conspiracy) that had already begun emerging more than a generation earlier. Its primary goal has been to make certain that a liberal national politics would never again dominate their nation, no matter what war might have to be fought. If liberal reforms were ever to be required after FDR, in order to pacify the restive masses, such policies would not only be tempered by their conservative objections, they would always lag far behind the defense programs to be designed by their own handpicked technocrats.

In addition, this right wing clique began using organized crime to help it get things done (from building worldwide anti-fascist networks during World War II to helping get rid of Tucker automotive enterprises shortly thereafter). After Truman beat Dewey in 1948 (anticipating war in the Far East), Eisenhower was chosen to head up a winning Republican ticket in 1952.

During Ike's eight years of peace and slow but steady prosperity, the Vietnam War was already being projected as the next fighting front against communism. Therefore, following his administrations, the Democrats would be required to get the White House once again, even if Nixon votes had to be stolen out of the ballot box in a couple of states. The military-industrial-organized crime complex has managed an occult coordination among themselves of the operations required to make absolutely certain the achievement of the electoral outcomes necessary in order to carry out official secret plans, as well as additional private hidden agendas. This has been the case ever since the Eisenhower administration ended.

So-called democratic politics, including the presidency, has always been a tool of the rich special interests. Only a member of the club, born and bred into it, or especially groomed to ascend to its service has ever become president. The difference is that in the past, before JFK, the rich Republican and Democrat elite could bargain and compromise among themselves and the fairly elected president (accepting the club premise) in order to determine American policy during an administration.

Once the conservative anti-Roosevelt clique got itself sufficiently organized in the military, intelligence, secret police and organized crime communities (becoming the vast right wing conspiracy), it has been absolutely determined who would be elected president (not just who the candidates would be). The concerted manipulation both of events and of the otherwise essentially controlled press during the run up to Election Day realizes these decisions.

Many domestic and all foreign policy priorities are always very concretely formulated in the years prior to a new administration, with the help of technocratic forecasting, in order to decide beforehand whether a Republican or a Democrat president would best serve the system as a whole. How the Congress and the new president have to be influenced and engineered to give the appearance and reality of adversary legislative processes unfolding, while gaining ratification of all of the major policies that have been preplanned by a permanent conspiracy is the most Machiavellian of all military-industrial-criminal complex activities.

For example, the Iran/Contragate legislative hearings, including Oliver North’s and John Poindexter's congressional testimony were preplanned at the same time as the planning of the actual acts upon which the hearings were based—the arms sales to Iran and the transfer of the profits to the contras. I participated informally in both aspects of this advanced planning with a Reagan political operative who told me that he had been involved in meetings with members of the Santa Fe group.

My understanding is that the overriding policy objectives in the Iran/Contra case were cold war national security ones. The primary motives for the arms sales to Iran were to help prevent Iraq from gaining the upper hand in the war between the two nations and to prevent the possible intervention of the USSR into neighboring Teheran. Of course, support for the "contras" also had anti-Soviet motives. In carrying out both policies and then the Iran/Contra hearings, the Soviet Union was going to be taught that President Ronald Reagan could get away with doing that which had been planned for his administration, regardless of the laws that the American Congress had made to prevent such activities.

 In his book Veil, Bob Woodward refers to the national security motive for arms sales to Iran on page 192 and then on page 206 he refers to the motive of teaching the Soviet Union a lesson (regarding Nicaragua). Nevertheless, these overarching objectives were all but ignored by the press in favor of a focus on arguments over whether or not President Ronald Reagan himself had had any prior knowledge about the operations and what his own motives were for the policies. When President Reagan finally acknowledged that he had indeed authorized the arms sales to Iran in order to foster a deal for American hostages, the Congress and the press generously put the matter of motives to rest. However, Reagan only admitted his own motives. He never mentioned the prior longstanding national security motives. Those motives were in fact the real cause of all of the very elaborate and much earlier contingency plans for arms sales to Iran, transfer of the profits to the "contras" and the Iran/Contra hearings themselves that would all be played out over a long period of time.

The Reagan political operative had consulted me on the Iran/Contra strategy years before its actual implementation began. He had indicated that I was known to his Santa Fe group connection to secretly be the intellectual author of the Billygate hearings and the strategy of using Billy Carter as a bridge to better relations with Muammar El Qadhafi as well as many other aspects of Carter’s foreign policy.

  I wrote to Senator John Heinz and spoke to him in person at length on several occasions during the Carter administration and we exchanged letters in the Summer/Fall of 1980 specifically about Billygate. The airplane/helicopter crash that later took the Senator’s life was in fact an assassination. That the tragedy was no accident was proven to me by a source that had prior knowledge of the politically (and perhaps economically) motivated assassination. I also exchanged letters with Senator Howard Baker on August 4^th, 7^th and 28^th of 1980, which included information about my role in planning Billygate. Baker demurred from asking me to give formal congressional testimony. Zbigniew Brezsinski and I exchanged words at the Billygate hearings themselves about the session I had had with Jimmy Carter where I originally developed the Billy Carter strategy in relation to Libya and the idea for Carter to have his own ----gate after Carter had asked my opinion about how he might improve relations with Libya. I was covering the Billygate hearings for WYEP-FM, a Pittsburgh radio station, when I confronted Breszinski.

This is just a glimpse at "democracy's" scene behind-the-scenes. It shows a short-circuiting of the U.S. Constitutional requirements to have an authentic balance of powers between the branches of the federal government. The purposes of competing with totalitarian communism abroad while at the same time thwarting a feared domination by liberalism at home can not excuse the secret machinations that have made checks and balances in government a mere charade. As the cold war became more complicated, the United States of America became more like its adversaries—and worse would come.

In fact, knowledge of the true situation of non-democracy and political bondage of the American citizen is vague and pitiful in contrast to the well-understood condition of those who fought to influence the old Soviet Union through secret organizations and samizdat writings. Americans have only feelings, among them suspicions and some general ideas about an unfair, corrupt and inaccessible political system. An organized resistance to totalitarian America, in the form of so-called right wing militia, has already begun to emerge in many states.

Leaving the examples of the secret programming of executive branch policy and some of its implications and returning to the chronology of the fixing of the presidential elections themselves, Richard Nixon was engineered into the presidency after Lyndon Johnson took over for the assassinated John Kennedy. This followed Johnson's own run for the presidency, specifically matched against Barry Goldwater in order to eliminate, once and for all, the possibility of winning the desired long term Vietnam War by using nuclear weapons.

A political informant explained to me that Lyndon Johnson was manipulatively influenced not to run again in 1968 and not to give his support to Hubert Humphrey. Johnson’s decision not to run went beyond his disappointment and even anguish over the way the Vietnam War had been going. Fittingly, part of the efforts used to get Nixon into the presidency that he had had to lose to Kennedy in 1960, included the chaos that was organized in the Democrat's stronghold of Chicago during the 1968 Democratic National Convention.

One of the major policy strategies that depended upon returning a Republican to the presidency in 1968 was opening the door to China, which would enable the United States to play the "China card" in the cold war against the Soviet Union. The politicians and the press editorials of the time admitted that only someone like Richard Nixon could have overcome conservative political resistance to the new diplomatic efforts toward China.

Nixon’s utility to the same establishment labyrinth that he was working within to keep the Vietnam war from a final conclusion for six more years extended into his accepting his convoluted role as the fallguy for the accumulation of government abuses of power—in Watergate. Richard Nixon himself would be the one to have to resign. Nixon would be the character to be remembered for his enemies’ lists and for being toppled by the overwhelming bipartisan agreement on several counts of impeachment against the President of the United States for abuses of the powers of state.

The establishment's apparent fiasco (hundreds of billions of dollars were made by defense industry barons) in Vietnam and the totalitarian abuses of power carried out by the federal agencies (or with their assistance) against antiwar dissidents, civil rights activists and others were all substantially laundered simply by destroying one politician.

Jimmy Carter provided the second phase of the distraction away from the military-industrial complex's failure in Vietnam. It would be the Carter administration that was to be perceived as weak, perceived as a failure and Carter would be replaced after just one term. Yet he was fixed into the presidency exactly for the purposes of absorbing the completely predictable and perfectly forecast downturns in post-Vietnam War American prestige and the economy.

As already mentioned, Carter shared with me some of the forecasts (that he indicated to me he had previously assembled) from various sources regarding the potential for a Shiite revolution in Iran against the Shah, as well the possibilities for the Sandinista revolution against Somoza in Nicaragua. A few years after Carter and I had speculated about both events, in April 1976, they emerged as history, having been predicted to result partly because of America's loss of the Vietnam War.

Carter also projected for me, during our historical campaign trail conversation in the Spring of 1976, that he would probably go on to beat Gerald Ford in the general elections in the Fall as a result of a debate. Candidate Carter specifically suggested that "...Ford would look foolish for saying Poland is free."

Henry Kissinger wound up rehearsing Ford to express that very attitude and debate moderator Max Frankel drew just such a remark out of  Ford  with his question about Eastern Europe during the presidential debate, just six months after Carter envisaged that flap in our long brainstorming session. Ford’s statement “…there is no Soviet domination of Eastern Europe and there never will be under a Ford administration” was seized upon by both Frankel and Carter at the debate.  Later, every news network cooperated in Ford's mortification by airing file-footage of "Ford the bungler" slipping down an airplane ramp and getting hit in the head by a football. These images continued for an entire week, until just shortly before Election Day.  Carter told me during the spring primary campaign that he thought that was going to be the way he was going to get to win the presidency.  I expressed astonishment to him in front of the secret service agent who carefully monitored every word of our conversation.  I told Carter that I had been tipped about the JFK-Nixon debate and that I thought he must be aware of the rigging of the presidential campaigns because of the way he projected Ford’s unwieldy and vulnerable debate remark. 

I thought at the time that it was more than coincidental that Carter was feeding me an idea about how his own election might be helped by a projection of his opponent's embarrassing debate remark since I had been tipped about a debate anomaly in the Kennedy-Nixon contest. I expressed that to Carter. More than a decade later, in the summer of 1988, a (double?) political operative tipped me that George Bush would first win and later lose the presidency, in part, because of debate touches. I was told that there was going to be big press coverage of Bush's future use of the phrase "Read my lips," against Michael Dukakis and that then four years later in 1992 Bush's opponent was going to use the same phrase against him. Both tips came in the same 1988 conversation!

 I also learned that Gary Hart was carefully set up for his campaign fiasco over Donna Rice. I was also told, before the fact, that Michael Dukakis would parole Willie Horton and that Horton was (literally) programmed to go across the country and rape the woman he did rape in California (why these tactics?)

The setups surrounding the victories of Ronald Reagan and the rationales for and beneficiaries of his incumbency require a separate book to do them justice. For the purposes of this manifesto, let it suffice to say that the clique at the top of the establishment complex was greatly pleased by the Reagan presidency. Meanwhile, the eight-year "Just say no to drugs" national campaign unfolded. Its attendant strategies of blaming the drug producers, putting American drug-fighting soldiers into action abroad and carrying out crop eradication in Latin America helped to fortify control over the illegal drug industry in the hands of nefarious elements of the establishment itself (including the police and federal agents).

Perhaps most importantly of all in this entire generation of the fixing of the presidency was when George Bush himself was put in the tank for the 1992-election race against Bill Clinton. This fix represents the abandonment by the establishment of the last chance to have had a major cold warrior explain America’s post-World War II excesses, Constitutional violations and crimes against humanity while in a perfect position to accept the responsibility--during his own (never realized) second presidential administration.

What explains why George Bush took a dive in the 1992 presidential campaign? He, his political operatives and the rest of his staff were the most sophisticated group in American political history. They had had 12 years of White House experience by 1992, besides Bush's CIA, United Nations and Republican Party leadership background. Yet, they let an establishment-controlled press completely downplay Bill Clinton's character defects and other shortcomings and they failed to pull out all the stops in support of President Bush.

There existed important government forecasts that the economy was set to skyrocket in 1993 and beyond because of the corporate and government strategies that had been followed during the Bush administration. The most experienced political operatives in history allowed the press to play skeptical rather than to play even mildly expectant about the nation's economic prospects. There were experts available from both the government and the corporate worlds that could have been paraded before the public to testify persuasively in both general and specific terms about the great economy just ahead, but such resources were left untapped. Besides, the economy was far from bad in 1992; it just wasn't great yet. Nonetheless, the press harped on the non-greatness of the economy.

As well, George Bush had just won the cold war. The Berlin Wall had only recently come down. He had been the hero of Desert Storm just a year or so earlier, with the highest approval rating of any president up until then, or since. Yet, the most sophisticated and experienced political operatives in history, Bush and his staff, demurred from finding a way to get an establishment controlled press and electronic media to celebrate the former UN ambassador, former CIA director, current president with altogether 12 years of White House experience

In spite of all of this, President George Bush did not to appear all over television running for reelection as the master strategist of the victory of the cold war, the cold war that had been the virtually transcendent political reality that was responsible for so much pressure and expense on America for fully half of the twentieth century. The Soviet Union's occupation of Eastern Europe and the cold war came had dominated so much for so long and then it just was “over.”  The buzz that was allowed to dominate at election time in the American free press was that "foreign policy is not supposed to count in the presidential race."

The American press and electronic mass media executives and personalities represent a club of participants with some of the grandest privileges in the entire world. Except for some brave reporters who actually take physical risks or who fight to get a story, the field is filled with completely replaceable mediocre sycophants, as egotistical and arrogant as they may oftentimes be. They are neither painters, nor great athletes, nor highly talented movie stars, nor brilliant creative writers of literature, nor arduously trained medical professionals, nor honest, objective, independent university professors, etc. Given this, they are one of the easiest groups in America to fall under the control of the military-industrial-criminal complex hierarchy that has ample representation within it by the media's own top executives.

What is finally published or broadcast is a corporate product aimed to serve corporate interests and to maintain the status quo. Some of the media's talented writers and on-the-air personalities may be kept innocent to a certain degree regarding the nature of their profession's role in totalitarian America. Nevertheless, somewhere down the line every single one of them will be forced to demonstrate a significant intentional compromise with the system as dictator to their otherwise possibly conscientious professionalism. From that moment on, that individual's dozens or hundreds or thousands of selfless, brave, unmasking and/or creative professional acts can mean nothing historically in contrast to the one single, even seemingly small act, that made that person an aware part of the system of total control.  His one act may have simply been to show someone in the military-industrial-criminal complex hierarchy (possibly even a corporate subordinate) that he was willing to accept the current public or behind-the-scenes buzz about a situation instead of pressing forward with a hunch or a source's tip. Beyond the depiction of the media and media moguls in Paddy Chayefsky's brilliant screenplay Network or the application of their skills in Wag the Dog lays the reality upon which such literary works are based.

In addition to these inferences and interpretations, the fact is that I had been told, in the Spring of 1990, that the Bush campaign and his administration's actions in the Summer and Fall of 1992 were planned so that Bush would lose the 1992 election. Pat Buchanan was going to going to be left unrestrained (and be funded) to beat up on Bush during the primary season and then James Baker was going to be brought in to head up Bush's losing reelection campaign. As outgoing Secretary of State, Baker would be the perfect diplomat and play the critical role in preventing, until just after Election Day, what was already a 1990 contingency plan to invade Somalia for humanitarian purposes. Baker would be able to dominate the arguments internal to the Bush campaign about the risks of such a military action appearing like a campaign ploy. Without Baker, the invasion, which was certain to start off powerfully, would have been a perfectly successful presidential campaign ploy to enhance Bush’s role as commander-in-chief. With Baker, the invasion was delayed – to help insure Bush’s loss of the election.  Baker also played a key role in preventing the Bush campaign's political operatives from ratcheting up the pressure on Boris Yeltsin to get the START II Treaty signed the week before Election Day. Instead, the treaty was signed two months later. The masterminds who planned for Bush to lose the election also planned for the treaty signing to be part of "a going away present" for President Bush according to a young neocon insider who had tipped me months earlier.

Bush was put in the tank in 1992 because he could not possibly have carried out the tasks, programs and policies that were scheduled for the following administration. The post-cold war cutting of U.S. military bases, recognition of Vietnam, passage of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) with labor-cheap Mexico, committing U.S. troops to the Balkans, cutting welfare and many other critical programs designed in the Bush administration could not have been carried out by Bush himself. If Bush had succeeded himself as President in 1993 and had implemented the programs that he had helped to plan, he would have torn the Republican Party in half.

Clinton as Democrat, and specifically Clinton qua Clinton, was slated to become president. Clinton was required to implement the programs that the conservative wing of the Republican party would never have forgiven a Republican president for doing or which a Democrat Congress would never have allowed a Republican president to do at all (specifically NAFTA on this side of the equation).

So, Lawrence Walsh became compelled to add another Iran/Contra allegation against Bush the weekend before Election Day 1992. Meanwhile, the on-again off-again campaign of Ross Perot, partially managed by Republican brain trust Ed Rollins and partially by ex-Carter chief-of-staff Hamilton Jordan was prefigured into the final equation. Thus, Bill Clinton won the presidency and emerged into his first term of preplanned tasks with only about a 42% electoral mandate and with good prospects of getting the longed-for Republican Congress up the road.

Clinton will have served the establishment's programs for two full terms before he leaves office. The Republicans have dominated both houses of Congress since 1994 even while they have not had to take responsibility for the stationing of U.S. troops in Bosnia or Kosovo. The "president's decisions" on the Balkans actually represent the implementation of contingency plans that had been mapped out in the late '80's in anticipation of the breakup of Yugoslavia to follow a major decline in Soviet power due to a precisely U.S. forecast Soviet debacle in Afghanistan. In addition, Clinton's actions in Iraq have followed contingency plans that were prefigured by the Pentagon even before Desert Storm was implemented in the winter of 1990.

Meanwhile, Kenneth Starr's investigations throughout most of the Clinton administration, along with the impeachment hearings, have allowed the moral outrage and political power of an important segment of the rank-and-file of totalitarian America to be amply ventilated.

The dictatorial clique at the top of totalitarian America’s military-industrial-criminal complex pyramidal hierarchy has already decided who will be president in the year 2001. The strategies and the tactics that will be used to ineluctably manipulate between .1 and 5 percent of the approximately 27 or 28% of the voting-age public that will seem to decide the victor are already being detailed in action-plan scenarios. The casts of media personalities, politicians and bit players are already being rehearsed for some aspects of the soon to be played out roles in the next fixing of the presidency. The 2001 race is supposed to turn out to be as close as they come, according to one insider in the fix behind-the-scenes.  
  

Research Suggestions

1.         How many people have been involved in the cover-up of the fixing of Jimmy Carter's 1976 election and the pre-election scripting of Carter's presidential policies? George Bush and Henry Kissinger were in the most important national security positions at the time. What roles have Bush and Kissinger played in the fixing and scripting of the Presidency? Zbigniew Brzezinski? Others?

2.         How can there be democracy in America if the presidential elections are fixed and if the presidential administrations have been secretly scripted before a president is even elected?

3.         If the ex-presidents, national security advisors and CIA directors etc. could be made to take truth drugs in order to find out what they have been covering up, would the average American citizen agree to the application of such drugs as part of a process toward the empowerment of the citizenry?

4.         Would the average American citizen agree to the use of truth drugs to find out who has been involved in the cover-up of the assassination of JFK or to find out the truth about Iran/Contragate? Would the average citizen agree to use such methods on members of the press and other elements of corporate America?

5.         How have incidents, scandals and unmaskings, or their delay or absence in presidential primaries and Fall campaigns come into play to help or to hurt candidates during the past generation? Could orchestration of the emergence into the public realm of such media events be proven?

 

 

6. GULAG OMNIUS

The United States has the largest prison inmate population in the world. The kinds of injustices which have landed so many Americans in jail and the dehumanizing conditions behind prison walls are being addressed in major literary efforts and various magazine formats. Amnesty International has finally begun to take a closer look at the American prison system. Clear lenses surely show that the existence of widespread social injustice and special interest political motives and choices make it valid to apply the term gulag to the system of punishment and control which America practices.

The differences between the totalitarian regime of the former Soviet Union and the current totalitarian system of the United States of America are certainly significant. A formal scholarly development of comparisons and contrasts would require a full-length book devoted to such an examination. Nevertheless, the Omnipresent United States Government Ultra-secret Labyrinth of American Geopolitics, the OmniUS GULAG, is America's answer to Stalinism. The focus on certain motives and characteristics of American policy in order to form the acronym is my idea, but the practices are concrete. What I will often refer to as GULAG OMNIUS is real, sadomasochistic, terrifying and ultimately self-destructive.

What does it mean to suggest that the U.S. government has, or is, an ultra-secret labyrinth of geopolitics operating everywhere? To begin with, the term geopolitics has been used in the past especially to describe Nazi political ambitions to dominate the world. Since the defeat of the German's Nazi regime and after Henry Kissinger made the term popular, geopolitics still means about the same thing, in America's case. The ambitions of America's ruling class to dominate the oil, the other markets and the politics of the world pervade all of the actions of the U.S. government at home and abroad. This includes who goes to prison and who does not [or who gets pardoned], and which nations get boycotted or bombed and which ones do not.

The United States of America also has the largest, most sophisticated and richest spy operations in the world. The National Security Agency (NSA) and the CIA head up electronic and human intelligence collections, analyses and intervention activities, along with the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) and various other military-intelligence operations. American spies and their computer-aided electronic technologies and controlled human assets are simply everywhere. They are in every country of the world, as well as operating directly or indirectly through state and local secret police, uniformed services and private citizens throughout America.

In his book, The Secret of Project Camelot, Louis Horowitz describes some of the methods and plans developed by U.S. intelligence agencies to control elections in the developing world. These involved tremendous efforts of information gathering and subsequent machinations to influence, to buy or to otherwise fix election outcomes in friendly countries. Ironically, such methods have been applied most successfully in complete secrecy from the American citizenry to elections in the United States itself.

When elections haven't been able to be rigged, more brutal methods have been applied. The overthrow of the Allende government in Chile in 1973 and the funding, training and fielding of the "contras" in the 1980's war against Nicaragua's Sandinista government are just two examples. American involvement in the assassination of Luis Donaldo Colosio, Mexico's 1994 reformist presidential candidate may be included among the operations of the Omnius Gulag on the foreign front: This according to information I put together from a government source and circumstantial evidence I collected in Mexico at the time of the shooting.

I will return to some of America's history of foreign oppression, but for now I wish to inform you of just a very few insidious aspects of the U.S. secret police activities which are taking place in American society at large, even while they are being applied in U.S. prisons and in secret activities abroad. They represent some of the most shocking violations of human rights in the repertoire of American totalitarian programs and constitute crimes against humanity. Such activities can be carried out in secret today because earlier programs of their type have never been punished with the force of law.

When the Vietnam War era domestic counterintelligence programs, the CIA's Operation CHAOS and the FBI's COINTELPRO (complements to the earlier MKULTRA programs), were ostensibly terminated without a full investigation by the U.S. Congress or the press, even more insidious programs than the former ones began to emerge. Under the rubric of national security and executive orders, the new programs have received even less congressional oversight, or none whatsoever. The new high technological and advanced pharmacological secret programs of the Omnius Gulag represent nothing less than America's embrace of Nazism.

These programs will startle or even terrify you, if you are willing to suspend your utter disbelief. When this report is confirmed for the public in the future, your life will be permanently changed and you may finally have to decide to do something to help change the secret fascist profile that America has developed for itself.

Thought-Monitoring in GULAG OMNIUS

The information I have accumulated on this heinous totalitarian activity comes from government agents and subjects with long term direct involvement in thought monitoring, including myself. While commercial enterprise is just on the brink of marketing a product which can read the micro-muscular facial movements that normally accompany a thinker's internal speech, the U.S. government has been able to monitor such internal or sub-vocal speech for at least two decades. The government is able to carry out this procedure from remote field installations, at a considerable distance from the target subject, not just in the laboratory.

I have been involved in absolutely conclusive demonstrations of this capability and understand some of its applications. Although the exact methodology has never been revealed to me, possible explanations include the use of implanted transducers in the subject's articulators, monitored by special-design microwave dishes or spectrum analyzers. Alternatively, continuous readings carried out by time-resolved remote infrared spectroscopy or broad band ultrasonic spectroscopy, possibly aided by ultrasonic transducers and ultrasonic imaging systems using Doppler modulated wave fronts may be carried out. Whatever methods are in fact used to capture the micro-muscular movements of the target thinker, their interpretation is aided by computer expert-programs which "learn" the subject's truncated and full verbal thought style and micro-articulation patterns during prolonged special secret field studies carried out in advance of routine thought-monitoring.

The raw movements of the subject's articulators are interpreted by digital computers using FORTRAN spectral-analysis, after being transmitted by Lansat or Seasat to a communications home base (see William E. Burrows’ discussion of some of the capabilities of these types of military satellites in his book, Deep Black). In effect, the target's thoughts are monitored. This process can be carried out on a twenty-four hour a day basis and has been applied to subjects over periods of time for as long as decades.

An unspeakably evil aspect of these experiments, and especially the counterintelligence field applications, involves a feedback system targeted at the unaware subject. The experimental subject or victim of today's counterintelligence methods of persecution can be continuously stalked by electronic sounds in his environment that duplicate natural language forms. The sound production system might be understood by comparing it to the capabilities of a moog synthesizer. Technical methods of sound modulation such as formant continuity and continuity in pitch contour contribute to the perceptual coherence of speech, as the subject gets sonic feedback to his own thoughts. This type of harassment may be introduced into the subject’s indoor or outdoor environment, just audibly enough to enter his consciousness.

Additional computer-aided voice morphing techniques may be used, as well as real human voices, to be broadcast by special methods directed to the subject’s home TV or radio, or even car stereo, at a lower volume, but simultaneously with the normal commercial programming. Accusations, guilt provoking and fear arousal appeals and even death threat messages can make up the content of any of these forms of electronic intervention. What type of content will be used depends upon the experimental and subject variables of interest to the federal agency carrying out the counterintelligence field persecution or study.

The entire process resembles some of the kinds of hallucinatory events reported to be experienced by paranoid schizophrenics. The content, volume and other key message variables of the harassing electronic feedback activities are specifically keyed to the subject/victim’s thematic and lexical orientations and to his processing style. It is very difficult for a subject to get someone else to be able to successfully decode the synthesizer productions, while special broadcast interventions will only take place with a solitary subject or else only very sporadically.

A subject in this kind of human rights violating program soon discovers that it is impossible to find a sympathetic or even simply receptive authority to whom to report his situation, which can build up into a state of torture. A subject’s complaints to anyone at all, friend, loved one, help-profession specialist, etc., are more than likely to create another layer of stress or misfortune for the hapless victim.

I have myself been subjected to these methods and their consequences, day and night for twenty years now. I am a victim of torture by the United States government. This includes participation by the staffs of Senators Kennedy and Moynihan, Representative Sue Kelly and exPresident Jimmy Carter and extends to Amnesty International, the ACLU, the faculty and administration of the University of Pittsburgh and the press. The FBI, the CIA and the rest of the U.S secret police have done the most persistent part of the dirty work. Nevertheless, tens of millions of Americans make up the components of one single machine, Gulag Omnius, an extensive substructure of the military-industrial-criminal complex that defines totalitarian America as we head into the new millennium.

My private conscience as an operational system has been virtually nullified by the government's program, yet I can communicate the truth well enough. When the Kennedy, Moynihan, Kelly, Carter, ACLU or Amnesty operations have not been directly penetrated by controlled operatives of the secret police they are simply just too caught up in their own substrata of a psychotic American system to pay concerted attention to the truth.

Meanwhile, I have no private verbal intrapersonal communication space. I cannot secretly think to myself about what kind of advice my role models, mentors, intimates or God might give to me regarding the problems or decisions that I face. I cannot have the normal kinds of inner conversation that every human being has because my verbal thoughts are monitored and I cannot get any relief, much less seek redress.

I want to see the majority of those in government and most lawyers destroyed once and for all and for Americans to have the chance to start over again. I want to see the states become nations so that there could be many possible models of government developed by different groups on the way to a new unification that must go beyond the continent to encompass the entire world. Citizen state militia could take the place of all forms of current government, but it will take several generations to reach a state where government will not be necessary at all and dissidents and outgroups in any state must be given options.

These objective and reasonable anti-Gulag Omnius attitudes that have become intensified because of personal suffering at the hands of the U.S. secret police programs have always been accompanied by my willingness to discuss the truth out in the open with U.S. federal representatives. Yet, if thirty or more million Americans continue to conspire to prevent this, then I believe unless they are eliminated en masse, mankind itself will be destroyed and this is a warning to all those who refuse to support the struggle for Truth.

Brain-Programming in GULAG OMNIUS

The ominous acronym for the strange sounding concept of an omnipresent U.S. government ultrasecret laboratory of American geopolitics and the seemingly improbable activities of thought-monitoring and brain-programming are not science fiction. These are real techniques that have been secretly practiced for more than two decades now.

This originally experimental U.S. government program is also in the field for use in counterintelligence and other secret police activities and it has become perfected. Brain programming involves the covert introduction of a pharmacological mixture that includes Pentothal, a mild hallucinogen, a tranquilizer and several other ingredients.

While under the influence of this tremendously powerful drug concoction, the subject is engaged by one or more familiar persons in his life in a thematically programmed talk session. These persons will be acting as controlled assets of the intervening government agency (NSA, CIA, or other) and will be introduced into a session one at a time. These persons may be current or former work or class mates who have been recruited by an agency or who had been previously brain-programmed themselves to assume a role in a current session involving someone else

The talk session creates an imprinting in the drugged subject’s brain of target behaviors, which can be elicited weeks, months or even years later by preprogrammed cues. A process similar to hypnotic suggestion is carried out, only much more powerful and much more capable of overcoming normal inhibitions. The result is the creation of a Manchurian Candidate. This dream of every intelligence agency in the history of the world has been a reality for the U.S. government for at least two decades.

The drug formula and the interpersonal communication imprinting methods that are used for brain-programming sessions have leaked out, or they have been sold, stolen or independently reproduced. Sharing this information with you, the reader, does not especially serve the motives of this work. Nevertheless, it is urgently necessary for the public to be aware of the existence of this practice. The details of the kinds of behaviors that can be programmed, with uncanny precision and reliability, are startling and life threatening and many lives have already been taken or ruined using these practices.

The nature of the original experimentation with these methods and the details surrounding their escape from the exclusive control of the U.S. government are part of an ongoing cover up by everyone involved in or informed about current brain-programming activities. Numerous events in the news over the past decade are products of these experimental methods as proven by demonstrations and prior knowledge of incidents, shared with me by government agents who have involved me directly in some of these practices.

Murders, supposed suicides and fatal accidents, mass murders and acts of mayhem have been programmed and are being programmed now. I am neither trying to panic you nor to enlist you to do anything just based upon my say so. My only hope is that you may become more aware that programming represents a part of a pattern of government conduct and cover up and is not just responsible for a series of isolated atrocities. When you get independent verification of the accuracy of my report and many more details in the years ahead, through congressional hearings and testimony by government agents, you may be able to go back over this report and increase your confidence in the Manifesto’s broader perspective regarding the American system.

Nevertheless, I have two important objections to waiting for the public to become more convinced about programming than my declarations alone can accomplish. First, the average citizen has no way of participating in his or her own self-defense or in the defense of his family or community against being brain-programmed or from suffering the consequences of someone else’s programming. Unless the citizen is made aware that this threat is real and unless there is institutional involvement to combat this type of crime against humanity, anyone can be programmed to commit very destructive, self-damaging or even fatal acts.

My second objection is that I believe that this methodology should have already been made available to psychiatrists. I feel certain that they would be able to employ it with remarkable success in the consensual treatment of patients, in order to modify obsessive-compulsive behaviors, pathological conduct including sexual offenses, addictions and many other behaviors. Yet, the absolute government secrecy and succeeding cover-ups about the reality of brain-programming experiments and their consequences is delaying that which will become one of the most important breakthroughs in the history of psychiatric therapy.

Memory-Erasing in GULAG OMNIUS

Memory erasing drugs have also been in use for a couple of decades and the capability for accuracy in the exact length of recent memory to be erased or suppressed has increased over the years of practice with them. While there may be many benevolent as well as evil uses for this methodology, for example, erasing the memory of a child who has witnessed a terrifying event, I will only report here the drugs use as a part of the brain-programming techniques that are being used today.

An experimental subject who was able to get some lay information from a technician involved in these projects gave this information to me. The subject/victim thought that he was going insane after several sessions. Through a series of meetings of increasing intimacy with the practitioner outside of the experimental environment, an explanation of the entire process was revealed. I will provide you with a hypothetical equivalent in order to protect the informants.

A brain-programming imprint session is undertaken with a subject, say a young high school student. An influence agent, perhaps an older student, is directed by an NSA or CIA agent. This controlled asset elicits from or develops with the subject the details of the circumstances (psychological, social, environmental) under which the subject might be inclined to commit some target behavior, e.g. shooting the other students at his school. The interlocutors talk out the precise details of when, where and how the occurently drugged subject would commit the acts under speculative or fantasy-like consideration. The subject develops what may be called a contingent intention that becomes physically imprinted into his brain because of the nature of the drugs he has been given. His brain will retain the traces of the action-plan for the specific circumstances discussed.

In the future, when the circumstances arise or are caused to arise, specifically the cues discussed and planted during the brain-programming session (combinations of linguistic, scenic and dramatic situational cues), the subject will perforce skip over a new voluntary decision-making sequence. He will instead feel compelled to resort to the traces physically imprinted into his brain for his action-plan answer to his situation.

Looking back to the brain-programming session itself, immediately following it the subject will be given a memory-erasing drug. These chemicals are designed to erase only the short-term time-space dimension of the recently brain-imprinted subject. Later, when the subject comes down from the entire programming session, back in a routine space of his, such as his own room, he has no recollection of where or when—or, that he had had a drugged-state imprinting session with a controlled influence agent.

Weeks or months later, when he produces the imprinted behavior decisions, he would still have no reference at all to having been programmed. Would an ethicist still argue that he was responsible for his acts? A psychiatrist? A criminal prosecutor? The Supreme Court?

It is no accident that I have chosen the kind of act that has been appearing in the headlines for my example. According to a government source that is directly involved in these practices, the recent high school massacres involve drug-preprogramming experimentation

The shooting and killing of two victims by a schizophrenic man in the Salt Lake City Family History Library, just days before the Columbine High School library (and cafeteria) massacre, can be included as part of the list of bizarre shooting sprees. One of my sources proved having advanced knowledge of that incident to me and I believe that brain programming is probably involved.

In addition, I have been given proof that the car crash deaths of Princess Diane and her fiancée, the ski slope deaths of Sonny Buono and Michael Kennedy, the U.S. military airplane crash into the Italian chalet ski lift, the airplane crash of Clinton Secretary of Commerce Ron Brown, the crash of Value Jet 592 and the airplane/helicopter crash that took Senator John Heinz’s life were not accidents. Each incident was proven to me to have been planned by someone, because my sources were tipped about the tragedies before they occurred. I was not told who planned any of the incidents, but I believe that most of them involved brain programming.

Do not think that none of this can possibly be true because it would mean that life had become unreal. It is not impossible. It is only unbearable.

The U.S. government has experimented on innocent citizens before, during and after the Vietnam War. The introduction of LSD and other drugs to unaware victims has been carried out in order to observe the effects, whether fatal or not. People have been severely damaged by such programs (see, Mind-Driving Program, NYT 11/19/92, p. 6, for just one small, yet chilling example). The repertoire of experiments and field applications has only expanded and the secrecy and cover-ups have only become more and more elaborate since the conclusion of the Vietnam War. While the U.S. government is not alone now in carrying out these activities, it still has the greatest responsibility to the American public to admit the truth about these practices.

This brief presentation has only provided a partial view of some of the methods that are in full field use by the federal agents of totalitarian America. We are living in the omnipresent U.S. government ultra-secret labyrinth of American geopolitics, GULAG OMNIUS, and it is not providing security to the average America.

                Research Suggestions

1.         How many Americans believe that the government intervenes in their lives in unwanted ways? What are the consequences of such interventions?

2.         How many anti-Vietnam War activists had secret police interventions into their lives in the 60s? What kinds of interventions took place? Have there been judgments made against the responsible government agencies for each intervention?

3.         What has been the average cost to individuals and groups that have attempted to sue the federal government for violations of their civil or human rights?

4.         How many Americans consider themselves oppressed in American society? How numerous might America’s boat people be if there were somewhere in the world that would accept America’s oppressed?

5.         Would people want to see local, state and federal politicians, bureaucrats and police punished for oppressing American citizens? How many people would consider violence as a resort in order to punish government wrongdoing.

 

7.  What Goes Up Must Come Down

America finally began climbing out of the great depression of the 1930’s at the same time as it took on its heroic role fighting in World War II. The allied victory helped to establish the United States as the greatest of international powers and the cold war that followed provided the environment in which the military-industrial complex could spread its networks of control throughout American society. Now, we have thought-monitoring and brain-control in addition to assassinations and mass murder as lessons to potential dissenters and as a prelude to a full blown national martial law program. We have the fixed presidency and a complete totalitarian personnel infrastructure to carry out the most tyrannical plans and intricate coverups of their existence.

Our completely unbridled American style capitalist imperialism, which has helped to corrupt the entire world, can be illuminated by a brief review of its historical context. By the end of World War II, covert monopolistic special interests on the one hand and anti-communism on the other hand soon became the basis for the cohesion of both sides of the American political aisle. Russia was soon to be given short shrift in the series of programs aimed to contain it and to help restore Europe in the capitalist market system: the Truman Doctrine, Aid to Greece and Turkey and the Marshall Plan.

A so-called "revolving door" began to function so that ex –military and government cabinet officers and other high-level functionaries could smoothly exit public service to enter into major corporate board and private institution directorship positions and visa versa. At the same time, other forms of favoritism, nepotism, blacklisting, virulent anti-communism and racism helped to reinforce the dominance of the ruling class throughout the newly prospering American society.

The development of local police "Red Squads," networks of citizen informants and the establishment of computer information banks helped the process. The emergence of a federal Secret Police that would create programs such as MKULTRA, CHAOS and COINTELPRO, along with an expansion of the subcontracting of special tasks to organized crime and finally it becoming organized crime, have led us to a genuine totalitarian America and Gulag Omnius.

There was no intensive search to produce a breakthrough in social science and political philosophy to complement the wartime Manhattan Project nuclear science research program. If such an effort had been encouraged instead of practically forbidden, FDR's brain trust or other brilliant and patriotic Americans who followed would have developed a viable American socialism to offer the citizenry—and the world. Instead, only Roosevelt's last vice-president, Henry A. Wallace, a 1948 third-party presidential candidate has been able to project an American vision of socialism coming from a position high up in the American establishment. Wallace was branded as an apologist for the USSR and anti-communism just became more and more tyrannical and all-inclusive.

There are good philosophical, moral and religious arguments to have justified America's support of an authentic worker-centered, rather than elite-centered, political system after World War II. The application of such politics in the undeveloped and developing world also has practical implications. We have already witnessed several rounds of revolutions against the right wing dictators and small cliques of rich who have exploited and oppressed the vast majority of their citizens. Now, new revolutionary groups and sentiments are once again emerging.

A post-War American socialist philosophy could have formed a more stable basis for working with the developing nations of the world, both great and small, than the elitist philosophy that has been militantly applied by the United States. The John Patton Davies, John Stewart Services and Owen Lattimore's of the State Department's China section would not have been drummed out of service, five decades ago, for supporting the same communist China with which America has had full diplomatic relations only since the Carter administration.

With an adequate representation of socialism within the U.S. political system the elected socialist president of Iran in 1948, Mohammed Mosadegh, might not have been replaced by U.S. machinations, with the widely resented Shah. The U.S might not have helped to destroy socialism in Paraguay, also in 1948 and then have gotten Jacobo Arbenz, the legitimately elected socialist president of Guatemala in 1954, ousted and replaced by decades of genocidal right wing regimes. The vendettas against Fidel Castro and the installations of the murderous Pinochets, Somozas and Duvaliers might not be playing a part in the final judgment of America. The wars in Korea and Vietnam and the anti-Sandinista mercenary campaign might not have taken place, and America and the world would be far better off. The enormous discrepancies between rich and poor in most of the nations of the world are soon going to explode in new rounds of revolution.

America, totalitarian America, America of Gulag Omnius will again be on the wrong side of tomorrow's revolutions. We should have confronted the USSR's Marxist ideology in the 1940's specifically on the distinct issues of the historical truth and necessity of religions and the pragmatics of private corporations, instead of negating the beliefs and well being of America's most important World War II fighting ally entirely. We have needed to show that we are also capable of admitting as legitimate the truth of many of Marx's insights. The U.S. and the USSR should have emerged from World War II as full partners and embraced China's revolution together in order to go on to work for the organization of a stable world over the next half century, and beyond, under a brilliant, creative, outreaching American socialist philosophy.

Now, we are on the brink of disaster. A greedy, corrupt, self-destructive capitalist system, which still insists on its absolute moral and practical superiority, is going to suffer a tremendous domino-effect world market collapse within a few short years time span. The whole world will explode in wars. Both Russia and China will once again experience extensive and prolonged revolutionary bloodshed, partly for having allowed themselves to be co-opted by capitalism's ultimate, yet fragile, economic achievements (as a temporary relief from their own languishing corruption and the historical obstacles to the attainment of viable instant socialist systems).

The opposing philosophical and historical points of view and concomitant hypotheses and projections do not have to be elaborated upon here. The ruling U.S. anti-Roosevelt clique, which emerged even before the beginning of World War II (the name of Congressman Martin Dies comes to mind), has come steadily to dominate the then only nascent military-industrial complex. This "vast right-wing conspiracy" proceeded early on to employ criminal organizations to help it tyrannize the entire American society, as well as foreign nations. These leaders of the establishment hierarchy have finally led us into the apparently irreversibly corrupted and doomed totalitarian America that we are today. They control or influence all of the means of mass communication, easily and ceaselessly having any say they choose regarding my points of view, even as I am unfolding them in my little workspaces in Mexico—invisible to the American public.

Following the recent collapse of the Soviet Union, U.S. cold war priorities have been changed over "to organizing the spoils and chasing down loose ends," according to a government national security insider. With the USSR suddenly out of the business of managing much of the world’s anti-capitalist-imperialist activities, smaller groups and even individuals, including ones with domestic bases, have begun to receive more federal attention. Campaigns aimed at drug trafficking and terrorist organizations (including non-state actors) have been getting more publicity than ever before, including speeches by the President.

Professor Theodore Windt of the University of Pittsburgh’s Department of Speech Communication has spent years developing a theory of presidential rhetoric. Putting one of his postulates very simply, he asserts that it is essential for the President to maintain a prominent image of the United States as the "good guys" and someone else as the "bad guys," in order to reinforce national cohesion and to transcend party ideologies. Windt advises that this rhetorical practice is particularly important in times of crisis.

Ronald Reagan epitomized the practice in his "Evil Empire" speech. I was consulted by a Reagan political operative about that speech, which was to be one of the rhetorical tactics used as a part of the overall strategy to gain the acceptance of medium range nuclear missiles to be installed by the United States in Europe.

During the consultation, I was tipped that the commercial airliner KAL 007 was going to be sacrificed over the Soviet Union's Sakhalin Island as a complement to the "Evil Empire" speech tactic. My source actually told me that a conservative Republican Congressman was going to be on that flight and be killed along with everyone else on board. George Bush was scheduled to go to Belgium to argue for the installation of the missiles in synchronization with the planned aircraft downing. The conversation I had occurred months before the events unfolded and this is the first time that I have documented my prior knowledge of this in writing.

Another tip had also been given to me about a similar type of violent political sequence. I had a discussion about the stationing of U.S. soldiers at the Beirut airport in Lebanon in the early 1980's, with someone connected to the national security brain trust. The upshot is that the soldiers who were blown up in their barracks/headquarters building by the Mercedes truck bomb in 1983 were intentionally let to be defenselessly mass murdered. The U.S. marine guard at the access road to the airport main dormitory building had no clip in his rifle, as a matter of policy, even while an attack (the exact attack that took place) was (secretly) expected. Distracting investigations of the military chain of responsibility for what happened has elaborately covered up the political truth regarding this back channel exit strategy for the United States from its volunteered Lebanon duty.

While I cannot accept the rationalizations for this secret policy, I must add that I had been informed that a reaction called "horizontal escalation" was the contingency planned response to the expected airport truck bombing. Specifically, in this case, the plan was to bomb the Shouf mountain terrorist hideaways in Lebanon and then to invade the island of Grenada. Grenada had been precisely forecast (or even influenced) to reach an ignition point at the same time as the anticipated truck-bomb attack on the Beirut military base.

It may be crucial for you to get verification of all of the allegations lodged here in order to become motivated to fight for changes to be made on the American side of the political equation. Nevertheless, no one in American politics, the media or academia has publicly suggested the need to search inside of the U.S. government and the industrial oligarchy for our own cast of psychotics and greedy villains. Nor has anyone in the media or the congress ever so much as hinted, in any public form, at the charges that I have outlined here, their implications or my own serial involvement.

Instead, today foreign and domestic terrorists and drug traffickers are supposed to help completely replace the bad guys of the cold war era and some conservatives, not always so secretly, wish we were back in the old days. There has even been talk that China may be able to serve that purpose.

In some of the scenes behind-the-scenes, within conservative political ranks and the military-industrial complex bureaucracies, the legacy of America’s cold war victory includes an intensification of the theme of America’s greatness and the old cold war enemy as worthless, "good having triumphed over evil." This inclination to see the cold war finally in zero-sum game terms exists despite interest in gaining Russia’s help as an accessory to some of America’s bellicose foreign policies. Communism’s inferiority is supposed to have been definitively proven once and for all and so all that remains is to demonstrate the superiority of capitalism in every possible respect.

The alternative position for the United States after the Soviet collapse would have been to admit that America has also been extreme, cruel, corrupt, hypocritical and anti-democratic during the cold war. It has in fact participated as an accessory before, during and after the fact in the mass murder of its own citizens.

America should now be attempting to correct its own pathologies. It has had the authentic luxury of a non-mutually assured destruction (MAD) political atmosphere in which to face itself critically and to deal with its criminal behavior, including its crimes against humanity. Yet, Professor Windt’s theory does not predict such conduct nor has America accepted the end of the cold war as a window of opportunity to clean its own house.

Rather, long live the Great Empire, the Evil Empire is dead resounds through the American ruling clique’s scene behind-the-scenes. U.S. policy has now become more intense than ever in making demands on other nations to fall in line with American interests, including the Helms-Burton law, actions in the Balkans and a long list of military, political and economic dictates.

Above all, it has been the Dow Jones Index that has demonstrated America’s apparent superiority—as the engine of the world’s economic surge. Yet, in spite of so many great corporations and a hardworking and ingenious people, unsurpassed anywhere in the world, the United States has some underlying weaknesses—ones that have proven fatal to past civilizations.

The U.S. military-industrial-criminal complex has accumulated an enormous backlog of larger and more serious than ever scandals-in-waiting, chronic Constitutional, civil and human rights violations and even acts of treason all near the brink of serial revelation to the American and world publics. People are going to long for the good old days when scandal just meant one political party spying on the other or two consenting adults having an inappropriate relationship. America's long-delayed confrontation with its own skeletons will make the Japanese, Korean, Indonesian, Mexican, Colombian or Italian crises of governmental corruption appear bland in contrast.

America continues to intentionally defer from genuinely cleaning up its own act, even since the collapse of the Soviet Union. The ruling class has refused to admit that the American system has as many flaws, some not as serious and some much worse, as the old Soviet system. America has been pursuing exactly the opposite course—organizing the spoils.

Tens of thousands of data sources pertaining to U.S. and foreign political and bureaucratic activities are being constantly tapped both overtly and covertly. These huge quantities of sources produce millions of pieces of public and confidential information that are organized by a top secret section of the CIA and used in an intensively proactive post-cold war program aimed at assuring American dominance over the economies of the world.

An official secret policy has been developed to function in tandem with the publicly stated programs to thwart the effects of Japanese, German, French, etc. industrial spying, smalltime insider stock trading and other renegade variables of concern to the maintenance of an American-dominated free market. Such problem areas also include potential domestic and foreign social, political and economic crises.

The secret policy aims to maximize the government's ability to predict and control the overall movements of the stock markets of the world. Public corporate reports of both domestic and foreign corporations, oftentimes received in advance of publication through CIA back channels, are analyzed and evaluated and serve as the data base. Thousands of personal contacts by agents and controlled assets within the U.S. and abroad help to keep the computerized files updated and alert the project about mergers, takeover plans, special problems and every other possible variable that effects business operations.

Added to this information are public and spy information about foreign government operations, official and secret plans, concealed predicaments and general political forecasts. U.S. government information from other CIA sections and from other agencies and the White House regarding foreign aid packages, embargoes, other forms of sanctions and every kind of economic and political forecasting are analyzed and evaluated as part of the special stock market forecasting program. Commodity price forecasts and world weather pattern information from satellites and meteorological analyses are taken into account using complex CIA computer models. Even Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan exchanges information with a covert program agent.

Additionally, the CIA participates in delaying or hastening revelations about domestic and foreign scandals or other impending crises. They help to coordinate International Monetary Fund, World Bank and American financial aid policies and help to design overall U.S. policies regarding the maintenance and expansion of the free market.

Every possible information source is tapped and all of the data collected is stored in super computers. The most covert activity involves the relationship that one of the compartmentalized sub-units of the program has developed with a handful of the world's biggest and most active stock market speculators and stockbrokerage houses. By sharing some of the assessments of the largest data research operation ever carried out in the world with these huge investor contacts, the CIA has been able to convert them into controlled assets of the agency’s program by getting them to give back in return their own trading plans.

With the circle thus complete, the program has become the most mammoth insider trading operation conceivable. The CIA has been genuinely orchestrating the movements of the stock markets of the world since 1994. All of this information comes from my own involvement in the program since its inception and from several hours of conversations with an agent directly involved in managing some of the assessment sharing operations.

These activities have been secretly accelerated to the top of America’s priorities since just after the Soviet fall. The ascension of the United States to its position of hegemony as the world’s only true superpower has come suddenly, after its steady rise since World War II, and the supercharged climb of the Dow has been even more dramatic recently.

Even while many U.S. corporations deserve the approval of investors worldwide and are models of the best worker, consumer and production practices, totalitarian America, with its rigged Presidency, widespread corruption, Gulag Omnius and fixing of the stock markets is in for a profound comedown. Its fall will come as dramatically, as quickly and as strongly as its rise.

The great ruling class personages are being prepared for a precipitous decline. At the same time, secret national security plans are already drawn up for the military and secret police services to be able to implement a national martial law program, under the worst circumstances.

The worst-case scenario consists of several major wars igniting simultaneously with the United States and its NATO partners unable to respond adequately or to predict when the wars will wind down or be able to be brought under control. There are estimates of the potential for a major war between India and Pakistan, which could include nuclear exchanges, war between North and South Korea, a major war in the Middle East, interstate wars in Africa and revolutions in different parts of the world, among other projections.

There are models that forecast how the hostilities and combinations of conflicts could interact with a world stock market collapse, precipitated by fear, uncertainty and the existence of safer havens for the wary investor. Variables relating to the interaction of potential scandals that the United States might experience with each hypothesized turmoil scenario helps to produce other levels of prediction and the attendant development of contingency response plans, including a national martial law program.

The ruling class "masters of the universe" are already prepared with options for their investment portfolios, informed by insider knowledge of the gamut of U.S. government national security contingency plans. After already having gained hundreds of percent in returns on stock investments over the past several years, private plans exist among the highest establishment oligarchs to switch over to bonds, oil, and gold and defense industry investments. The expectations are for equally high or higher returns during a long period of forecast potential world chaos.

Middle class Americans would be left holding a load of tremendously devalued mutual funds from retirement plans and other investment programs. This scenario has been projected to form one of the bases for assuring the support of the large majority of the middle class for even the most extreme type of martial law program, if chaos were in fact to ensue within U.S. borders.

A national martial law program is projected to stand off the domestic rage, violence and even terrorism that could emerge as a result of the potential turn of events. Revelations and scandals involving the fixing of the Presidency and other aspects of totalitarian America, along with a possible renewal of the military draft to answer foreign crises are included in the worst case scenarios.

The contingency plans for all Americans to be institutionally organized into a national martial law program already exist. Citizen/investors especially, are expected to participate cooperatively and to wait patiently for their investments to regain the high value to which they had become accustomed, while they were being trained not to panic during the well-orchestrated ups and downs of the "free market" of the 1990’s.

Nevertheless, there will be dissidence and rage and it will grow. America will become polarized again, as it had been during the Vietnam War, even perhaps as greatly as in the Civil War, before it all ends. How much violence there will actually turn out to be is not completely predictable. It will come from both at home and abroad.

Research Suggestions

1.         Who has gotten tips on the stock market about what to buy and sell and when to get in and out and who gives the tips?

2.         Does the average citizen have experiences where he knows that someone has had an unfair advantage in employment, business or stock market activities?

3.         Are there some common threads to understanding privilege?

4.         Why couldn't all stock market transactions be made public, including the identities of the buyers and sellers, if the majority of investors or the majority of citizens would agree?

5.         What would the average citizen think that the remedy ought to be if the U.S. government has been orchestrating great insider trading activities?
 

8. TERROR’S CLAIM ON AMERICA

Terrorism has primarily been an instrument of the state throughout all of history. The fact is that today, as in the past, small group terrorist acts or state supported terrorist acts by one nation against another represent only a very small fraction of the overall quantity of terrorism in the world.

In contrast to the several hundred terrorist attributed deaths in Ireland, Israel or the United States in a given year, tens of millions have been killed by state run terrorist extermination programs in Western Europe, the Balkans, Eurasia, Africa, the Middle East and Latin America in the twentieth century. The reality of the overwhelmingly larger state executed mass murders against a nation’s own inhabitants does not automatically make more justified the lesser quantity of murders by small terrorist groups. Each case has to be inspected in detail in order to judge whether or not there can possibly be a justification for mass murdering usually unarmed non-combatant members of the civilian population.

It may be argued that many state executed extermination programs are not essentially terrorist acts at all. The aim of an extermination program may oftentimes be to eliminate from the face of the earth the hostile, hated or otherwise undesired population, as near to completion as possible. That those who may be able to escape from the slaughter will have been terrorized and will be unlikely to return may be of only secondary interest to the perpetrators, at best. The escape of terrified targets may actually be feared because of possible revenge or fallout that would ensue from neighboring entities, and not be an intended part of the extermination policy at all.

Intentional terrorism may be considered to be all of the acts that are done for the express purpose of instilling extreme fear in a target population. The goal may be to cause the population or a majority of a population to abandon their territory, to destabilize a national or foreign government or to cause some change in policy or conduct on the part of a target government or population. A state may intend the goal of terrorism along with partial extermination against a target population if they think that they can do so and still avoid reprisals.

It is not utterly barbaric to suggest that genuine political terrorism is carried out when the perpetrators either cannot exterminate a target population or do not need or want to eliminate it completely. This form of terrorism may be considered in terms of both the objectives and the claims of the terrorists and the policies and the conduct of the target population and its leadership. What alternative forms of persuasion were available and what would have been the consequences for inaction are just two significant considerations to take into account in order to attempt a historically adequate evaluation of a case or a campaign of political terrorism.

The United States has its own understated history of the use of terrorism both at home and abroad. America had been an entire continent of Indian nations before the Europeans settled on the land and there is evidence to support the accusations that some of the elimination of Native Americans from many areas was accomplished through terrorist extermination pogroms. This occurred as the settlers expanded America’s frontiers westward and in the original thirteen colonies, as well. The Indian reservation system and even the new gambling casino franchises have intensified the alienation of the mass of young Native Americans that have never been adequately compensated for America’s terrorism against their nations.

The hundreds of years of enslavement of black Africans involved terrorism as well as relentless oppression in many forms. The generations of sons and daughters of former slaves have never received compensation for the crimes committed against their ancestors in order to restore them to a condition of political control based upon their own racial dominance. The recent decades of black mayors elected in major U.S. cities, the dominance of black athletes in sports and the large participation of blacks in the popular music business has intensified class distinctions within black America. These patterns have mainly served white economic and social objectives while leaving the masses of black families more helplessly stranded than ever in a fundamentally racist system.

America remained as one of the last governments in the world to support the South African apartheid regime, a government hated by the great majority of their nation’s population. At the same time America imposed cruel and self-defeating economic sanctions against Cuba and this policy still continues even while the great majority of the Cuban citizenry regularly expresses approval and support for the Castro government.

U.S. dominance in Latin America, the Caribbean and the Philippines has included terrorism on the part of the American government itself, filibuster adventurers and infamous mass-murdering right wing dictators that have received direct aid and training from the United States government. The Somozas in Nicaragua, the Duvaliers in Haiti, Batista in Cuba and a succession of genocidal Guatemalan governments are some examples. Nevertheless, the crimes against humanity committed by them and other Latin American dictators against their people, with the overt and covert support of the American government over a combined period equal to hundreds of years have never received the attention that has been given to Bosnia or Kosovo. The Latin American masses have never been compensated for America’s support of their regimes of ethnic cleansing and political repression.

To the contrary, U.S. financial contributions, military training and logistical support of the "contras" in their counterrevolutionary activities against Nicaragua is just one example of unrepentant tyrannical American conduct in many parts of the world. The United States never agreed to pay the $20 million judgment against it handed down by the World Court at the Hague (for planting sea mines in Nicaragua’s Carlos Fonseca Harbor in the 1980s) because, "paying it would have meant admitting that we were terrorists," according to a government source.

America’s history of terrorism at home and abroad is extensive. The United States of America in World War II carried out the two most condensed mass murder operations in history, given that they were executed in just a very short period of time on two single days. Tens of thousands of Japanese civilians were exterminated at Hiroshima and Nagasaki in the only military use of nuclear weapons by any nation. Terrorism was one of the motives. The bombings were done in part, according to some historians, "in order to send a message to the Soviet Union" about American power and its willingness to use it.

All kinds of terrorism continue to occur inside of the United States of America itself. Cross-burning, lynching (and now dragging and binding), burning down of black churches and other racist activities are a legacy of the end of slavery in America. Fraternity hazing terminating in death, the widespread use of threats and beatings to control children and the methods employed in tens of thousands of rapes and muggings every year are not minor details in America’s repertoire of chronic historical and daily terror.

Police terrorism is carried out impulsively, most often against black Americans, or by design in American precincts against certain citizens. I have been the victim of such terrorism myself.

Just after New Year’s Day 1985, four New York City police entered the hotel room where I was living in midtown Manhattan. One of the officers assaulted me with my own gun, which he seized from beside my bed, and terrorized me into leaving the room so that the police could "apprehend" me in the hotel lobby and report a felony gun possession arrest to the New York State grand jury.

I was subsequently coerced into leaving the country and have been living in exile for the past sixteen years. The federal government was involved, according to an agent that had to work with me on other issues while I have been abroad. The arrest came two weeks after I had sent a letter of complaint about the U.S. federal government’s already long-term persecution of me, to the UN office on human rights in Geneva.

I was arrested again in Miami in 1987, after a visit to my university town of Pittsburgh from where I had sent copies of a series of newsletters unmasking some of the background of the Iran/Contra hearings, about which I had had prior knowledge. I was held as a fugitive on the former New York charge, with no other charges brought against me (and no real motive for arresting me there in the first place). I was intentionally put in a cell in Miami where I would get pleurisy, a lung disease that I contracted there which has never fully cured. Both the arrests in New York City and in Miami involved the federal government’s long-term persecution of me for my involvement in politics, beginning with my anti-Vietnam War dissidence in the 1960s.

America is at the top of the list in the entire world in terms of the types and applications of combined state-executed, state supported, small group and individual acts and campaigns of terrorism. Some cases seem small and some cases are a part of world history and are known to be enormously significant.

Perhaps the utterly devastating American Civil War has paid the bill in blood for the nation’s terrorism up until that time. Or, perhaps that was only a down payment because the score has never been settled for the terrorism against Native Americans and actual reparations have never been paid to black Americans.

There are countless cases of America’s failure to make amends. The Vietnam War, to cite just one other example, was a Nazi-like campaign and the atrocities committed there justify such an evaluation. Reports that the Vietcong used terror campaigns against American soldiers do not make the failure to pay reparations to the victims of the village of May Lai or to the civilian victims of the napalm and Agent Orange bombing campaigns carried out over many years in Vietnam any more excusable.

Whose terrorism is justified, whose terrorism truly represents a legitimate defense of some universal right, the principles of revolution or the obligations of authority, the freedom to settle on a land or the rights of sovereignty depends upon many complex beliefs and arguments in each case. Whose side you are on in the first place can easily cloud any kind of fair analysis of the relevant factors.

America in its hegemony, secretly totalitarian and publicly unrepentant America, an America which has refused to take time out from its greatness in order to attend to its fatal flaws is feared and hated by individuals, groups and nations from around the world and at home. There has accumulated a countless mass that have been victimized by U.S. terror and U.S. supported or even U.S. inspired terror over the recent decades, as well as across the centuries.

Not the least of these peoples is American citizens who experience "taxation without representation" and armed raids on their homes, farms, reservations or enclaves. They have seen that only the rich get their telephone calls or letters answered in substantial form, or at all, by the politicians, bureaucrats and the mass media. There are new militant groups emerging around the nation, alongside of traditional people’s groups, both white and colored. They all share the common experience of being victims in a corrupted culture overwhelmed by drugs and the agendas of special interests that determine the responses of servile bureaucracies.

There are predictions from various quarters suggesting that America will be facing more violent attacks against it in the months and years ahead. I find that I must add my concurrence to those forecasts. An America that is apparently unwilling or unable to clean its own house is driving people to desperation. You cannot even imagine what the consequences are going to be for you, dear reader, having been prevented from knowing my story and points of view, by the concerted efforts of a totalitarian American system.

There has even been talk that a combination of forces from within the United States and from outside of the country could blow up Washington, D.C. with nuclear devices. It has been said that it would be easy, as easy as the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, the Oklahoma City federal building or the coordinated embassy bombings in Africa.

According to my sources, a serious interest in destroying Washington does now exist. The feeling is that such an attack is already more than justified and necessary. There are people who are willing to give their lives in order to prevent their children from being left under the domination of an utterly corrupt, amoral and debased totalitarian, terrorist America—and I am becoming one of them.
 
 

Research Suggestions

1.         Has the average citizen ever used, threatened to use, thought of using or wanted to use violence against oppressors of any kind?

2.         What kinds of motives are involved in the oppression of individuals or groups and what kinds of motives are involved in the desire to struggle against oppression, e.g., personal gain, jealousy, revenge, justice, etc?

3.         Is their any group in the country or in the world that has used violence to achieve their goals with which some segment of the American public sympathizes? Does the public feel that such violence is terrorism?

4.         How many instances of terrorism occur in the Bible? Is God depicted as using terrorism in the Bible? What have been the circumstances and motives of such actions?

5.         What terrorizes or would terrorize the average American? Woman? Child? Working person? Poor person? Ethnic minority member? Student? Develop a terrorism survey using acts, victims, perpetrators and other variables to form the questions.

 
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

9. Higher Intelligence and History

 

The truth about man's nature and his place in God's design for the universe should be part of your preparation for the trials and tribulations just ahead in the judgment of nations.  The material in this unit may only find widespread application in the aftermath of the traumatic changes ahead.  I hope that a sketch of the macrocosmic picture can help point the way to your own possible role in building a better future for mankind.  The preliminary observations and insights here need to be developed into game theory terms, along with lots of publicity and time.

What I will present here begins with contemporary astronomy and continues into an area of scientific inference that may present ever more challenges to many traditional religious beliefs. Judging by the lack of enthusiasm on the part of the American Christian right wing for Charles Darwin's theory of evolution, a rigid reception at best can be expected from the Christian Coalition to my nascent theory. The Christian Church has reacted defensively over the centuries when its belief system, dependent upon Jesus Christ and mankind's centrality in the universe, seems to be undermined. The Inquisition condemned Galileo for proving Copernicus' theory of our solar system to be correct.

Nevertheless, I am certain that the theory of God that I am working on is going to be well received by many serious thinkers. I am confident that the inferencing which I have done, based on scientific data and observations, has produced a very possible explanation of man's condition in the universe. I believe that eventually a full-blown theory can be established and that it should provide a common ground upon which religion and science can demonstrate a lasting partnership and help to create an ideological unity among all of the peoples of our planet.
 

Theory-building on the Nature and Origin of the God of our Universe

There is much scientific agreement that a "big bang" created our universe about 12 billion years ago. There are general laws of physics to explain the expansion of our universe, as well as the formation of the galaxies and the solar systems. This is the case even if scientists haven't pinned down all of the details as yet.

The universe's expansion and the formation of its contents have taken time. Thus, there exist both older and younger galaxies and solar systems. The basic conditions for the development of life within a galaxy can be described scientifically. These conditions include a planet's range of surface temperature based on its distance from its sun, its planetary orbit, tilt, rotation on its axis and speed of rotation and the constituency of the planet and its atmosphere, especially the existence of water. (See for example, “The Origins of Water on Earth,” James F. Kasting in Scientific American Presents, Vol. 9, No. 3, pages 16-22 Fall 1998; “How Climate Evolved on the Terrestrial Planets,” James F. Kasting, Owen B. Toon and James B. Pollack in Scientific American, Vol. 258, No. 2, pages 90-97, Feb. 1988. Also see “Surveying Space-time with Supernovae,” Craig J. Hogan, Robert P. Kirshner and Nicholas B. Suntzeff in Scientific American, Dec. 1998).

Such conditions for the development of life may have begun to stabilize in the first billionth year of the universe's expansion or sometime later, but probably several billion years before the existence of the planet earth (around the eighth billionth year of the universe's expansion). Therefore, there may be a great many intelligent species in the universe and most of higher intelligence is probably older than earth intelligence.

Let us now suppose that the emergence of organic life and specifically genetically determined life anywhere in the entire universe, is a kind of material and process ingredient of the big bang. This original stuff of the universe may have been designed by a super God from outside of the universe or may have been spontaneously created by some kind of energy before the big bang.

Genes, once they come into play, keep evolving in order to master the environments in which they have emerged. Technologies, including language are developed by intelligent interaction between genes and the environment. One might even say that language, especially mathematics, is a gene turned inside out (and perhaps visa versa).

All intelligent life in the universe could very possibly begin with the same fundamental nature. Characteristics such as aggression and a will to dominate could be universal qualities within any intelligent species, even though the average individual may be naturally cooperative and submissive to authority. Genes work through the species as a whole to assert patterns of dominance. The nature of the kind of intelligence that has evolved in the human race and any other earlier, similar intelligent systems may possibly be to work towards the domination of the entire universe.

I suggest that a hierarchy of intelligence has already been established in our mature universe and the data upon which I base my inferences regarding this type of organization falls into two categories. The first category of data, which encompasses the history of serious, repeated reports of UFO-type intelligence, indicates spacecraft, research methodologies and life forms that could possibly be achieved by earthlings within a foreseeable future. I have never had contact with such possible extraterrestrial life, but I did witness what I believe must have been three flying spacecraft hovering over an area near my former place of residence in Managua, Nicaragua. The vividly, self-illuminated objects remained in my view for about a minute and then shot off at enormous speed in tandem, in a V- or L-type flight pattern.

My theory building has been helped, but does not depend upon the existence of this kind of UFO-type intelligence. I do work with the assumption that UFO intelligence does exist and has capabilities that are not so far ahead of human beings. I base this on the belief that some of the reports asserting that this intelligence has been carrying out laboratory type studies on earthling subjects, which require the kinds of close up inspections that human scientists make, are true.

The second category of data upon which I base my inferences regarding a hierarchy of intelligence in the universe involves the U.S. government programs that have been monitoring and harassing me for more than twenty years. These programs include studies of communication activity that is being carried out by intelligence which has capabilities that far exceed anything reported about UFO-type intelligence. Studies have been undertaken by U.S. government agencies, over a period of decades, which have monitored and collected a great variety of complex messages sent by the possibly most superior intelligence in the universe.

It is absolutely certain, beyond all probabilities of chance, that a super intelligence is responsible for communicative transmissions that depend upon the modulation of the wind in the natural environment, in order to produce natural language content through eardrum vibration. There have been a great quantity and variety of scientifically verified transmissions.

Super intelligence can modulate raindrops on a surface, also producing natural language content. It can sculpt clouds in order to produce artistic portraits. It can put thoughts in a person's mind and its capabilities establish it as far superior to the UFO-type intelligence that has been reported to be carrying out close up studies on human beings.

There is no apparent source of emission of the large quantity of verifiable communications by super intelligence. There are no electronic or other emission clues and no point of origin detectable. There are no signals of the type that the Hubble telescope or the huge heaven-searching listening dishes are seeking to monitor. There are only the messages themselves, but no signals, or one may say that the only signals that exist are the messages themselves.

I have had first hand experience in monitoring wind messages, the content of which has been verified by highly reliable inter-subject measures. I do not have the details of how an individual receiver/subject's eardrums are monitored by third parties (the government), but the same techniques that are used in the experiments and field applications of micro-muscular facial movement and articulator surveillance discussed in section 6, are involved.

The government refuses to share this information with the public, along with whatever other separate information has been accumulated about UFO-type intelligence. I have communicated about these matters with government agents during their long-term surveillance program of me and have had many and various verifications of my hypotheses regarding the nature of the communications that have been received. .It is impossible to overstate the importance for professional scientists, such as those previously noted, to be able to get confirmation about communication from that which I believe is the highest intelligence in the universe. Such information, along with government information about UFO's should shed important light on the physical history of the universe.

My own area of study is communication. I have a Bachelor of Arts degree with a major in communication studies as well as seven additional years of full-time graduate work. I received a Master's Degree and did extensive research as a doctoral candidate in the field of Speech Communication. Additionally, the U.S. government's electronic and human intelligence programs, which have involved me in constant communication monitoring and feedback for more than twenty years, have sensitized me to patterns of communication that are intentional, while at the same time covert or semi-covert.

I have been intentionally trained and prepared in other special ways, since early childhood, to be conscious of and receptive to the widest range of communication possibilities. The result of all of this is that I feel that I am in a fairly good position to interpret the content and relational aspects of the communications that I have received over the past twelve years in interaction with higher intelligence.

While this manifesto is not the place to document the details of my extensive and complex interactivity with higher intelligence, I am going to share some of the tentative conclusions that I have reached through analyzing my relationship with it. Based upon my interactions with this higher intelligence, along with the assumption of the existence of UFO-type intelligence and theories of human nature and historical knowledge, I have developed some hypotheses regarding the history and status of intelligence in the universe.

I believe that it is very possible that civilizations that had evolved billions of years before the formation of the earth engaged in interplanetary warfare after developing technologies not so far beyond our own. The result must be that a single species has hegemony over the entire universe or there may have been treaties made among several early advanced intelligent species and the creation of spheres of influence.

A victor or victors of our universe's genetic and technological competition has quite possibly been conclusively decided, once and for all. A representative of the victor culture(s) is very possibly the highest intelligence within our universe. This intelligence involves itself in the development of all younger intelligence as it comes on line throughout the entire universe. This postulated highest intelligence in the universe may have been able to get into the actual flow of the expansion of the universe at an early stage, say at the second billionth year, and then have been able to move faster than the speed of light.

Using theories and capabilities of manipulating matter far in advance of string theory, the highest intelligence's abilities are well up to the historical reports of God's interaction with human beings through recorded history. The highest intelligence in the universe gives and enables life in so many respects, all throughout the universe, that the probability that it did not initiate the existence of the universe does lot diminish its reputation for having created it.

Mature intelligence exists that can dominate the universe and it is doing so. It quite possibly will never allow any other new organic life in the universe to develop intelligent capabilities anywhere nearly equal to its own. The acceptance of some cap on the technological development of any emergent life in the universe may very possibly be a prerequisite to reaching new levels of relationship with the highest intelligence in the universe, beyond that which earthlings now have. UFO-type intelligence is quite possibly evidence of that and the gap between its capabilities and those of highest intelligence seems to be enormous.

Further Hypotheses Regarding the God of Human History

The highest intelligence in the universe is the God of human history. It is the Gods of the Hindus, the Gods of the Egyptians, the one God Jehovah of Abraham and Moses, the Holy Father of Jesus and the all-powerful Allah of Muhammad. It is the God of the East and the God of the West, the God of the left and the right hemispheres of the brain.

This highest intelligence of the universe has provided younger intelligence such as earthling intelligence the opportunity to develop a greater free will than many earlier intelligent species in the universe. Much of the earliest intelligence in the universe may have had to be destroyed or forced to be submissive because it could not modify the genetic nature that compelled it to attempt to dominate the entire universe.

God has provided mankind with many lessons over time, in dramatic forms, in order to teach mankind that it must limit its ambitions to dominate and to know. These are difficult lessons for any intelligence to assimilate because of the ambitious program of genes, but God's experience in earlier galaxies has prepared God for the resistance that a species like ours on a planet like earth would offer.

God's plan for earthlings has included His avoidance of physical or technological over-determination of our species. God has decided to pursue a course in His experiment (or routine) with earth that involves interactive guidance at critical historical moments. The main lesson to be learned by human beings, over time, is that we have to organize a global society that can carry out an educational program that would enable our species to free itself from its natural compulsion to try to dominate the universe.

Mankind must learn to dominate its human nature. God's work with Moses, presenting the myth of the Garden of Eden as perfect ignorance being the perfect basis for man's relationship with God, sets a baseline for what man would have to eventually accept as a condition for his successful stabilization in our universe—limitations. Laws and rules of conduct are a consistent part of God's interventions with man throughout recorded history.

The laws of Moses and the intricate repertoire of Hebrew ritual are historical proof of God's focus on the organization of parameters for society. The healing and communicative powers that God gave to Jesus is evidence of God's desire to teach principles to mankind, without forcing them upon the species using more direct and inescapable forms of intervention.

God's extensive work with Muhammad to form a renewed societal discipline (possibly partly in response to the long-term failure of Christianity to revive Roman integrity) and to prepare for Judgment Day may have the most relevance today to Western civilization. All of God's interventions reflect a planned series of lesson that mankind must learn to interpret as a whole in order to be able to settle into a stable, unified earthling planet and then to reach a new level of relationship with the highest intelligence in the universe.

Eastern religions equally help man to reach an acceptable level of stability through social principles and mental and emotional discipline and balance. These are the key lessons that God has been helping man to learn in dramatic historical time over the millennium. The objective is to learn, rather than to be forced, to overcome the tyranny of genes' programming to work towards a type of dominance that the highest intelligence will simply never permit. It is possible that highest intelligence will never allow any young intelligence to reach anywhere near its own level of technological capability, even though the will to do so is a part of the raw nature of any intelligent system in the universe.

God's system can be interpreted as aiming to allow Homo sapiens to free itself from the 'hard' determinism of genetic nature without becoming a mere puppet of highest intelligence. Young intelligence, such as our own, is kept free from interference by older intelligent life, which has been previously capped technologically and has reached an understanding with God, in a rule-governed universe.

It is possible that capped intelligent species are only allowed to demonstrate a limited presence on a planet like earth after native intelligence has reached the level of technological development of the atomic bomb. UFO-type intelligence may indeed represent a warning, but not of its danger to mankind, only a warning of mankind's arrival at or nearing to a limit point or particular danger point of technological development. UFO intelligence is also a warning of the necessity for the imposition of many forms of self-control.

The highest intelligence in the universe is protective and has facilitated diversity in the universe. Our God is enabling mankind to develop a free will, a freedom from the compulsion towards absolute dominance. This process can take thousands of years under God's non-authoritarian design to have man educate himself in a step-by-step historical process of consciousness-raising.

One of the most significant shortcomings of socialist theory, besides its rejection of religion, has been its over-intellectualization of the capabilities of the working class to fight against its natural animal tendencies to accept hierarchical differentiation based upon methods of force for determining and maintaining territorial control. Fundamentally instinctual territorial motivation and private property ambitions have remained an overt or covert part of all large-scale social organization, even in the various communist experiments, where they have had to find expression in patterns of corruption or in socio-politically counterproductive forms of authoritarianism.

In contrast, the God of our universe has been applying an intricate dramatic design to help man to proceed to a higher level of consciousness at which the species can learn to dominate many of the instinctive and compulsive aspects of human nature. Highest intelligence thus works diligently to create an interesting universe that might have otherwise been inter-galactically organized much more easily and violently within a laisez faire type system. Such a free-for-all universe could have seen a core group of technologically capped younger intelligence having their way on younger planets within their galaxies or neighboring ones.

Our God very possibly has technologically nudged any meteorites, asteroids and comets, which could have destroyed mankind many times over, into orbits around Jupiter’s moons. God's astronomical artwork would thus provide additional proof of His devotion to new intelligence in His universe.

Thus our God is a God of life and opportunity for young intelligence in a mature universe. God may quite possibly have mutated animals millions of years ago to become the dinosaurs that became the oil of our planet. God decided to have earth be a fossil fuel rich planet. Such an act could represent a demonstration of or a clue to God's identity, power and history in the universe, as well as being a gift and a challenge to the mankind that would emerge much later than the oil itself. God's "miracle of oil" begins much earlier than some of the Middle Eastern legends and may give an important indication of how long God had prepared for a natural evolution of Homo sapiens.

Through religion, and other forms of human communication, God has been preparing mankind to permanently manage its human nature. Our species has to operationalize the lessons that are intended to teach us to take ourselves out of the master of the universe game where, if we had come into play billions of years ago, we might have been destroyed in interplanetary warfare

Capitalist America's geopolitics is a demonstration of human nature refusing to integrate the lessons of history, science, philosophy and religion in its obsessive-compulsive, pathological pursuit of power over everyone and everything--except itself. The fanatic refusal of key elements within the American establishment to accept the truth about Darwin’s theory of evolution makes it almost completely impossible to even begin to try to argue with them about the evolution of intelligence in the universe. This is complicated even further, if that is possible, by the fact that mainstream science has articulated no theory about God compatible with even nascent theories about other intelligent life in the universe.

America has allowed itself to become that which may turn out to be the final lesson in the rise and fall of Homo sapiens' civilizations on earth, before the species extinguishes itself. The destruction of our own atmosphere is on a course to cause the earth to become covered by the oceans (the irony of God's promise to Noah that He would never cover the earth over with the oceans again). This will occur, unless America can change in revolutionary ways or unless the rest of the species can find adequate direction on the smoldering ashes of America’s failure.

Research Suggestions

1.         Does the average citizen believe that the government is hiding information about UFOs?

2.         What is thought to be the government's motives?

3.         Why does the average citizen want to know about the existence of higher intelligence?  Can you help to explain the motives and actions of higher intelligence in terms of game theory?

4.         If it were proven that a highest intelligence could have emerged early in the unfolding of our universe and that such intelligence could have taken the role of our God, what different ways might theologians use to accommodate such possibilities?  What are some arguments for the unification of the species that could be made if one historical God of all of the religions is postulated?

5.         What does the average citizen think about the possibilities of an advanced intelligence that emerged earlier in the universe being the one God?

10. UTOPIA OR OBLIVION

The factors pointing to worldwide conflagration ahead are scientific, political and historical, as well as Biblical. All the signs are present, including the warning of this new millennium revolutionary manifesto. The twentieth century has seen World War I and World War II and it does not take genius to forecast another sequel in a global atmosphere of rampant corruption and compulsive hostility. There is even an enormous decades old plot for the fall of America to be realized around the time of the run up to the new millennium.

 The devil himself may be involved with America's establishment-hater/plotters, from inside and outside of the nation, which have helped to use the United States oligarchy’s very own ambitions to bring America to the precipice of historical disaster. This situation exists, alongside the American establishment's own standard form, long-running pact with Lucifer. The devil may possibly be a program (including personnel—e.g. Jimmy Carter) of highest intelligence, created to challenge a young species, such as our own, in order to raise our consciousness. If we do not rise up to the challenge successfully, within say, a 6000-year historical window, we may lose our native-earthling franchise to UFO-type intelligence after we finally create the conditions of our self-destruction (from which we would be incapable of escaping by our own technological efforts).

If the mere lowering of America’s prestige during the revelations and chaos of the next decades should be accepted by the major domestic and global anti-American forces as a substitute for positive revolutionary change, there is a real chance that all of mankind would soon thereafter be thrown into irreversible oblivion. The greatest danger to the human race may lie in the possibility that the seeming chaos of events ahead that should wind up being consolidated under the rubric of World War III will not conclude in radical revolutionary change for mankind. Instead, the different oligarchs of the world would be left with their capabilities intact and would renew an even more intensive destruction of the global ecological balance.

The different elite of every nation of the world have created national education systems and societies that indoctrinate its respective citizenry to internalize the strongest feelings of national identity in coordination with other culture-bound tokens, including ones reinforcing traditional viewpoints about sex, ethnicity, race and religion. The common man and woman of any nation cannot escape the pervasiveness of these kinds of messages imbedded in their cultures over the recent centuries. The masses of average citizens tend to support their ruling class in war and other destructive acts because it is their ruling class acting for their purported national interests. The ability and opportunity of the elite class to manipulate many of the most powerful aspects of the life experience of every average citizen through the consolidating organism that a nationalist society has developed into is a main enemy of species and planetary unity for mankind.

Karl Marx tried to overcome the divisions of the working class of the world with his theories of class struggle, the capitalist stage of history and the possibility of communism. His intellectual achievements have not proven to be capable of implementation. The existence of a real program of a real devil in the Germany of Marx’s day would certainly have included getting kept vague the question of timing in Marx’s theorizing regarding when capitalism would peak historically and even would have included helping to reinforce Marx’s negative analyses of the influence of religion to the point of utter rejection.  The result of these fatal flaws in Marxism may have insured the emergence of the twentieth century fascism that has already been realized along with its new forms today, even if Marx simply thought capitalism had already peaked in his day and had merely been reacting to how religion in his day helped the masses to accept their oppression.

I believe that there still may be a good possibility to unite the masses of mankind without resorting to Nazism, which is exactly the type of simple natural system that highest intelligence itself has been teaching us to reject throughout all of history. Uniting the great majority of humanity will certainly require some leadership from among the working classes, a vanguard if you will, and I believe the accord and involvement of some part of the existing elite of the world as well.  It is still not too late for Americans to take on some significant roles in a successful working class oriented world revolution.

The key to uniting the masses of average men and women, in my opinion, is to give the people of the world the information that they need in order to realize the crucial significance of their being equally citizens of the same planet. Instead of only concentrating on the real intellectual and real organizational device of class-consciousness as the integrative revolutionary theme, I suggest that the real intellectual and real organizational devices of citizen-consciousness, species-consciousness and planetary-consciousness be added as fundamental themes of the new millennium revolution.

All people of color as well as the Caucasoid race, people of every religion and every nation, people of every occupation and every profession are all of one species on the planet Earth within the context of a tremendous life-filled universe. Every earthling is air breathing, water drinking, two to three thousand calorie-a-day needing, etc., etc. and some mother’s son or daughter. This kind of rhetoric may seem over simplistic or to indicate pure idealism, however, the essence of the mission I believe that I am a part of is to remind you that Truth is the starting point of real freedom and that mankind could be destroyed entirely if this generation fails to recognize the authentic warning that this manifesto represents. The truth may oftentimes be fairly simple in fact.

 I am convinced that while the highest intelligence in the universe is capable of technologically providing a heavenly afterlife for any earthling that He so chooses, Christian and Muslim alike and anyone else who believes in heaven should be warned that heaven for earthlings could wind up getting cancelled by God.  If mankind should fail to fulfill God’s ambition for a successful native earthling response to His challenges, "Utopia or Oblivion" may not just mean a planet empty of native earthlings, it may mean an entire universe empty of earthlings--in any form whatsoever.

There would very likely be no comeback for native earthlings if we should finally fail to meet God’s challenge. No spontaneous evolutionary organic regeneration within a million or a billion years leading to new native earthling life would be allowed to occur by God if our species should reach the real time point of inevitable self-destruction in the generations ahead. Other intelligence would probably get to inhabit earth instead of native humans in such a case under a logical dramatic universal rules system. There would be no value for a superior intelligence, which had lost its bet on our species’ will to succeed within the rules of a 6000-year historical game, to let the same species reemerge on the same planet in the far distant future. That is, no value in comparison to maintaining the territorial acquisition rule-system which a game theorist or organizational theorist could argue that highest intelligence may have created for UFO-type intelligence in the universe that I have been describing. The satanic American totalitarian system is the greatest threat to the irreversible termination of the human species. It is even the foil that allows its enemies to imagine that their own relationship with the devil is moot or secondary at worst. This synergy of evil can only be overcome by authentic democracy.

The tens of millions of Americans that make up the U.S. military-industrial-criminal complex are concealing the most important information necessary for the citizenry (including the majority of themselves) to discern who is running America and what America has really become. The truth needs to be shown and explained to the public regarding more than a generation of the fixing of the presidency. Detailed testimony can be demanded from government agents about the top-secret program to orchestrate the world's stock markets. The Nazi programs that have been carried out for more than a generation in our Gulag Omnius and the facts regarding what contingency plans are waiting to be implemented in response to what forecasted events need to be revealed to the American public.

If the American public could have the information it needs in order to reach intelligent conclusions about its nation, the world and especially the universe, all of mankind will be in the strongest position to meet the challenges of existence, under God. Americans need to be in a position to work on a utopian plan for the human species, to have their input, their ideas and their opinions be a part of a process that must be carried out if mankind is to survive out all. The starting point is to work with the Truth.

The Final Position

In his Theory of Justice, John Rawls, following social contract theorists, such as Rousseau, stipulates a starting point called "the original position," which is used as a device in order to arrive at agreements in principle for attaining "justice as fairness" in a society. The arguments that he makes are elaborate philosophical ones that aim to convince any self-interested rational thinker to accept creating conditions that would foster incremental improvements in the life of the average citizen. The truth about current conditions and accurate facts about reality are a given.

Allow me to describe my version of a "final position" here, for the purpose of convincing any self-interested rational thinker to stand up and actually participate in creating revolutionary change that would help to make mankind successful and stable. Again, the need for accurate information, including the facts that the U.S. government is concealing about everything from the truth about its own corruption to extensive evidence regarding higher intelligence, is essential. The “final position” is a societal goal for mankind to attempt to maintain for countless millenniums.  The “final position” assumes that man has already successfully experienced sufficient activities during recorded history so as to be in a position to decide upon an agenda that could reasonably be expected to provide for great happiness for almost every single new person.

As the average citizen begins to get independent verification of all of the historical, societal, political and scientific facts that I have presented in this manifesto, I believe that he will move closer and closer to a real desire for action to achieve the "final position" which I am about to sketch. Many members of the elite classes may be willing to come down to earth and to integrate themselves with the working classes in order to implement a global program that should produce ample happiness for the great majority of the people of the planet. The destruction of the ruling class qua class does not entail the destruction of each individual member of it.

The "final position" for mankind, as I envision it, involves the kind of humility that the average working class American family of the post-World War II era expressed and demonstrated. The large majority of the parents of the baby boom generation were solid, hard-working citizens with reasonable ambitions and patterns for achieving happiness. They wanted to keep their jobs, save money to buy things for the home and their children and they wanted to have the opportunity to enjoy diverse forms of leisure time activity, including vacations. The reader may prefer a different generation as model.

The generation that I am considering as an approximate model for the "final position" for humanity can be considered as a good model for several reasons. I believe that there is some general agreement by many experts and a majority of the baby boom generation that the value system of the generation under consideration was more solid and stable than the following two generations. In addition, there are intuitively appealing considerations regarding the quality of life, in terms of happiness and other non-quantifiable variables, that recommend the generation under consideration as a model. That generation even thought to document itself as a model in the early television family shows.

It is not sentimentalist to refer to the old television shows as models because I believe that the intentions of the producers of that era were to use the television media as a force for social stability. In any case, the idea here is neither to try to go back in time nor to romanticize about a perfect past, whether recent or more distant. The purpose of sketching or alluding to some of the qualities of the working class of another generation is part of a rhetoric of unification in which I am attempting to involve the reader. You may favor a more primitive or less apparently bourgeois model, although I have not brought attention to the generation I have chosen in order to celebrate its bourgeois aspects. Lewis Mumford’s “Authoritarian and Democratic Technics”(http://www.primitivism.com/mumford.htm) might resonate with your own central concerns.  The point is to get involved and to succeed in making a rational, human, global plan for the future of  humanity.

I suggest that you analyze the appeals that are being made here and consider that you may have to really act in the future if there is going to be a better world. The over-ambitious ruling class is the principle obstacle to a moderately humble and happy future for the majority of the people of the world and these elite may not be willing to give up their power peaceably. They cannot be forced to come down to earth. They can only be invited and if they refuse in the majority then there may be no future at all for mankind unless that class is essentially destroyed by violence. Some of its surviving individuals may accept invitations to participate in a worker/consumer dominated society and others may be terrorized into compliance. Or, the ruling classes may continue to terrorize each other and everyone else and preside over mankind’s extinction.

The "final position" for earthlings in equilibrium with their native planet and in harmony with the dramatic interventions of the highest intelligence in the universe over history may be the creation and maintenance of the entire globe as the most natural and diverse planetary historical-theme park humanly possible--literally, tourist-planet earth. Every single person on the planet can become a part of the system of maintenance of a such a global project, for his own benefit and for the benefit of everyone else, including God and possibly even for tourists from other parts of the universe, in the future--until the end of time. Many geographical areas could, of course, be exempted from tourism motives. This idea of such a project is neither fantasy nor an effete bourgeois concept that cannot attract the masses of peasants and factory workers in the slave-wage nations. It is a unifying concept and it can become the realistic unifying project of mankind.

The key to the success of such a vision is for the masses of the working classes of the world to cooperate in a global program of population limits. If population limits cannot be made acceptable to the citizens of the developing world, the value of labor will never rise above its subhuman level. Concomitantly, without a world population program, there would be endless waiting periods for the masses of farmhands and factory workers to get access to the desirable leisure-time activity resources of the world, including beaches, lake and river sites.

A global population ideal needs to be researched in order to design an acceptable program for the rich, moderately populated nations to offer the people of the poor, overpopulated nations material incentives in return for participation in elaborate global family planning. Such incentives would include general education, job training, employment, improved diet and housing, good hours, pay and vacation time, access to leisure time activity resources on a worldwide basis, health care, etc. Each nation should be responsible for guiding its citizens through the program in order to protect against overcompensation of the Caucasoid race (in terms of final population maintenance levels).

Computer models, recursive “fuzzy” logic (within a scientifically supervised program of projection, testing and reevaluation), democratic feedback and overall experience with such a program over a maximum of, hopefully, three or four generations would work towards the goal of establishing the optimal population for the planet. That is, the best world population in order to offer all of the participants of the global program the maximum employment options and the maximum access to and use of the world’s most popular tourist areas, without excessive waiting periods for first choices.

A world population project should reject Nazi goals and instead aim to maintain the wide diversity that the species now has. The average man’s world of the "final position" of the future needs to be envisioned in terms of the scenes in which he wants to live and chooses to live (discovered through democratic processes), not in terms of the scenes to which the compulsion of genes, greed or evil inexorably drive mankind’s relatively tiny clique of capitalist barons and their "trickle-down" supporters. Average working people have to decide now and to fight for their own version of an ideal just future now (the “final position”) or mankind will not have any choice at all in the future.   Total destruction will remain a real possibility.

Mankind must decide on the "final position" or the possibilities for it will continue to degenerate towards hell or extinction. Do we want to insure the maintenance of traditional jobs and customs or do we want to let capitalist motives strip them from the scenes of the future? The Iranian Revolution ousted the Shah in accord with the former motives. American conservatives as well express a desire to return to the past. Nevertheless, it is mainly in the area of deciding how to control progress wherein lie the real opportunities for a united mankind to design its own destiny.

A world population program should be envisioned in coordination with the conditions for the adequate maintenance of the typical scenes, in the never-diminished individualized dramas of life, in which the majority of average people of each nation would want to participate in the "final position" of the future.

The "final position" concept of this manifesto remains based on the postulate that our species can never conquer the universe. Once we understand that essential limit to the natural drive of our species, and understand and accept the intentions of God’s intervention in earthling history, we can then design the best possible future for mankind. It will be a better future than the pure instinct of our species could have provided unaided in our life-filled universe. Perhaps mankind’s future can even be a happier one, in certain respects, than that of the highest intelligence in the universe, to whom we owe everything.

Mankind can achieve a world that preserves all of its diverse traditions, religions, history, foliage and fauna for every citizen of the planet to enjoy during a lifetime that may increase by some decades over the next century. This can be accomplished by replacing the interests of the rich with the interests of the common man.

Earth as a theme park/tourist-planet will be a world of producers and distributors of food, clothing, housing, health care, education and every type of service and product for workers, professionals, students, small businesspeople, retirees, etc. and their children. The care and maintenance of people and the natural and manmade wonders of the world are the primary objectives of such a planet. The city centers, as well as the areas at oceans, lakes and mountains all over the world should become understood as the pride of all earthlings. Almost every nation of the world is already very seriously trying to manage and project itself in terms of tourism priorities.

The future can be made into one of a democratic world for every citizen/tourist of the planet. Such a self-image and global image can realistically be transformed into the transnational goal of the average citizen and begin to dominate transnational corporate goals in a world that needs to understand oligarchic capitalism's final stages on the road to a viable new socialist ideal, under God. If the average citizen does not assert himself in these directions, mankind will live in a social and natural environment that more and more resembles Dante's Inferno or the Revelations of John.

The movement towards the identification of the self as a citizen/tourist in a transcendent planetary movement, over and above national, ethnic, racial, class, age, sex, occupational or corporate aspects of self-identity is facilitated by several realities:

First such identification can become the basis for securing and reinforcing the other identity variables (relative to planetary citizen/tourist) during a period of adjustments of the individual’s dependence upon national identity. This may turn out to be difficult because World War III, or the judgment of nations, if you will, can be expected to strengthen national identity. Nevertheless, with preparation now, including the release of the truth about higher intelligence and the other issues in this manifesto, a sense of planetary identity can start to transcend the kinds of national identity attitudes that have emerged over the past several hundred years--if great leadership emerges.

Second, the United States cannot maintain its hegemony and dictate the future of the planet under the control of a never-ending unbridled debased capitalist conspiracy. A great lowering of the prestige of America is going to occur and the power of the ruling classes in nations dependent upon America will crumble or be destroyed by violence. An attractive major identity haven (planetary citizen) should become popular among the masses of average citizens if it provides for the safeguarding of his other bases of identity, as well as provides for a road back to national pride.

Third, all of the world's stock markets are going to crash and the ruling classes will be further destabilized. Jingoistic rhetoric anywhere in the world is a tactic of the elite establishments, used to fortify their own power. The judgment of nations just ahead can weaken the average citizen's nationalistic sentiments in favor of a genuine sense of human identity, global identity and earthling identity. This will be helped greatly if the peoples of the world can be prepared ahead of time by the dissemination of the Truth.

There are many other factors that can facilitate a new millennium revolution in identity and social action, including the capability of an informed citizenry to contribute to a further concrete envisioning of "the final position." I hope that Americans could be among those to participate in such a project. I can only sketch the motives, structure and functioning of a theme park/tourist planet earth in this manifesto. This realistic and serious effort needs to be elaborately continued and can be one of the greatest motivations for the average citizen to struggle for revolutionary change.

Research Suggestions

1.         Draw up a more elaborately detailed version of tourist-planet earth and make up a survey to gauge the approval of the average citizen.

2.         Make even more improved ideal planetary models and present them alongside feasible doomsday scenarios. Measure how many and which survey populations would be willing to use how much and what type of violent measures (against who?) in order to insure the realization of the utopian models in concomitant surveys.

3.         Make a survey for Americans regarding the offering of incentives to poor people in underdeveloped nations to have two-, one- and no- children families: Make a similar survey for poor people in underdeveloped nations.

4.         Outline the pros and the cons of such a population control program incorporating different possible survey results along with arguments based on various systems of principles.

5.         How much does the average citizen care about the world of three or four generations from now? How does this compare with his or her feelings about the next generation or two?

 

11. Demands to the President and the Congress of the United States of America

I swear that every allegation and every description of U.S. government programs that have been presented here are based upon facts and are the truth. Every opinion that I have expressed is my own and has been made on behalf of my authentic desire for a better future for all of mankind. Nothing in this manifesto has been intended to represent the ideas, opinions or objectives of any group, business enterprise or government in the world. I ask you to join with me in making the following demands:

1.         All federal files on all matters, with the unique exception of armament engineering designs, must be the property of the people of the United States and be open to public inspection immediately. This includes all secret files on higher intelligence, thought-monitoring, brain-programming and the military-industrial-criminal complex's manipulation of events and history for political purposes.

 

2.         The Executive and Congressional branches of the United States government must cooperate in order to issue White Papers that admit America’s crimes against humanity. This includes crimes against American citizens, foreign nationals and immigrants, as well as crimes against nations. White Papers must be issued on the Philippines, Nicaragua, Puerto Rico, Cuba, Haiti, the Dominican Republic, Guatemala, El Salvador, Iran, Korea, Vietnam, China, Angola, Libya, Iraq, the Palestinian people and every other nation that the United States of America has oppressed on behalf of American ideology and economics.

 

3.         Reparations must be paid to all victims of America’s policies and actions since the time of the formation of the nation, beginning with the Native American Indian tribes, the progeny of enslaved Africans and the peoples of Latin America.

 

4.         Whereas the local, state and federal governments of the United States are corrupt, unrepresentative and have been formed by fraudulent nomination and election processes, the governments of America have no legitimate authority. And, whereas all prisoners in the jails and in the prisons of the nation have been subjected to societal, political and judicial violations of their human rights before and during their incarcerations, it must be considered that all prisoners in the United States are political prisoners. It is therefore demanded: All political prisoners must be freed even if it leads to the people in their communities organizing to apply the death penalty to some of them for any new capital crime committed afterwards; All mentally ill prisoners must be given treatment; Reparations must be paid to all political prisoners; Reparations must be made to the mentally ill for causing their illnesses and/or for wrongful imprisonment.

 

5.         The Congress must make laws to enable the calling of a new Constitutional Convention in order to empower the average citizen to participate in a course of action aimed at providing the possibility for freedom and democracy in America and the establishment of legitimate government.

 

6.         All government activities must be transparent and be accessible to the scrutiny of the public. All elected officials and bureaucrats must be subjected to complete surveillance and electronic monitoring in their offices. Short terms of public service must require giving up privacy at work and can be open to all adults in a form similar to jury service with lottery selection to establish candidate pools. All election campaigns must be funded only by a limited amount of money provided by local, state and federal governments.

 

7.         Capitalism must be made into a tool of the average citizen. It must become a mechanism for rewarding and punishing corporate performance in the areas of worker, consumer and environmental concerns. There must be cooling off periods and adequate protection against demagoguery to protect corporations. Monopoly control of publicly traded corporations and huge shareholding must be phased out for such enterprises to become completely dominated by worker and consumer stockholding, without confiscating existing property or shares.

 

8.         A global population program must be researched in order to design a program for the rich, moderately populated nations to offer the people of the poor, overpopulated nations material incentives in return for participation in an elaborate global family planning program.

 

9.         A communal global program of defensive anti-spacecraft missiles and rocket systems capable of deviating comets or other threats in space from earthbound collision courses must substitute for all offensive missile systems by all nations.

 

10.     A global resource conservation and cultural/historical preservation system, leading to the creation of tourist-planet earth for all the citizens of the world must be America’s projection of humanity’s humble, yet liberating goal--in a mature universe that is already established and that requires limits to the ambitions of young intelligence.

 

If these demands are not exhaustively debated in public until consensus and accord can be reached, I predict that the American nation will become polarized in the years ahead, even while catastrophes, both man-made and natural impact all of civilization. The recent and current administrations of the United States have committed acts that virtually annul the Constitution, virtually making its authority illegitimate. If changes are not forthcoming, then I predict America will be brought down in a protracted fall that will include the violent rage of both Americans and non-Americans alike. If revolutionary change is not implemented, then I fear all of mankind may be destroyed.

 

12. CONCLUSIONS

     This manifesto is a warning about political reality and the consequences of ignorance fostered by evil. It is intended especially for the American public. It sketches where we are and how we got there, one nation, under God, America’s story. It is a realistic view, the painful truth. It may help the reader to understand why America will soon be thrown into prolonged violence and chaos during a period of worldwide upheavals.

The secret police of the United States have been following the development of this manuscript as I have gone along. In addition, the New York FBI and the NYPD have received electronic copies several times during the development of this work, as well as the White House and members of the House and Senate. The press, literary agents and academics have received copies. Various hard copies have been sent out to the same groups, however America’s ruling class at its convenience cannot deny the content of the additional voluminous electronic mail communications that I have sent. There is no legitimate excuse for this Manifesto not to be available publicly in America. The citizenry should have had the opportunity to become familiar with my experience and points of view a long time ago, before I even wrote this Manifesto. The size of the secrets being kept and the complexity of the networks of government agents and American citizens involved in preventing my story from being told will someday be seen to be as sinister as the Nazi's regime—and much more effective.

The American totalitarian system is evil and psychotic and violent attacks against it are going to increase in intensity and scope in the years ahead. No one in the field of Election 2000 presidential candidates has demonstrated anywhere near the character, experience or following necessary to handle what America is and what is in store for it.  President George Herbert Walker Bush should have led the nation through a program of coming clean in a second term of office beginning in 1993. Bush could have explained the past generation of a myriad of abuses of power by the federal bureaucracy as having been significantly due to the largest war in America's history (the cold war) and Bush would have had to lead a reform program against the corruption of America that has now become the defining pathology of the entire socio-political system. Others would have had the opportunity to argue to the contrary that America's corruption had caused the cold war in the first place. We would have been on our way to sanity through genuine democratic debate based on universal access to the most crucial information—facts about our own nation’s secret policies that have violated the Constitution and international laws and norms. Instead, America is now basically a full blown delusional system controlled by fundamentalist Protestants and their tools, including a significant group of Catholics and a relative handful of Jews in some key positions. This situation did not just break out of nowhere, as history has shown that societies have been prone to such disorders throughout time due to human nature and the complexities of governing large populations and empires.

In America's case, a violent extremist history that includes the virtual extermination of many Native American nations, a long period of the enslavement of African-Americans, the Civil War and the Vietnam War are just some demonstrations of the sometimes generalized and sometimes compartmentalized self-aggrandizement and violent symptoms of the paranoiac-schizophrenic nature of America's White Protestant ruling class. This history, along with current programs of mass murders for the benefit of corporate consolidations and experimental and delusional national security motives, thought-monitoring, brain-programming, the fixed presidency and fixed stock markets now help to clearly define a major totalitarian system whose dimensions are as large as the German Third Reich and whose contemporary implications are potentially even more threatening to itself and to all of mankind. Nevertheless, one of America's main dependent states, the nation of Israel will very possibly be destroyed before totalitarian America. Tel Aviv and Jerusalem may eventually be attacked and destroyed by weapons of mass destruction, agitated by some very important Christian American expectations and the existence of ancient hatred towards the Jews (especially, but not exclusively in the Arab world).

The Jews are hated today in an important measure because the state of Israel had been imposed (by Protestants) on that which had been predominantly Arab populated lands for more than two millennium. They are also hated because of the fundamental Jewish belief in themselves as the once and forever chosen people and because of their rejection of Jesus as the Messiah. While conventional terrorism and war against Israel may precede attacks with nuclear and biological arms, under the cover of an India-Pakistan war and/or war between North and South Korea, among other likely challenges to American world order, the virtual destruction of Israel is quite probably only a matter of time. 

The fate of Israel is made more certain when one considers that the bizarre, cruel and hypocritical nature of America’s corrupt totalitarian despotism is apparently going to come to light, too late and under too adverse conditions to be adequately handled by the nation's normal institutional processes. America's prestige will surely undergo a prolonged decline and many other nations dependent upon America for their security will suffer gravely. Mexico and all of Latin America, as well as the Caribbean and the Philippines immediately come to mind. Americans themselves will become enraged when they learn the full range of truth about the perfidy of their ruling class and the nation's ensuing condition will help to intensify the hostilities of all other nations in conflict. It will contribute to further instability within and between any nations on the brink of war or revolution. The newly communicating Koreas will not likely escape the repercussions of the fall of America if they manage to avoid precipitating it.

Stock markets can be expected to crash under such circumstances and chaos and violence would reign. America’s ruling class will certainly demand that American’s unite in support of the "national interest," even to the extent of participation in a program of martial law from coast to coast. Real and rigged terrorist incidents could help to distract attention away from the critical task of finding out the truth about the long list of crimes that have been committed by the military-industrial-criminal complex and the truth about its evil and delusional nature.  A long bust cycle in the world's stock markets may help to propel Russia and China into severe anti-capitalist violence that the masses of their common citizens may support. The same circumstances will be the ones to push North Korea into a position where it finally has nothing to lose. After a nuclear attack against Seoul and a counterattack,  North Korea could launch its own "sea of humanity" against the South and exterminate a South Korean ruling class that has no way to escape.  Anti-ruling class revolutions throughout Latin America, the Caribbean and Africa will ignite sooner rather that later.

Such scenarios would probably lead to dramatic division in America over whether or not to attempt to process a legion of decisively implicated corrupt politicians, bureaucrats and businessmen at all. The nation would debate the value of such hearings while there is violence within and without. Yet, the Clinton impeachment hearings have already been evaluated as a successful example of simultaneous self-flagellation and foreign warfare, when the president was carrying out bombing attacks on Iraq while he himself was on trial.  It might very well be agreed that those guilty (scapegoats) of the accumulation of constitutional violations and other crimes of a corrupt America can indeed be investigated and tried, in spite of chaos all around. The intention would naturally be to demonstrate that the system works. The attempt would be made to show off the system as a source or the source and perhaps even as the only source, of national stability. Such a show would be able to provide an additional distraction away from the broader truth of the nature of the military-industrial-criminal complex as totalitarian.

Nevertheless, a few dozen perpetrators can commit devastating acts within the borders of the United States. They may turn out to be volunteers from existing groups or loners that have been brain-programmed to carry out such attacks. Or, they could have some combination of motives, goals, organizational bases and preparation. Such acts could even be implemented by elements of the U.S. government itself.  I have been in discussions of a wide range of scenarios where arms of mass destruction could be used effectively to destroy the economic stability of the entire world, even if the United States should implement an already designed national martial law contingency program. There are individuals, groups and nations that believe that the United States has committed crimes against humanity and against appropriate world order in the same way that America has judged other nations in those terms. America’s remedy for its enemies has oftentimes been the imposition of economic sanctions, hundreds or thousands of bombing runs, or some combination of the two punishments, but such penalties have never been possible for any individual, group, nation or alliance to apply to the United States.  Partly because the United States is virtually impregnable to such massive conventional military attacks and non-military sanctions, war against America has been planned to be carried out with biological weapons and even with nuclear devices within its borders.  The application of arms of mass destruction within the borders of the United States may be considered by some as the only just punishment that can possibly be applied to America for its crimes.

 Arms of mass destruction are almost certainly going to be used.  The ultra-secret national security center of the nation has developed counterintelligence contingency plans aimed at combating the conspiratorial agenda for the somewhat engineered fall of America, about which they have only recently developed an operationally oriented consciousness. These sections of the nation's fatally corrupted military-industrial-criminal complex fantasize that they will be prepared to counteract their own forecasted threats to the nation's defense readiness and to its political credibility which have been plotted to unfold just as the United States is reaching its pinnacle of economic prestige, influence and world power. Plans by the U.S. government to defend itself against the fall include the self-initiation of some violent attacks against Americans, including ones using arms of mass destruction, in order to prepare the citizenry to accept a national program of martial law, according to a national security insider.

      U.S. intelligence agents and radical elements from both inside America and from abroad have been considering specific ideas and proposals for the use of both nuclear weapons and biological weapons within the United States. Various foreign elements have interests in violent attacks succeeding in the U.S. for many reasons including the possibility that America might become unable or unwilling to engage in any type of foreign military interventions which would interfere with any of their different national or regional ambitions. They might hope that internal political pressure upon the U.S. federal government to return to isolationism might prevail in an atmosphere of domestic violence. This will be the consequence if the government of the United States of America continues to refuse to admit to its own deeply rooted character defects, its own accumulated crimes against humanity and its treason against its own citizens. America needs to admit the truth, allow the truth and stand for the Truth. This includes, above all else, the truth about higher intelligence, which I believe entails the establishment of limits on earth in every sphere of human activity.  Truth and transparency in relations among nations are the keys to a stable world system, yet the most powerful elements among America’s ruling class is specifically and violently opposed to the very concept of a world government, not to mention a socialist world.

 It seems that the Biblical prediction of a third of mankind being destroyed might even occur given these circumstances (for a second time, if the Black Plague of the Middle Ages should be counted in this regard). Such a contemporary episode would depend upon the dedication and willingness to die of groups and individuals around the world.  And, while the failure to carry out a global cleansing, in Biblical terms as it were, could turn out to be fatal for mankind, the failure to adequately include the United States in it might only be termed unfair, depending upon one’s point of departure.   In terms of the American scene, nuclear devices smuggled into Washington, D. C. and other cities, secreted into buildings or underground sewerage systems could be detonated in the decades ahead. Targeted areas would probably include the Pentagon, the NSA and the CIA and could include Capitol Hill and the White House.

If America's ruling class cannot be convinced to change or if it is not destroyed by such massive violence along with more focused accompanying attacks (assassinations of politicians, businessmen and their family members, etc.), then it will be compelled to try to diabolically co-opt its enemies after the great worldwide conflagrations that are coming. Together, America and its former enemies would then likely carry out global programs of exploitation over the next couple of generations which may very possibly accelerate the still accumulating ecological imbalances that are already apparent, until mankind is finally eliminated from the earth once and for all—ironically, all in the name of rebirth.

The main remedy suggested throughout this work is that America ought to be just and honest with its enemies as well as with its friends and its own citizens. There is no substitute for Truth and Justice in all areas of human endeavor. No amount of military preparation, whether for aggressive or defensive purposes, can replace the imperatives of political and societal integrity. Contrition for sins both past and present by America and by all of the nations of the world must be made in these days when the final judgment is surely looming large as a historical reality.  I feel quite certain that no one Christ in the flesh is going to emerge during this coming time of judgment for America and the world. Christians have been symbolically eating the flesh and drinking the blood of Jesus Christ for two millenniums. Christ is supposed to be within and I believe that Christians must actually come to see themselves as Christ, along with all men of reason and good will.  I believe this is compatible with God’s ambitions for earthlings even though both Jesus and his followers have consistently made some errors regarding God relations to them.  All Christians would do well to read the Koran and to admit that God the Father is the one King of the Universe.

All of Islam should eventually be capable of adopting a scientific socialist governmental system, as Muammar El Qadhafi seemed interested in trying at one time. The Arab and Persian minds are especially capable of great comprehension and feats—and revolution, although there will be many battles ahead within and between the several sects among Islam’s different national bases. Along with China, India and a new future Soviet Socialist Federation compatible with a new socialist Europe, Islam and the progressive leftist elements of the Americas and Africa can unite under the emergent political philosophy that has begun to be sketched in this new millennium revolutionary manifesto. It may take several generations, but who would have projected a united Europe a hundred years ago.  The main obstacle to mankind’s long-term success on this planet, according to the well-informed and experienced dialectical materialist analyses represented by this manifesto, is America’s anti-socialist, delusional and criminal system of capitalist imperialism. It is not inappropriate now to resonate with the Iranian observation that America is the Great Satan.

Utopia for mankind or oblivion is a real crossroads and it has been reached. God willing, the devastating wars ahead will be fought with this in mind and not exclusively to satisfy national, regional, religious, dogmatic and otherwise every kind of parochial ambition. If mankind fails to unite around the truth about science and history, native earthling intelligence will cease to exist. Any number of saved souls that God may choose to keep happily preserved will be a sad reward compared to the possibility of billions of years ahead for a successful human society on earth—and, in heaven as well.  The myth of the Garden of Eden teaches us that man had once been given the chance to avoid taking a bite of the apple from the Tree of Knowledge. With total faith in God and obedience to God, man could have remained in paradise on earth. Yet, God knew what man would do and His plan remains to see mankind a success on the planet. Now, I believe that the appropriate discovery and application of knowledge by man on earth to create as near to a utopia as possible is God’s definitive challenge to a young intelligence such as ours.

The finally too late unmasking of the American ‘Evil Empire’ will never be able to remain subject to the control of the establishment. Once the major fireworks of the judgment of nations begin to unfold in full force, intricately veiled totalitarian America’s cover-ups of its history and character will mercilessly unravel. The truth about the assassinations of the 60s and an accumulation of a generation of intolerable crimes against the Constitution and the American people will tear apart America’s soul. There is precious little time left for voluntary confessions to help ventilate some of the enormous issues that are waiting to explode. The reality of GULAG OMNIUS, the fixing of the presidency and the whole nature of totalitarian America must see the light of day.

More than anything, my brothers and sisters of the World War II baby boom generation deserve to have the chance to know the breathtaking truth about the reality of the highest intelligence in the universe and the possibilities for mankind’s future.  Perhaps the most important group in this regard is our scientists, who have scarcely any inkling at all about the kind of God hypothesized in this manifesto. See, for example, “Scientists and Religion in America”, Edward J. Larson and Larry Witham in Scientific American, Volume 281, pages 78-83; September 1999; also, "Where Are They," Ian Crawford and "Where Could They Hide," Andrew J. Page in Scientific American, July 2000.

The Crawfords and Pages, without having had first hand experience with higher intelligence, are unable or unwilling even to hypothesize an active, scientific, high-tech, higher intelligence.  They have remained oblivious to the simple possibility that a real higher intelligence has implemented a system of blocking signals and imposing rules on intermediate intelligence, which is determining earthlings' absence of signals from other intelligence in the universe, just like parents do on their children's TVs and computers. 

There is still time left to learn what genuine freedom of speech is and to have the possibilities of exercising it dynamically during the lifetime remaining to my generation. Every American should get the chance to participate with all peoples of the world in a new millennium revolution. God has surely included in His design a great upside to the Judgment of Nations.   

 

POSTSCRIPT

A U.S. program of persecution has tortured me. U.S. federal government intelligence agency interventions in my life have been very damaging for my daughter as well.     Thought monitoring as described in the section entitled GULAG OMNIUS exists and someday the world will find out about it. Such sadistic totalitarian methodology has been applied to me around-the-clock, twenty-four hours a day, day and night for over 20 years now.  I believe that even if the public finds out about it before I am dead, I will still have it applied to me in U.S. intelligence field and experimental operations.

 Under these circumstances, I cannot have what may be considered normal, spontaneous imaginary debates in my head with myself or with an appropriate other. While Hillary Clinton has admitted using Eleanor Roosevelt in such a manner, I have my own favorite consultants and interlocutors that I used to like to use to test some of my feelings and ideas in the form of sub-vocal speech, or thought if you will.

I cannot do this in front of the monitors of my sub-vocal speech/inner speech/analytical thought because they will know with whom I am consulting as well as know the substance of my thought.  The U.S. government for more than two decades, without any break, has denied me my freedom of thought and consequently my freedom of speech.  My freedom of religion cannot exist under these circumstances.

 I cannot say what I feel like saying to my God because of this program.  This is the greatest torture with respect to the thought-monitoring aspect of my persecution.  Intolerable deprivation may be a more accurate description of this particular function of GULAG OMNIUS in my case.   I do not wish to compare my situation with dissidents that have had severe forms of physical torture applied to them.  There are some other features of my treatment by the U.S. secret police that have included and do include forms of actual physical torture and physical assaults that I will discuss below. For now, just let me say that I am embarrassed to speak openly to my God in front of the thought-monitors, who are always present.  I cannot say whatever I want to my God.  More than anything, in this respect, I am afraid of embarrassing God.

I am an intellectual or at least I am very analytical and experimental in my normal, natural thinking.  I have a need to challenge my God at times and I need to be contrite at other times.  I cannot do this in front of the American secret police.  I cannot show certain things about how I might be willing to act with God dialectically. I cannot risk embarrassing God by demonstrating how I might dare to address Him.

 

 

APPENDIX I

        After formal notification to the Court of Appeals for the 2^nd Circuit federal court in New York, I have written the following brief for my appeal of judgment and sentencing, after being in Bureau of Prisons custody for the past 33 months.  I remain in federal custody as of this date, November 14, 2004.  This brief is scheduled to be filed on December 10, 2004, the prosecution response on January 10, 2005, followed by oral arguments. 

 

 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 

SECOND CIRCUIT

 

Case No.  03-1794

 

 

 

 

 

MARK KRANGLE

Defendant

 

NO.  03-1794

United States v. Mark Krangle

 

Brief of Appellant

 

 

 

ORAL ARGUMENT

 

The defense is prepared to present oral arguments in support of the First Amendment issues in this brief. As the instant case is one of pure language, First Amendment issues are embedded with almost every one of the issues in this brief.  Eventually, it needs to be made clear that overbreadth in the federal statutes that prohibit the transmission of “any threat” can have a chilling and dangerous impact on First Amendment rights as well as public safety. Opinions, predictions, reports and statements of beliefs about threats can all represent crucial forms of warning even something like prophecy, while in the very same breath such language may create fear arousal responses.   Such reports must not be prohibited under the rubric of "any threat." The defense is also prepared to present oral arguments in support of any issues of this appeal that do not directly relate to the First Amendment if there are any questions left unanswered by this brief.

 

STATEMENT OF ISSUES

 

I. The Court Erred in Failing to Investigate the Abuses and Deprivations to the Defendant and Unfair Conditions for Trial and Failed to Attempt to Correct Such Conditions …………………………………………. 10

 

II.  Venue in the Southern District of New York Was Incorrect and the Court Erred in its Interpretation of the Law Regarding Venue, While the Jury, Which Was Charged With Considering Venue in its Verdict, Neither Received Adequate Information Regarding Venue Nor Could Have Received Adequate Information Regarding Venue Because the Court Was Uncertain about the Issue and the Prosecution Was Uncertain and Ultimately Incorrect about the Issue……………………………….…………………..15

 

III.  The Court Erred in Admitting Illegally Seized by the Government into Evidence and Compounded this Because Their Probative Value was far Outweighed by Their Nature as Prejudicial to Defendant's Character……..………….………………………………………………... 24

 

IV. The Court Erred in its Excessive Limitation of Defense’s Opening and Closing Statements and Defendant’s Testimony……………………….….29

 

VI.  The Court Erred in Its Charge to the Jury Regarding the Criteria for the Determination of a True Threat and There was Insufficient Evidence of a Threat as Defined in the Jury Charge; as well, the Court Erred in Denying the Issuance of Subpoenas to Time Magazine, Newsweek Magazine and the New York Times while the Defendant had Ineffective Counsel in Its Failure to Fulfill Its Agreements to Solicit Expert Testimony and to Subpoena Such Witnesses in order to Testify Regarding the Distinction Between a True Threat and the Reporting of Possible Threats……………………………. .37

 

VI. There Was Insufficient Evidence of An Intention to Extort…………...48

 

VII.   The Allen Charge Presented to the Jury was Unconstitutional in a Case of Pure Language…………………………………………………………..68

 

VIII. Defendant’s E-Mails Merit Protection of the First Amendment...…..71

 

 

Statement of the Case

I wrote an experimental piece following some of the principles of my doctoral dissertation, in the form of an e-mail and addressed it to ABC.Online and Comments @ Paine Webber during the first weeks of May, 1999.  On May 19^th 1999, the first e-mail, which forms the basis of this case, was transmitted from one of the Internet Cafés in the town where I lived in Mexico.  I regularly used the rental computers there because I have never owned one.   The e-mail opened and closed with my name, Mark Krangle, and noted, in the closing, the e-mail address for receivers to write back to me, next to the United States street address where I had, at the time, been receiving my Chase Master Cards and Chase Master Card statements for several years, although I had never resided there and, in fact, had been living in coerced exile in Latin America for most of the prior 14 years.

Doris V. Hernandez, the "webmaster person" of Mark Krefting, a Disney executive, received the e-mails addressed to ABC.Online at the Disney Corporation in Los Angeles.  Ms. Hernandez forwarded the first e-mail to Mr. Krefting with her own note; the day and exact time are not in evidence. Krefting, approximately 26 hours after Hernandez received the first e-mail, made a transmission of the e-mail from Los Angeles to Gerard Whitmore of ABC Security department in New York, along with the note from Doris V. Hernandez and his own note.  Krefting's note said: "Jerry, here's the e-mail we discussed, forwarded by my webmaster person." The other note said, "Hernandez, Doris V. wrote: This message struck me as somewhat demented and worrisome.  Doris"

Here is the text [and some facts] of the May 19^th 1999 e-mail:

From: MARK KRANGLE                                                                            Sent: Wednesday, May 19, 1999 2:18 PM                                                      To: ABC Online Webmaster ; comments @painewebber.com               Subject:  Revolutionary Mercy in Exchange for Atonement by ABC Network and Paine Webber   

[First paragraph follows; it is a single 89-word sentence; the sentence/paragraph has the link phrase "accompanied by" near its center that places a non-exhaustive series of acts of God onto a plate with an indefinite series of  "acts of furious judgment."]

HIV blood drenched glass shards exploded in all directions in corporate conference rooms, acid thrown in faces of clerks and receptionists, secretaries and boy Fridays pushed onto subway tracks, a new strain of smallpox released into exhibition arenas and more acts of furious judgment against totalitarian America will be carried out in the very near future, accompanied by still greater ferocious tornadoes, earthquakes larger than Northridge and hurricanes more damaging than Andrew, volcanic eruptions, fires floods, pestilence and every form of plague upon America's pharoahs [sic] and their first born.

[Second paragraph contains two sentences, the first is 20 words and the second is 41 words.]

A new epoch of revolutionary justice, under God, is in store for mankind and America will be a special example.  ABC and Paine Webber are real probable targets during the generation of rage which is about to unfold as they are under special consideration for attacks as described above, since I complained about them to communicative links with revolutionary terrorist elements.

[Third paragraph is one sentence of 50 words.]

ABC and Paine Webber have caused real and substantial damage to me and my revolutionary work and without lawyers and without consideration of statutes of limitation, I have offered their personnel, involved in crimes against me and the salvational revolutionary movement, the opportunity to reach a monetary settlement with me.

[Fourth paragraph is two sentences, 10-words and 42-words.]

Now, the ante has gone up to $250,000.00 per company.  ABC lawyers and Paine Webber lawyers: Discuss my offer with me to compensate me for damages and pain and suffering and in order to carry out my revolutionary work, which will include self-publishing my book in progress--A NEW MILLENNIUM REVOLUTIONARY MANIFESTO.  [Capitals in original]

[Fifth paragraph is one 25-word sentence.]

Enter into negotiations with me and I will try to take your firms off of the existing list for future terrorist attacks as describe[d] above.

[Sixth paragraph is one 70-word sentence.]  

If you do not discuss this situation with me, even in order to have just acted in a reasonable communicative form for the purpose of being able to show the courts in future negligence and wrongful death suits that there had been no possibility that the complainant had information regarding terrorist designs against ABC and Paine Webber which may have been able to have been deterred, you will pay dearly.

[Seventh paragraph is one 105-word sentence.]

If you do not discuss my offer with me and your personnel and/or other members of your geographical community are murdered or mass murdered in the ways indicated, or in other ways which may be accompanied by information to the effect that the killings were meant to signal, in part, punishment for your corporations' damages to me and to my revolutionary work, then you will be vulnerable to enormous damage suits for negligence and wrongful death by the surviving family members of your communities, in addition to your moral responsibility for the very loss of life itself.

[Eighth paragraph is one 28-word sentence.]

If you do not respond within 30 days, I will not offer you the same amicable cooperation which I am willing to offer you today in this message.                                                                                                 

The following day, on May 20^th 1999, I found that I had received an automated response to my e-mail from Paine Webber on a computer at the same place in Mexico: It said, in part, "It is our policy to respond to your message in greater detail via e-mail within one week." (see Bates material numbered 00032-33). Later that same day I reviewed my original e-mail and made a few changes.

First, I decided not to re-send the e-mail "To" Paine Webber since they had responded, albeit, automatically, so the second e-mail went only to ABC.Online in the "To" address section, but in the electronic "Cc" address section I added three print media receivers:  letters @ nytimes.com, editors @ newsweek.com, letters @time.com. and I sent Paine Webber a "Bcc" copy, which I believe was electronically returned to Mexico undeliverable to the U.S. citing—“too many hops.”  Second, I changed the word "probable" to the word "possible" in the phrase "real probable targets" of the second paragraph, thereby changing that phrase in the second e-mail to "real possible targets."  Third, I changed a word in the seventh paragraph "complaintant" to the phrase "aggrieved party," just because I was not certain if "complaintant" was the proper legal term for someone trying to establish himself as the victim of someone else's conduct.

For the second e-mail, which was mailed on the second day of mailing, I had also changed the phrase of the final paragraph of the e-mail text to "If you do not respond in 30 days…" to "If you do not respond within 29 days…." And, finally, I added an instruction to the added electronic carbon copy-indicated print media, after the end of the body of the second e-mail, which said:  "(instruction to print media):  BACKGROUND-NOT FOR RELEASE until further notice; filing this material for reference and future use is suggested."  (Capital letters in original) See the two E-Mails that form the basis of the instant case provided in the appendix at Government Exhibit 31 and 32.

I continued to send the e-mails to ABC.Online with Cc's to the other news media, but not to Paine Webber, on Saturday, May 21, Sunday, May 22, Monday, May 23 and Tuesday, May 24, 1999.  None of those transmissions were "returned undeliverable" to Mexico.  After that, I believed that ABC was never going to answer me and that Paine Webber was never going to fulfill its automated promise of sending me a detailed reply, so I quit sending the e-mails altogether. The prosecution did not present the May 21-May 24 documents to the defense in discovery or at trial. 

Two years and eight months later, on January 18, 2002, the defendant was met at approximately 9:00 AM at the Mexican Immigration Office in Cuernavaca, Morelos, Mexico by FBI Agent Raul Salinas.  The defendant was supposed to pick up his 3^rd Mexican visa extension papers as an "assimilated immigrant," a process he had begun in 1997, which was some seven years after he had first arrived to Mexico, but he was instead told by Mexican authorities that Agent Raul Salinas would be "in charge" of the defendant and that the defendant would be returning to the United States with Agent Salinas. The Mexican authorities took the defendant to the airport, not under arrest, and gave Agent Salinas the defendant's wallet, passport, documents and computer discs that were in the defendant's possession, which they had asked the defendant to give to them in order for them to make an inventory of his possessions on the ride to the airport in a Mexican immigration van. There was no evidence at trial, in the Bates materials or in the 3500 materials that an actual legal expulsion process or extradition process had been carried out to legal completion by the Mexican authorities.  Agent Salinas had refused to advise the defendant, in Salinas' role as the defendant's United States Embassy representative, as to the defendant's legal rights in the face of the actions that had been taking place by the Mexican government.  Agent Salinas refused to assume his role as U.S. citizen representative for the defendant when asked to by the defendant.  Salinas only carried out another of his roles, that of U.S. FBI liaison and Salinas refused to advise the defendant of his rights.  Agent Salinas had booked and previously obtained tickets for a Continental Airways flight from Mexico City to Newark, New Jersey to take the defendant on that day.  Agent Salinas and the defendant and another FBI agent boarded the plane from the tarmac where Mexican immigration officials had taken the defendant by van. Agent Salinas seated himself one seat away from the defendant in a three-seat, six-across tourist class row near the back of the Continental Airlines plane, with the defendant in the window seat.  The other agent sat across the aisle from Salinas. Agent Salinas would not allow the defendant access to the defendant's documents or other possessions that were in the possession of Agent Salinas since their arrival to Mexico City.  Agent Salinas would not allow the defendant to use a knife and fork to eat his in flight meal nor to go to the bathroom unaccompanied. Agent Salinas would, in a few hours, flash the defendant's passport to the U.S. customs authorities upon arrival to Newark Airport, which Agent Salinas possessed since Mexico City and while aboard the flight.  The defendant was questioned on the flight by Salinas and was subsequently questioned by Newark branch FBI agents, then read his rights by the Newark FBI, then was arrested, was put into telephone contact with an attorney from the New York Public Defender's Office, was allowed to accept extradition to New York and was turned over to New York FBI Agent Curry and NYPD special FBI liaison Herminio Rodriguez, who had received all of the defendant's documents that Agent Salinas possessed since earlier that day in Mexico City. The defendant had entered the United States and was officially arrested in Newark, New Jersey with no wallet, no passport, and no documents in his possession.

The defendant appeared in New York before Magistrate Judge Theodore H. Katz the following day on January 19, 2002, after being taken by Curry and Rodriguez from Newark to be incarcerated at MDC in Brooklyn, New York, where he remained for 18 months, after being ordered to be detained

Still yet to be indicted, the defendant filed a pro se motion to dismiss charges based on unfair prior threshold review of 1^st amendment issues applicable to the e-mails with Judge Denny Chin on July 17, 2002, which Judge Chin refused to consider. This same pro se motion was refiled with Judge Richard M. Berman who, according to docket entry of October 11, 2002 decided that the motion be "held in abeyance." In the interim, the defendant was indicted under the 18 875(b) statute on one count of transmission of a threat with the intent to extort on September 10, 2002.

On December 27, 2002, the defendant and his appointed attorney prepared and filed a motion to dismiss indictment as being legally insufficient, based on 1^st amendment issues, which the Court ruled against. The defendant asked for an interlocutory review of the 1^st amendment issues of the motion and the Court ruled against. The defendant advised he would appeal. The defendant went to trial pro se on July 14, 2003.  A deadlocked jury was given a standard type Allen Charge on the morning of July 17, 2003 after nine hours of trial and seven hours of jury deliberation and returned a guilty verdict that afternoon.  The defendant filed a motion on August 24, 2003, asking for a new trial based on eight issues, which the Court ruled against. The defendant advised he would appeal. On October 27, 2003, the defendant filed a motion to dismiss based on incorrect venue, which the Court heard and ruled against. The defendant advised he would appeal. The defendant was sentenced on December 18, 2003 to time served.  The defendant was also sentenced to three years supervised release with the special condition that he be incarcerated at the Bronx Community Correctional Center for the first year of supervised release to which the defendant objected in a letter received by the Court on February 24, 2004. See docket entry 3/5/04. The defendant objected to being incarcerated in a community correction center under B.O.P. control as a condition of supervised release following the sentence of "time served."   A letter from the defendant dated April 11, 2004 motioned for a reduction in supervised release time based on the fact that he was reporting to a probation officer under an intensified supervised release regimen while he was additionally incarcerated in a community correction center and was subject to B.O.P. rules and regulations, which he proposed might be counted as two or three times a normal supervised release regimen. See docket entries for 4/16/04 and 4/22/04.

 

Arguments

I.    The Court Erred in Failing to Investigate the Abuses and Deprivations to the Defendant and Unfair Conditions for Trial and Failed to Attempt to Correct Such Conditions. Abusive treatment of a prisoner ought not to be ignored in light of the U.S.  Constitution's guarantee of the right to due process, especially when such abuses occur immediately before and during trial. Rule 33 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure provides that the Court may vacate any judgment and even set aside a jury verdict to avert a perceived miscarriage of justice.  Can the original trial be sustained as essentially fair when prisoner abuse and important deprivations occurred before and during trial?  Extensive, high profile investigations of prisoner abuse should begin at home, not abroad.                     

 Prior to his arrest and prior to the e-mails that form the basis of the instant case, the defendant has complained that he has been harassed over a long period of time by U.S. intelligence operations for leaking and whistleblowing first hand knowledge of the rigging of presidential elections, which he documented in his A New Millennium Revolutionary Manifesto (U.S. Copyright 1999, in evidence at trial and publicized at the center of the e-mails that form the basis of the instant case).  The defendant focused his complaints of government abuse in Court on the day scheduled for his trial on the specific conditions he was put into for trial being unfair and abusive and that he had suffered a physical assault on the way to his re-housing into SHU confinement for trial. 

 The defendant had attempted to obtain evidence of U.S. government long-term violations of the defendant's civil rights from the government, but the government never answered his Subpoena and Duces Tecum motion. See pre-trial transcript of June 24, 2003 page 25 line 6 to page 27 line 4.  For the Court to have considered the complaints of the defendant of abuse and deprivations at trial as insignificant to the Court's own determination as to whether or not to proceed at once to trial, without either investigating the matters or attempting to influence fair conditions for the pro se defendant, was an error by the Court.  This error helped cause an unfair trial in fact and in appearance. All of the issues that are argued throughout this brief should recall Rule 33 and the following specific conditions that have here first elicited reference in this brief to that rule.

The defendant, just on the weekend immediately before trial, on July 11, 2003, at 9:30PM, was removed from his normal prison unit and his normal routines in population at MDC Brooklyn, N.Y. of the prior year and a half. All of the defendant's normal routines of law library access, telephone service, radio and television, special diet and constant legal consultation and social interaction with other inmates were terminated.   The defendant was taken alone to the SHU in MCC Manhattan, just three days before trial, and suffered an aggravated battery by two U.S. Marshals through the use of their government vehicle in the process of being transferred. The defendant was next put into a poorly lit SHU isolation cell from late Friday night until Monday morning when he was allowed to leave the SHU for the first time to go to Court for the first day of trial. Through that weekend before trial and throughout the four days of trial, except when in court, the defendant was confined to the SHU.  He was prohibited from making any phone calls for the first time in his 18 months of detention, a prohibition that remained throughout trial.  Throughout the trial the pro se defendant had no law library access (a legal right determined by 2^nd Circuit and Supreme Court rulings), no freedom to leave his cell in order to shower, no right to leave the SHU cell for any other reason except to appear in court for trial.  The defendant was allowed no shaving or other cosmetic items, no radio or television, no special religious diet, none of his regular group of contacts. The defendant was only allowed to shave and shower on one of the four days of trial.  The defendant was subjected to a special deprecatory regimen that is applied by the Bureau of Prisons to prisoners who commit offenses while in population during their incarceration. The defendant had committed no offense; he was only going to finally realize his right to have a trial about his e-mails, after 18 months of incarceration.  SHU incarceration is not at all the normal routine for regular prisoner's at trial, but the defendant was housed in the SHU during trial.  The physically abusive treatment and the conditions of the defendant in the instant case created an objectively, especially unlevel playing field at trial.   Although the Court did ask the defendant whether or not he wanted to have the trial, the Court did not concur that the objective conditions that were reported to the Court were unfair and would eventuate in an unfair trial.  And, the Court did not ask the defendant if he would be willing to delay trial until the Court could influence fair and legal conditions for trial. A defendant's assent to proceed to trial cannot negate a report of abusive and illegal conditions that objectively must impact the fairness of trial. The defendant was obviously psychologically and physically traumatized by the abruptly, especially deprived conditions right at trial that he reported and demonstrated to the Court.  Nevertheless, the defendant proved helpless by his report of his conditions to the Court to get any changes made in those conditions.

It had been immediately upon his arrival to Court for trial that the defendant was to alert the Court to his deprived conditions and about the violent physical abuse during his transfer from Brooklyn to Manhattan.  His tone of voice is obviously not available in the trial transcript of Monday, July 14, 2003 at 11:00 AM on pages 2-4, where he stated his complaints to the Court.  He was obviously in an anguished state because of his conditions and the reported assault.  This was observable from his voice and he clearly stated to the Court that he continued to that moment to remain "shook" from the assault by U.S. Marshals from a couple of days earlier. Id, page 3.  He advised the Court that he had previously reported that which he believed had been an intentional battery against him by the Marshals, along with his belief that he may have suffered a cerebral concussion to a Dr. Ramos during the defendant's medical intake at MCC in Manhattan, shortly after the transfer incident, just 60 hours before trial. (Trial pages 2-4)  The defendant had never before reported any such type of incident to the Court.

The defense asserts that the appearance of a fair trial and indeed a fair trial and due process were not possible given the abusive treatment, conditions and deprivations of the defendant.  The Court of Appeals can vacate judgment in this case due to the unfairness and abuses surrounding trial, which the District Court did not take into account in proceeding to trial, abuses facilitated and intensified by the imposition of incorrect venue in New York.

II.      Venue was Incorrect in the Southern District of New York.  The defense argued at trial that venue was incorrect in New York and objected to the Court’s answers to notes from the jury regarding venue during jury deliberations. (See trial transcript page 321 line 4 to page 325 line 12). Following trial, the District Court heard and then ruled against a defense motion to vacate judgment based on incorrect venue. See defense letter memorandum (venue motion) dated October 27, 2003.

The 2^nd Circuit has considered other venue arguments following trial stating: "The Sixth Amendment to the Constitution provides that "[in] all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to…trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law." In U.S. v Brennan 183 F.3d 144 (2^nd Cir. 1999); Also see U.S. v Bozza 365 F. 2d 206 (EDNY 1966)

Evidence at trial showed that the defendant’s e-mails were only transmitted from Mexico to California.  There is no dispute from the prosecution or the district court regarding this. Doris V. Hernandez, the "webmaster person" of Mark Krefting of the Disney Corporation in California, received the ABC.Online messages in California. The e-mails to Paine Webber appear to have been received in New Jersey due to the fact that they were subsequently faxed from a Paine Webber office with a (201) area code to Gerard Whitmore of ABC, Inc. in New York City, however the prosecution has asserted that there was no evidence at trial as to where Paine Webber had received the defendant's e-mails. See Government Exhibits 31 and 32--the E-mails.  The evidence that was presented at trial demonstrates that the defendant committed no act in New York, no act of transmission of any e-mail from the computer in Mexico to New York, only transmissions from Mexico to Los Angeles.

The law bearing upon venue has been carefully considered in the 2^nd Circuit. "Pursuant to the Sixth Amendment and Fed. R. Crim. P. 18, venue is proper in any district where a crime was 'committed.'" See U.S. v Saavedra, 223 F.3d 85,88 (2^nd Cir. 2000).  The challenge, of course, comes in determining what 'committed' means for the purposes of a specific crime…. The Supreme Court directed courts to first identify the conduct constituting the offense and then determine where that conduct occurred.  See U.S. v Rodriguez-Moreno, 526 U.S. 275, 280,119 S.Ct. 1239, 143 L.Ed. 2d 3888(1999) in U.S. v Kim, 246 F.3d 191 (2^nd Cir, 2001).  The 2^nd Circuit has concluded that the Court's duty is to decide "when the defendant's actions have progressed to the point where a court can confidently conclude that [the offense in question] has been committed." See U.S. v Bithany, 472 F.2d 16,23 (2^nd Cir.) cert.denied, 412 U.S. 938, 93 S.Ct 2771, 37 L.Ed. 2d 397 (1973) in U.S. v Beech-Nut 871 F2d 1181 (2d 1989) at 1190.

In the instant case, the alleged crime was a violation of

18 U.S.C. 875 (b), which prohibits:

Whoever, with intent to extort from any person, firm, association, or corporation, any money or other thing of value, transmits in interstate or foreign commerce any communication containing any threat to kidnap any person or any threat to injure the person of another…18 U.S.C. 875 (b)

In the instant case, "the defendant's actions [had] progressed to the point where a court [could] confidently conclude that [the offense in question had] been committed" (Beechnut, Id.) as soon as the e-mail reached Disney in California, where it was received from Mexico.  This is so, because under 875b, "threat need not [even] have reached person [perceived as] threatened or be of such a nature as to have induced fear in the mind of that person."  U.S. v Holder, D.C. Mont, 1969, 302 F.Supp, 296, affirmed 427 F2d 715.  "The threat need not be communicated to the person or group identified as its target."  See U.S. v Schroeder, 902 F2d 1469, 1470-71 (10^th Cir) cert. Denied, 498 U.S. 867, 111 S.Ct. 181, 112 L.Ed. 2d 145 (1990) (affirming an 875(c) conviction for a threat against people at a post office made to an Assistant U.S. Attorney; U.S. v Kosma, 951 F.2d 549, 555 (3^rd Cir. 1991) (listing cases in which threats against President were made to third persons, under 18 USC 871" in U.S. v Baker 690 F.Supp. 1375 (E.D. Mich, 1995) at 1380-81. In the instant case, 875b prohibits that the accused only transmit a presumed "threat" in interstate or foreign commerce in order to complete the "crime." The "essential element of the crime of making, for the purpose of extortion, an interstate telephone threat to injure person is that there be a communication by defendant containing a threat…" (my emphasis) U.S. v Feudale, D.C. Conn. 1967, 271 F Supp 115

In fact, the e-mails warned of an apocalyptic future for all of mankind.  They warned of "a new strain of smallpox released into exhibition arenas and more acts of furious judgment against totalitarian America…still greater ferocious tornadoes…pestilence and every form of plague upon America's pharaohs and their first born…. A new epoch of revolutionary justice, under God, is in store for mankind…"  The apocalyptic warnings applied equally to Los Angeles, where they were received, as to anywhere else, although to whom the alleged threats applied is not an essential part of the completion of an alleged violation of the 875(b) statute. All that is necessary is the receipt of the alleged threats by anyone, anywhere by the willful transmission of the accused.

Whatever research or investigation might have been attempted by the Disney Corporation on its own, or with the assistance or cooperation of the Los Angeles branch of the FBI, in contacting the defendant in Mexico, or in contacting any departments at Disney or at its ABC subsidiary, in Los Angeles, Washington, D.C., New York, or anywhere else, which may have involved subsequent transmissions of the e-mails, the essential element of the defendant's alleged crime under 875(b), i.e., the transmission of an alleged threat, was complete upon the receipt of the e-mails in Los Angeles.

The transmissions by Mark Krefting of the Disney Corporation to Gerard Whitmore of ABC security in New York were clearly not conduct carried out by the defendant, nor was it conduct essential to the crime described in the 875b statute.  The defendant's purported crime was already completed once the e-mail reached the United States in the state of California. Mark Krefting did not make his own interstate transmissions in an effort to further the purported crime of the defendant.

In the instant case, the defendant "had not begun, continued or completed [his] substantive offense under [875b]…in the district in which [he was] prosecuted…" U.S. Const. Amend 6, Fed Rules Cr Proc., Rule 18, 18USCA; 18 USCA 3237, 3237A" in Beech-Nut at 1182."    For this reason, venue was incorrect in New York.

Nevertheless, the prosecution has contended that U.S. v Reed 773 F.2d 477 (2^nd Cir. 1985) provided justification for venue in New York in the instant case.  However, Reed was charged with perjury, 18 U.S.C. 1623 and obstruction of justice, 18 U.S.C. 1503, while the defendant was charged with 18 U.S.C. 875 (b), the transmission of a threat in interstate commerce, with intent to extort.  Each statute requires independent analysis in order to determine where the alleged crimes were committed.

In the Reed case, the 2^nd Circuit ruled very specifically about the nature and the elements of the crime as it applied to venue.  It ruled that perjury "must be in an ongoing federal judicial proceeding…which may be pending in a district other than where the oath is taken." Id.   Perjury was an essential element of Reed's crime and the nature of perjury as an intentional lying about facts directly affected the judicial process in another district regardless of where the perjury was articulated and regardless of whether or not the actors in the judicial process would have been aware of the perjury while their judicial process, which depended on truth and was ipso facto confounded by a lie, was unfolding.  Perjury, withholding of evidence and obstruction of justice are language and information acts that impact the integrity of judicial processes regardless of where they take place.

By contrast, in the instant case, the language act of the e-mails which has been alleged to be threatening, only could have achieved some effect in some district other than the one in Los Angeles where it had been received, due to the fact that Mark Krefting transmitted the defendant's e-mails to New York.  The defendant's alleged crime in 875 (b) had already reached its essential realization, according to the statute and case law pertaining to 875 (b) as soon as it had reached any receiver--i.e., Doris V. Hernandez, Mark Krefting's "webmaster person" in Los Angeles.

In Reed, the 2^nd Circuit ruled in addition to "the elements and nature of the crime," that "the locus of the effect of the criminal conduct, and the suitability of each district for accurate factfinding," ought to be taken into account, besides the site of the defendant's acts. Reed Id. Page 481.  With regard to "places that suffer the effects of a crime," once again, it was Krefting's decision to transmit the e-mails to New York that caused whatever effects the language of the e-mails might have had in New York.  The Constitutional requirement that stipulates prosecution to take place where the defendant's act was committed and the 875(b) prohibition that includes the factors of "knowing and willful" transmission must remain the governing considerations in evaluating correct venue.

Regarding the suitability for factfinding, one still has no full account from Doris V. Hernandez nor any account from Mark Krefting, the two handlers of the e-mails in Los Angeles as to their subjective feelings about the different statements in the e-mails, and incorrect venue can be blamed for this. Certainly, in deference to the Constitutional issue of venue and the rights of the defendant in a federal criminal case, the possibility that Gerard Whitmore of ABC in New York might have needed to appear at a hearing in Los Angeles cannot account for venue being accepted as correct in New York for e-mails transmitted by the defendant from Mexico, which were received in Los Angeles.

The nature of perjury in its direct and immediate effect on a judicial proceeding in a district other than that where the oath had been articulated presented the 2^nd Circuit with a particular statute, where the affected district was able to be clearly demonstrated as the primary locus of the impact of the alleged crime. The government cannot show any reason to have failed to pursue prosecution in Los Angeles in the instant case, the only place where venue was correct based on the evidence in this case of the electronic transmission from Mexico of an alleged threat that was received in Los Angeles.

In addition to the foregoing Constitutional issue as it bears upon the 875(b) statute in the instant case, the trial transcript demonstrates that the district court was uncertain about how to advise the jury regarding their charge to consider the preponderance of evidence on venue.  Consequently, the jury did not receive accurate and complete instructions regarding venue before making their verdict. See trial transcript pages 308-333 and note that on page 325, the Court states "I am going to respond to note two [of three notes on venue] right now in this fashion and ask Andrew to show it to you all and then pass it to the jurors."  The next eight pages of the transcript show a further attempt by the prosecution, defense and the Court to deal with note three about venue, but there is no evidence that note two was ever finally edited nor "show[n] to you all," and it was in fact never shown in its final form to the defense nor finalized for the jury, before the jury came in with their verdict.  The jury could not have carried out its charge to consider if venue was proper in New York under such circumstances and neither could the defense have carried out its rights to fairly participate in the process.

The failure of the defendant's Court appointed attorneys to address the Constitutional issue of venue during the eighteen months of their representation of the defendant and afterwards as standby counsel, clearly represents ineffective counsel.  Venue in New York in the instant case was incorrect and the 2^nd Circuit should rule so, and should vacate judgment on Constitutional grounds, as well as because the incorrect venue contributed materially to an unfair trial, as a review of the following issue will show.

 

III.  The Court Erred in Admitting into Evidence Illegally Seized Documents and Compounded this because Their Probative Value was far Outweighed by Their Nature as Prejudicial to the Defendant’s Character.

 

Appearing for the prosecution, Detective Herminio Rodriguez testified, on page 123 line 22, page 124 line 14, page 126 line 22 and page 129 line 16 (trial transcript), that defendant had certain documents "on his person", "in his possession," "seized from Mr. Krangle upon his arrest," "was on Mr. Krangle at the time of his arrest" in Newark, New Jersey.  In direct contradiction to these statements, during cross-examination, Detective Rodriguez stated that "Documents and any property that you [the defendant] had were taken away from you while you were in flight." (trial page 134 line 4) And, then, he answered the question "… [the defendant] was not in possession with them [the documents entered into evidence] at the time of [his] arrest?” by saying "Physically, no."(page 134 lines 11-13). 

 

Detective Rodriguez had clearly, unambiguously and repeatedly stated that the defendant had documents on him that were seized from him upon arrest in Newark, New Jersey but later admitted that the defendant had no documents in his possession whatsoever at the time of his arrest in the United States. Testimony from trial page 134 line 17 to page 137 line 19 shows that FBI Agent Raul Salinas had all of the documents in his possession before the defendant was arrested in Newark, New Jersey and that Detective Rodriguez also had no evidence that the defendant had been deported from Mexico to the United States, nor was any evidence presented in trial to explain how the defendant got from Mexico to Newark, New Jersey with FBI agent Salinas, with the defendant's documents in FBI possession.  The fact that no documents were in the defendant's possession at the time of his arrest, the lack of any warrant for the prior seizure of the documents by the FBI and the absence of any documentation of the defendant's extradition to the United States from Mexico suggest extra-legal government actions against the defendant in bringing him to the United States while maintaining prior possession of his documents.  The Court erred in allowing any and all such documents to be put into evidence by the prosecution.

 

The documents, which FBI agent Raul Salinas had refused to allow the defendant to have on the Continental Airlines flight from Mexico City to Newark, New Jersey on January 18, 2002, thus, de facto, illegally seized documents, were objected to by the defense in pre-trial proceedings as inadmissible as such and as inadmissible because their tendency to prejudice the defendant's character would far outweigh their probative value.  One of these documents, Government's Exhibit 218, described as "Business Cards" in Detective Rodriguez' trial testimony page 128 line 14 to page 129 line 16, was objected to by the defendant during trial on page 129 line 14.  The prosecution asked the Court to allow the tactic to "pass them around" (page 128 line 19) to the jury, so the jury would experience being handed the cards (cf. a photocopy of the content) above the defendant's objections. There was no evidence at trial that the defendant had actually himself ever handed out the cards to anyone, anywhere, at any time. The cards, which were taken by the FBI in Mexico along with his passport and all other documents prior to the arrest of the defendant, appeared on a standard size business card and contained the following information:

 

Freedom or Oblivion

An Argument for Terrorism and Revolution

Mark  Krangle

 

www.geocities.com/millenniumrevolution

[email protected]

 

The historical, political and philosophical arguments of the 1999 manifesto, including the unit of the manifesto in evidence entitled "Terror's Claim on America," would have taken hours to review for the jury by the defendant, time which was never allowed to the defendant by the Court. The manifesto, copyrighted in the Library of Congress by the defendant in 1999, was an attempt to warn the public that terrorism was coming to the United States.  The only purpose of passing around to each juror a business-size card that carried the provocative Spring, 2001 title of the defendant's 25000-word manuscript was to incite the terror-stricken New York jurors and to characterize the defendant himself as a threat.  There was no evidence at trial that the corporate recipients of the 1999 e-mails that form the basis of the instant case had themselves ever seen the 2001 publicity cards or were even aware of the existence of the cards.  The provocative cards provided no probative value whatsoever regarding the authorship of the e-mails that form the basis of the instant case, which had already been admitted by the defendant to be of his authorship and had already been admitted by the defendant to have been transmitted by him and had already been completely established by the prosecution.  

 

Fed. R. Evid 404 (b) does not allow evidence of other acts (the defendant's ownership of the cards) to prove the character of a person, only for the specific purposes of showing knowledge, intent, identity, and lack of mistake. However, before such evidence is admissible, it must be "relevant to some disputed issue in the trial," and satisfy the probative-prejudicial balancing test set forth in Fed. R. Evid. 403.  United States v Brennan, 798F 2d 581 (2d Cir. 1986); cert denied, 490 U.S. 1022 (1989) see also United States v Gilan, 967 F. 2d 776, 780 (2d Cir 1992).

 

The Court erred in allowing the cards, which had been illegally maintained in government possession since Mexico, into evidence and their being passed around to each one of the jurors, when they provided no probative value and would tend to inflame the actually, violently terrorized New York jury, cause prejudice against the defendant and unfairly prejudice the defendant's ability to obtain a fair trial.  The Appeals Court can rule that the trial was unfair based on the introduction of the highly charged illegally seized irrelevant prejudicial evidence, in the very middle of a short trial.

 

IV.     The District Court Erred by Prohibiting Adequate Time for the Defendant to Defend Himself.

A fair trial, which represents one of the most important foundations of the system of justice in the United States, and is protected under rule 33, could not have been possible in the instant case given the time restrictions imposed by the district court.  Proof that the content of the e-mails required substantially more time than was permitted by the Court to the defense at trial in order to explain the dramatic, logical, and legal arguments contained in the e-mails, as well as to defend against the government's trial tactics, as has just been indicated, will be demonstrated in the arguments of the later issues in this brief on: (1) inadequate jury instruction on threats, (2) insufficient proof of intent to extort and (3) first amendment issues. The current, separate, time-bound issue being addressed here, as constitutive of an unfair trial under rule 33, truly encompasses the later issues and this should be recalled during the later arguments.

 

In the May 22, 2003 pre-trial transcript on page 15 line 22 the defendant let the Court know he expected to need "one day" for his testimony and the Court responded "…a whole day? I would be astonished…You don't want to bore the jury." (Id page 16 lines 3-7).  The Court's projection of itself into the trial ahead as "would be astonished" in response to the defendant's statement of time needed for his testimony and the Court's reasons of theatre, not law, in order to try to influence the preparation of a more limited testimony by the defendant greatly contrasted with the Court' unexpected, absolutely authoritarian form and degree of actually limiting the defendant's testimony in the midst of trial.

 

On page 11, line 17 to page 12 line 6 of the trial transcript the Court first declared that the defendant may make a statement, then the Court abruptly cut off the statement after only six words by the defendant, "You mentioned that I should let Mr. Duboulay…."    Just minutes later, the Court made a threat that hung over the head of the defendant throughout every instant of the trial, that "…there will be no such interruptions during the trial or that will be the end of the trial.  You get that."  Soon afterwards, on page 20 line 10 the defense tried to state an objection to the prosecution's references to the e-mails, which formed the basis of the instant case, because the e-mails had not yet been introduced into evidence. The defendant made the “not in evidence” objection, immediately after the prosecution, on page 19, line 22 of the trial transcript, had even misstated that the two e-mails had been three e-mails. The Court interrupted the defendant's pro se articulation of a valid objection and ordered the defendant to "Please be quiet during the duration," in a harsh and humiliating tone and reinforced the Court’s earlier threat that it might end the trial at any instant.  The defense then had only the Court imposed 15-minute limited opening statement to make about an e-mail that had taken several hours to write the final version of, and that takes several hours to adequately discuss and explain.

Then the Court allowed the defendant less than 30 minutes to discuss the actual content of the e-mail during his direct testimony even while the defendant had believed that he would have the right to testify for a whole day, even at the risk that he might "bore the jury." The defendant's e-mail content testimony runs beginning from trial transcript page 179, line 1, where it says "I am going to give you two points [of view], the objective view[point] and the subjective viewpoint.  Subjectively, I wrote this to express myself…" and the testimony continues from there for twelve pages to page 191, line 21, at which point the Court interrupted with "We need to wind this up," which was said in a deprecatory way with a cynical tone and indeed marked the end of the defendant's opportunity to explain to the jury the two, more than 500-word e-mails that were in evidence, with the several changes from the first e-mail to the second one.

In spite of the fact that some of the nearly 30 minutes of e-mail content testimony, which the Court permitted to the defendant, had contained some objective remarks about the e-mails, the defendant still needed several times more additional testimony in order to fulfill his stated intention to the jury to present his separate objective analysis of the e-mails, which was to accompany the subjective version of his testimony that he had almost hurriedly completed. Thus, instead of having the time to fulfill his stated promise at the opening of his testimony to present two complete views of the e-mails--one subjective and one objective, the defendant was only able to just try to get in a few more sentences of the part of his narrative in progress that was dedicated to and dominated by the subjective viewpoint with which he had begun his promised presentation of two views of the e-mails.  Just at that moment, the Judge rose up and leaned over the Judge's box and made a dramatic gesture at the defendant, cutting his hand across his throat and making a severe facial expression to indicate that that was absolutely the end of the defendant's testimony and the defendant was forced to respond at line 7 on page 192 with "…all right, [I'm sorry (missing from transcript).] Thank you."  The Court's cutting off of the defendant's testimony on the content of the e-mails after just 30 minutes, given the complexities of the e-mail rhetoric, produced a completely unfair trial. The later arguments in this brief will demonstrate that hours more of testimony were absolutely essential in order to give the content of the e-mails in the instant case a fair hearing.

The context for the e-mails required several hours of testimony by the defendant, as well.  The trial was unfair because the Court erred in not allowing the defense time to provide a complete alternative theory to the government's theory regarding what constituted the context for the e-mails.  Compare cases where the prosecution asserts that one spouse did something illegal to the other because of some particular perceived wrong.  The accused, besides getting ample opportunity to testify, along with having the opportunity to put experts on the stand, in order to explain that his or her act was not illegal, always gets to testify about a lifetime of abuses that the other spouse subjected her to, not just the supposed precipitating events.

In the instant case, the defendant had much more context about the relationship between corporate America and himself to provide to the jury besides just two incidents that the prosecution had spent hours on developing at trial.  ABC, although not a spouse or employer, had played an important role in influencing the defendant's entire generation to buy harmful products such as diabetes and heart disease- promoting sugar products and high fat products, as well as alcohol and tobacco.  Paine Webber's services to the Fortune 500 helped to fund such harmful corporate media and product marketing activities just as truly as some organizations have been accused of funding terrorism, even though death has oftentimes come more slowly in the former case.  Only the tobacco industry has begun to make some reparations for the damages and deaths caused by their products and the marketing of their products.  As one New York Press writer has put it: Corporations control the flow of public information. They decide what gets promoted and what does not.  They participate in the decisions and activities related to the exploitation of foreign workers and resources, and when we go to war. Corporations are like dictatorships; they are hardly accountable to their employees or the public….  Nevertheless, the government had spent hours pretending to present a context for the e-mails, but the defense needed at least as much time to present an alternative theory of context for the e-mails, context that adequately presented the dominance of corporate communication in America, time which was forbidden by the Court.

In addition to the broad socio-political, communicative aspects and content aspects of the context of the e-mails that form the basis of the instant case, the defense needed time during the defendant's testimony to demonstrate that context in the instant case had real time, channel and audience components that made a motive of extortion impossible.  The prosecution had presented the jury two prior personal, direct communications by the defendant to the particular corporate executives whom the defendant believed had harmed him and asserted had harmed him in particular ways as accounting for the defendant's motive for purportedly threatening the corporations in the e-mails in the instant case.  In contrast, the defendant's theory was that the defendant was communicating with the corporations themselves (as opposed to two personally known corporate executives) in the e-mails that form the basis of the instant case, for the very first time, simultaneously, and in concert with other public media entities.  The e-mails had an embedded announcement specifically directed to the corporations entire "Legal Departments" in an attempt to exhort discussions aimed at unmasking the organized crime associated executives embedded with their corporations as well as to get the opportunity to make his case for years of abuse by the corporations that his class had suffered.    While the earlier communications had just asked one individual from each corporation to admit to their corporate lawyers or boards that they had damaged the defendant and that they themselves believed a settlement would be in order, the e-mails that form the basis of the instant case urged the corporate legal departments to arrange a forum to listen directly to the defendant about his consolidated claims against each corporation, as well as to his terror alert.  These serious, real, interrelated, complex explanations about context needed to be demonstrated by the defense during the defendant's testimony, especially during that part of the testimony which had been proposed by the defendant to represent objective aspects of the e-mails and their context.  The Court's decision on time limits did not permit the development of any of the defense's arguments about context or the objective aspects of content.

 In the interest of justice and a fair trial under rule 33, judgment should be vacated in the instant case because the defense was prohibited adequate time to present the arguments of his theory of context along with time to explain the objective aspects of the content issues.

 

V.  The Court Erred in Its Charge to the Jury Regarding the Criteria for the Determination of a Threat and there was Insufficient Evidence of "Threat" as It Was Defined by the Jury Charge; as well, the Court Erred in Denying the Issuance of Subpoenas to Time Magazine, Newsweek Magazine and the New York Times in order for Them to Testify Regarding the Distinction Between a True Threat and the Reporting of Threats, while the Defendant had Ineffective Counsel in Its Failure to Fulfill Its Agreements to Solicit Expert Testimony and to Subpoena Witnesses.

 

Some language can be analyzed, interpreted and evaluated by almost any reasonable person, as can some material things.  A lamp, a car, a knife can usually be seen for what it is, while a white powder or a home-made electronic device will oftentimes require extensive expert testimony to determine what it is.  The same may be true of language.  Average people can evaluate much ordinary language, but most people complain that they oftentimes cannot understand legal arguments, bureaucratese and other complex formats such as medical language, some religious ideas, poetry and other literature, and arguments that are dependant on complex logic. Such language often requires expert help for accurate interpretation, or, the average person may completely misunderstand what was meant. If a white powder were the basis of a case, the Court would not even allow the prosecutor or the defense to be the unique evaluators of what the substance was.  Experts must aver what the substance was.

 

The e-mails in the instant case contained language and logical arguments that required expert testimony, in addition to extensive testimony, in order to explain them fairly to the majority of ordinary people. Every citizen is entitled to freedom of speech under the 1^st Amendment and even if some language is frightening to many ordinary persons, if it can be shown by experts to represent allowable speech, the citizen's speech must go unpunished by law.

 

On page 256 line 11 to page 257 line 6 of trial transcript, the Court charged the jury on how to determine whether or not there was a threat, which fails to meet the usual standards of 2^nd circuit precedents that have been reiterated over time in order to protect 1^st amendment rights.  The 2^nd circuit has found that the jury must consider whether or not the defendant's statements were "unequivocal, unconditional and specific."  See U.S. v Malik 16 F3d 45 (2^nd Cir) and U.S. v Kelner 534 F 2d (2^nd).  In the instant case, the Court left out of its jury instruction all three of these determinative markers of a true threat.  The defense stated its objections to this charge to the jury of leaving out "unequivocal, unconditional and specific" as determinative of a true threat before the charge was given to the jury.

 

Before trial, the District Court had ruled against the defendant's motion to dismiss specifically because: "The facts of this case, in [the Court's] opinion, satisfy that requirement….'The threat must on its face and in the circumstances in which it is made be so unequivocal, unconditional, immediate and specific to the person threatened at to convey a gravity of purpose and imminent prospect of execution.' That also comes from the Kelner case."  Pre-trial Conference, February 19, 2003

Wherein the Appeals court noted in Malik that "…there was additional, substantial evidence--the most significant of which was the recipients' states of minds and their reactions…" (Id), in the instant case, no one from Paine Webber expressed any reaction to the e-mails that were submitted into evidence.  Ms. Vick of Paine Webber only testified that the e-mail"…came into our public website…." (trial page 70 line 22).  Andrew Winston testified that he did not read the e-mails that form the basis of the instant case, he said "I received no E-mails from you [the defendant]." (trial page 56 lines 17-25).  Winston did testify that he was frightened by the language in a different letter that he received which stated that he and the company would be "destroyed" if Winston did not admit to his company that he had financially injured the defendant and if he did not try to get the company to agree to a settlement with the defendant.  Winston also testified that he had no knowledge of the use of the word "destroyed" as meaning to take away power, to financially ruin, to cause to lose prestige, to cause to lose a job, to cause to be blacklisted, to make unable to compete or the like-- he only was aware of the use of the word to mean physically and violently destroyed, even though the other universally accepted and used meanings of "destroyed" fit better in the context of the letter to which he was referring, a letter which was indeed, in any case, not the e-mails that form the basis of the instant case, which Winston had testified he had never received.  Mr. Winston had also perjured himself when he denied having spoken to the defendant by telephone, which he had done on/or about November 6, 1998 when he had had a short conversation with the defendant and then had asked the defendant if he might switch the defendant's call over to Mr. Mike Robertson at the New Jersey office of Paine Webber.  Mr. Robertson subsequently hung up on the defendant while the defendant was trying to argue with him that it was imperative for the Paine Webber lawyers to "discuss" the defendant's issues with him, stating "No discussions," immediately before hanging up the telephone.  Some five months later, the defendant believed he had additional reasons why Paine Webber needed to have discussions with him--he believed they were possible terrorist targets, although it has turned out that certain other financial institutions have been focused on--Cantor Fitzgerald, Citibank, Prudential, the New York Stock Exchange. The defendant sent Paine Webber the May, 1999 e-mails warning them that terrorism was coming to America, that he still wanted to discuss issues of their injuries to him and that he was open to questioning and trying to help them regarding future terrorism "during the generation of rage…."  The prosecution never provided the defense with its notes of its interviews with Mike Robertson of Paine Webber, who had been advertised as a prosecution witness, and it struck Mr. Robertson from the its witness list at the last moment before trial.

In contrast to Andrew Winston in Florida, Doris Hernandez of the Disney Corporation in California had received and read the e-mails that form the basis of the instant case.  Her only response in evidence was the note she wrote to Mark Krefting that she had found the e-mails to be "somewhat demented and worrisome," (government exhibit 30-31, the e-mails).  This was the only subjective response to the e-mails from anyone that was presented in evidence at trial.  More than a day later, Krefting sent the e-mails he received from Ms. Hernandez to Gerard Whitmore of ABC in New York. Gerard Whitmore of ABC in New York said that after he received the e-mails from Mark Krefting at Disney in California, he contacted the FBI, four days later, because of "The threatening tone of the messages" (Trial page 94 line 25).  No one testified that the defendant intended to do violence nor that the defendant made any statement expressing intent to do violence.  No one testified that the defendant intended to extort anyone.

 

In fact, expert testimony would show that the 1999 e-mails in the instant case did not contain "a statement expressing an intention to inflict bodily injury on another person at once or in the future," which is the definition of threat given by the Court in the charge to the jury. (page 256 lines 14-16) The e-mails neither declare nor imply that the defendant intended to do anything to corporate personnel.  The e-mails do not contain statements expressing anyone's intentions.  The e-mails, in point of fact, contain statements that are the mere beliefs of its author, rather than statements of his, or anyone else's intentions. Very special, clear kinds of circumstances and clear indices of what those circumstances are are always required to be present for it to be possible for another party to actually express the intentions of anyone else.  Without absolutely clear proof that a party is in a definite position to express the intentions of a third party, an audience almost always feels compelled to challenge the bad news, devastating news, threat or possible threat or to seek confirmation of the good or wonderful news by some kind of questioning of the messenger: "How do you know?  How can you be sure?  Do you really think so?  Who told you so? Etc. The very mere statement of beliefs by a party about the possible, probable or even supposedly definite intentions of some other third parties, whether intimately or tenuously connected to the speaker almost always exhorts dialogue from the audience.

 

The defendant's statements in the instant case are clearly statements of mere beliefs and not statements of intentions and even at that those beliefs are stated in a form that is conspicuously not unequivocal, not unconditional and not specific, exactly the 2^nd circuit benchmarks that had been deleted from the jury charge.  Yet, it is crucial to return to the fact that the language is indeed made of statements expressing beliefs about unknown agents' intentions rather than made of statements actually expressing intentions of the defendant or of anyone else. This is a crucial and difficult distinction that requires expert testimony to be given with several examples, to be explained patiently, along with the credentials of an English language expert, a philosopher of language or a lawyer--to anyone but other lawyers or other English language experts who should be able to easily make the same observations and distinctions as in this brief.

 

In the e-mails, the defendant states that ABC and Paine Webber are "real probable targets" and then modified this to "real possible targets…during the generation of rage which is about to unfold…."   The defendant indeed clearly signals that he was not in the position to state the intentions of the third parties with regard to ABC and Paine Webber, only his own beliefs that were evidently based on a different third party's beliefs or based upon hearsay.

The defendant does not state the intentions of the third party with regard to ABC and Paine Webber.  The defendant expresses only his own beliefs about what clearly may be inferred to be a "communicative link ['s]" hearsay regarding the possible musings or considerations of other third parties, not evidently even known by the defendant, regarding ABC and Paine Webber "during the generation of rage..."   And, this clearly implied limited intelligence was stated in the e-mails as intelligence that the defendant was eagerly willing to sit down and try to explain to ABC or Paine Webber when the defendant challenged the corporations in paragraph six of the e-mails to take the opportunity to invalidate his beliefs: "…act in a reasonable communicative form for the purpose of being able to show the courts in future negligence and wrongful death suits that there had been no possibility that the complaintant had information regarding terrorist designs against ABC and Paine Webber…"  The e-mails, paragraph six, emphasis added. This, while money was never demanded as a requirement for accessing the defendant's projections, however productive of dilemma for the corporations.  In contrast, in U.S. v Reynolds, C.A. 7 (Ill.), 1976 532 F2d, 1150, the addressee of a letter was told that the writer would not divulge what he had presented as a definite murder plot--i.e., unequivocal, unconditional and specific--unless and until he received payment of $10,000.

In the instant case, not only is a true threat not transmitted by the defendant because of the Kelner criteria, that is that the alleged threat in the e-mails do not satisfy the requirements to be unambiguous and immediate, but the statements containing violent possibilities are simply not statements of intentions at all; however, the definition of "threat" that the Court gave to the jury required that the defendant needed to have made a statement that expressed an "intention."  The statements in the e-mails are only opinions, and they are clearly presented as opinions, opinions of hearsay of possible musings, even though they have turned out to be closer to the truth than some of the unconnected dots of pre-9/11 that have been reported in the media.

 

Clearly, the Court erred in its jury charge regarding the components of a true threat by ignoring the Kelner criteria, while at the same time the Court's definition of a threat failed to fit the defendant's actual statements in the e-mails because the defendant did not make statements expressing intentions.  Furthermore, these errors were compounded when the Court erred in failing to issue subpoenas to the other media indicated as receivers for electronic copies on the second e-mail, Time, Newsweek and the New York Times.  These media could have testified as to whether or not they had actually received the e-mails and whether or not they saw the e-mails as true threats, or to the contrary, as expressions of beliefs about possible threats.  In addition, the defendant's attorney for more than a year had promised to recruit a Ph.D. expert friend of his to testify for the defense and also had promised that he would himself subpoena the print media e-mail reader departments indicated in the electronic Cc's of the e-mails. These failures by the attorney demonstrated clearly ineffective counsel in this case of pure language. "Where a defendant is initially represented by counsel but subsequently requests to proceed pro se, he may allege that counsel was ineffective at least up to the point where the defendant began to represent himself.  See, Hance v Zant 696 F.2d 940, 950 (11^th Cir. 1983; Rodriguez v State, 763 S.W. 2d 893, 896 (Tex.Ct.App.1988).  In addition, where standby or advisory counsel assumes an advisory role or exercises a degree of control over defendant's case, "his or her potential for ineffectiveness, though diminished by the defendant's primary role, is not completely eliminated." Ali v. United States, 581 A.2d 368, 379 (D.C. 1990); see also Hance v Kemp 258 Ga. 649 in Jelinek v. Costello 247 F. Supp2d 212 (E.D.N.Y 2003).

 

The Appeals Court ought to vacate judgment because a fair trial was not possible in this case of the transmission of a purported threat when: 1) the jury charge left out crucial components of what was needed to determine a true threat (cf. The Kelner or Malik charge) as opposed to the report of beliefs about possible threats as proposed by the defense's theory; 2) there was insufficient evidence to prove that "threat", as defined to the jury in the charge as a statement expressing an intention was contained in the e-mails, as opposed to a statement expressing a belief; and, 3) the Court along with the defendant's attorney had failed to subpoena appropriate expert witnesses, which each had a duty to do.

VI.     There Was Insufficient Evidence of An Intention to Extort

Repeatedly, the government asserted that: "ABC and Paine Webber's personnel would be killed unless each corporation paid the defendant $250,000."  This is the language that the prosecution used to obtain the original complaint from a Judge Magistrate in June, 1999 and this is the very same language that the prosecution used to obtain the September 10, 2002 indictment of the instant case, and this is the exact same language that was presented to the jury at trial on July 14, 2003 in the Court's charge to the jury (see trial transcript page 255 lines 5-7) and in the prosecution's speeches to the jury.  This “pay or die” ultimatum was stated as a fact and presented as a fact to the jury, while no such language was used in the e-mails.

 

In its opening statement, the prosecution declared that: "In the E-mail he [the defendant] claimed that unless they [corporations] talked with Mark Krangle they would suffer the events described in the E-mail. The E-mail also claimed ABC and Paine Webber were the cause of injury to Mark and the E-mail demanded $250,000 from each company in order to prevent the events described from happening…. Instead of 30 days of time to respond, the second E-mail listed 29 days to respond. 29 days to come up with $250,000 or face the violence and destruction that was described in the message….Mark Krangle threatened ABC and Paine Webber with violence, injury, destruction and death if the companies failed to pay the money that he demanded." See Trial Transcript page 23 line 18 to page 24 line14.

The above, underlined, statements by the government are material misstatements of fact that were never made by the defendant in the e-mails. Neither did the government demonstrate to the jury how the language of the e-mails could validly be interpreted to mean what the government asserted. In addition, the Court prohibited the defendant the time needed to demonstrate that an objective analysis of the content of the e-mails, along with the channel used, made strong valid argument that extortion was not the intent of the e-mails.

The prosecution also lacked any evidence external to the e-mails that demonstrated that extortion was the intent of the defendant.  There was no evidence that the defendant had any plan or any way to collect any money from the corporations.  There was neither evidence that any instructions were given to the corporations to transfer money to the defendant nor any evidence that the defendant had any way or any plan to collect any money. 

Extortion is a tremendously serious, menacing crime that leaves a victim no way to escape threats except to comply with the extortionist's demands to provide him with money or something of value.  Extortion has to involve a threat that is unequivocally under the control of the extortionist in order that the victim truly has no choice except to comply with the extortionist.   Extortion is crime that needs to involve true and credible threats by a communicator that he can and will carry out or can and will cause to be carried out serious damage or harm to the victim unless the victim complies with his demand of money or things of value. This must be the case even if the defendant actually had no ability to implement the threat:  the threat must appear to be credible. The defendant need not have had any real actual ability to carry out the threat; however, a reasonable person would have had to be able to believe that he did.   Extortion is most often a racket of organized crime or of small gangs who demand protection money from business people or individuals.  Such groups provide credibility to routine type threats by the very nature of the reputations of criminal groups. Individuals must make a threat that is possible for an individual to carry out in order for there to be evidence of intent to extort.  It is not sufficient evidence of intent to extort just to say that an accused believed he was entitled to money and that he had been trying to realize his belief of his entitlement.  Some other indices of intent to extort must exist in order to show evidence beyond a reasonable doubt of intent to extort.

To charge a single individual with the crime of making threats that can fairly be described as surrealistic, given the apocalyptic context in which the human violence was presented, besides the fact that the language did not meet the Kelner conditions of a "true threat" nor the definition of "threat" as a statement of intentions, and to then insist that such language had extortion as its intent, where the individual is obviously not in a position to carry out such violence, where there is no conspiracy charged, where there is no proof of preparations to carry out injury or proof that the individual can control the violence of third parties against the supposed victims, the prosecution needs to demonstrate, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the individual's words in evidence can only be interpreted by any reasonable jury to mean "pay or die."  This is exactly what the prosecution failed to even attempt to do.  The prosecution only repeatedly asserted the material misstatements of the facts of the defendant’s rhetoric saying that it meant "pay or die," without ever presenting to the jury any kind of unbroken logical path demonstrating evidence of a true demand of "Pay" to evidence of the consequence "Or Else You Die."  This is because the fairly long, complex, argumentative, literary rhetoric of the defendant, which contained religious, political, ecological and legalistic arguments neither warned nor threatened that violence would face the corporations as a result of not giving the defendant money or things of value.

The defense can demonstrate that the rhetoric of the e-mails makes some technical arguments and that the prosecution made a series of invalid inferences in order to prosecute the defendant. The defense was not permitted time by the district court to make the following objective, grammatical and logical arguments at trial, as he had promised he would do for the jury, and for the sake of justice and a fair due process, the Appeals Court can review the facts of this matter anew.

First, the subject heading of the e-mails announced “Revolutionary Mercy in Exchange for Atonement by ABC Network and Paine Webber.”   Atonement in the Muslim, Hebrew and Christian religions means an asking for forgiveness.  The e-mails immediately announced “Atonement” as the price for “Revolutionary Mercy” in the in-box of a national news media organization’s Online electronic channel (ABC), along with another major corporation’s public mailbox (Paine Webber), audiences that would be augmented still with three other giant media corporations on the following day when the second e-mail was sent.

The word "atonement" in the e-mail subject heading certainly suggests, granting the context of the entire e-mails, that asking for forgiveness alone, from God or even perhaps from the author as a self-proclaimed minister of God—i.e., as a religious leader of his announced “salvational revolutionary movement” could be exchanged for “Revolutionary Mercy.”  Surely, one may suggest that God can provide revolutionary mercy or that a person explicitly projecting himself in a religious role may facilitate such mercy. The language of the e-mails does always tie the panoramic of human violence with acts of God in a time of "Judgment." Shall the First Amendment allow the government to deny these valid religious implications of the rhetoric of a citizen who declared that his movement was "salvational?"

Did the defendant specifically suggest that he could contribute something to "Revolutionary Mercy" that he would have exchanged for mere atonement by the corporations? There were three written statements in the e-mails that conform to the notion of possible mercy offered by the defendant and none of them required giving the defendant money: 1) In paragraph five, “I will try to take your firms off of the existing list for future terrorist attacks as describe[d] above;”  2) In paragraph six, the defendant offers to discuss with the corporations whatever “information regarding terrorist designs against ABC and Paine Webber”  that he pretended to have; and, (3) the final, 8^th paragraph states that the e-mails represented a willing offer of “amicable cooperation.” The defendant had a First Amendment right of free speech to state and to offer to discuss his beliefs with the corporations in multi-party, multi-media, public channels and a First Amendment right of freedom of religion to suggest that he was willing to try to contribute to compassion and forgiveness to ABC and Paine Webber. A fair, full reading of the complete e-mails allows that the defendant would have done whatever he may have been able to do in order to provide whatever relief may have been in his power to provide to the corporations in exchange for the corporations' simply and only having asked the defendant for his forgiveness, if not God's, for any wrong that he may have suffered from any particular executive's conduct or by the corporations' corporate conduct over time.   The words of the e-mails explicitly offer the defendant's cooperation, besides warning that class action suits might occur if the corporations refused it--without a transfer of money, without a commitment that a final monetary agreement must be reached.

The prosecution did not present proof that the intent of the alarming, not threatening (neither stating intentions nor a true threat), rhetoric was to get the corporations to pay money that they would not have come to believe, as did the defendant clearly believe, would have been legitimately due the defendant.  The evidence at trial, the words of the e-mails, only demonstrated that the defendant believed that he was due a hearing by the corporations regarding his claims of injuries.  All of the e-mail evidence showed that the defendant wished to interact with the lawyers of the corporations on the question of his claims, that he wanted to discuss his issues and that he wanted the corporations to "enter into negotiations…" toward a goal of arriving at a "settlement."  The language is clearly process language--"discuss with me," have "discussions" and "enter into negotiations."  The corporations are offered help from the defendant to "try and take them off the list for future terrorist attacks" just if they "enter into negotiations."  That is the only stated quid pro quo and that is not the same as reaching a settlement.  "Enter into negotiations" is not to settle, is not to pay, is not "to pay $250,000," is not "to pay $250,000" 'or die.' 

The prosecution cannot assert that it had proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant had to be paid money in order for the defendant to have given the corporations any and all of the possible relief he might have been able to provide them with.  The defendant stated, "Enter into negotiations with me and I will try to take you off the list…" Those words do not denote, nor connote, nor imply that the corporations had to withdraw money from the bank, bring money to the table, deposit money in the defendant's account or do anything with money or any thing of value in order to elicit the defendant's side of the bargain--"to try" to take them “off the list for future terrorist attacks.”  It is for exactly this reality of the indisputable objective meaning of a good deal of language that has so often required police detectives, the FBI and other law enforcement agencies to set up meetings between a suspected extortionist and his apparent victims. Such meetings are set up in order to allow proof of the intent to extort to be obtained. There is no proof in the e-mails to support the words in the indictment, the words repeated several times at trial by the prosecution and the Court that: "ABC and Paine Webber's personnel would be killed unless each corporation paid the defendant $250,000."

The defendant's statement in paragraph 5 of the e-mails, volunteering himself  "to try" to get the corporations off of "the list for future terrorist attacks" is clearly an incentive to the corporations to “enter into negotiations with me” about his claims against them of injuries done him and his "salvational revolutionary movement."  Only that, to "Enter into negotiations." "Enter into negotiations with me and I will try to take your firms off the existing list for future terrorist attacks as describe[d] above."  And, no human being or group could have possibly accomplished the attacks that were described because no human being could have made the accompanying acts of God to occur.  The first five paragraphs must be able to be seen as expressive and religious speech aimed at exhorting a meeting of the parties.

The defendant urged the corporations to discuss all of the warnings in the e-mails with him without having to bring any money or anything of value to the table, just their lawyers to hear the defendant out and to accept the defendant as the representative for his own claims that may have proven through discussions to merit a negotiated settlement. A labor union, too, sometimes employs alarming tactics just so it can get accepted by a corporation as the negotiator for its members' claims.

Getting accepted to sit at the table with a corporation's representatives is a real and huge play in and of itself, whether by union men or by an individual person.  It is utterly clear that the alarming rhetoric of the e-mails had a sit down with two corporations' legal departments as its goal.

Not even the defendant's wish to achieve a monetary settlement, not even his declaration that he believed his claims merited a higher price tag than earlier attempts to get the two accused executives to ask their corporations to consider making a settlement with the defendant --not even the defendant's position that his claims then added up to as much as a quarter of a million dollars per corporation, represented proof that the defendant had finally changed his several attempts from over the years to try and get the corporations to consider coming to an agreement on a settlement for some of his claims against them to the prosecution's declarations that the defendant's e-mails were finally an attempt to force the corporations to just hand money over to the defendant without any coming to any agreement on a settlement for any claims that he angled to finally get to sit down and fully discuss with them.  Getting to sit down with the corporations and to discuss his claims, as well as his implied knowledge of terrorism is clearly the theme of paragraphs four to eight of the e-mails. Getting money transferred electronically or handed over to the defendant clearly is not the theme.

The corporations declined an acknowledgement of the mere possible legitimacy of the defendant's claims against them as the only price for having the opportunity to access his implied intelligence about an apocalyptic future that might involve them.  The defendant's perhaps somewhat paranoid confession/opinion that their corporations were possible [cf. probable] future targets "since I had complained about them…" and his exaggerated sense of self importance in saying that they would wind up in class action suits if they were ever to get attacked, without having consulted him, proved to be ineffective rhetoric to get the corporations to answer the defendant's e-mail; however, the e-mails had provided the corporations with a perfect channel to communicate, instantly and with a complete record of the content.  No lone executive had to explain or to prove to the corporate legal department what was said to him alone on the telephone or on his or her walk to work.  The e-mails and the e-mail channel only urged communication and provided an instant and recordable means to do so.

How did the corporations come to be "real possible" targets of terrorism?  Why did the defendant change "probable" to "possible?"  Why not have used the word "because" in the phrase "since I complained about them to communicative links…" instead of the more ambiguous "since," which could equally mean "from that time when" he had made his complaints?  The defendant did choose the word "since" instead of the word because in relation to his having complained.  If his belief that the corporations might be a future target of the scenarios, which he surreally described, had somehow evolved during his complaints about them to some "communicative link," then it is valid to suggest that "since" may have been chosen as a hedge against the unselected, more remorseful choice of the word because, and "because" might also have been more likely to be misinterpreted as extortionate rather than interpreted as simply more guiltily confessional than the ambiguous "since" in the defendant's ever so brief report of some communications with others, sometime before the e-mails. The defendant's use of the word "since" can imply that the defendant believed that he had caused or had helped to cause a focus on ABC and Paine Webber during the projected "generation of rage" or, instead, that he had only himself discovered that all financial institutions and all of the news media were supposed to be future targets and that this might have included ABC and Paine Webber.  Either possibility might have occurred while the defendant had been involved in some kind of internet chats on anarchist websites.  Beyond the uncertainty of this particular language of the e-mail, no evidence whatsoever, thus certainly no evidence beyond a reasonable doubt, regarding any self-believed (and less, any actual) responsibility for any focus of future violence, which the defendant presented surrealistically in the e-mails and to be accompanied by acts of God, was presented at trial.

The e-mails surely allow that the defendant's offer "to try" to remove the corporations from any list for future violence could be fulfilled by his trying to get back in touch with the "communicative links" and his trying to make some kind of appeal on behalf of ABC and Paine Webber because they had shown some willingness to atone, because they had decided to simply sit down with the defendant, hear him out, apologize and maybe even eventually come to a monetary settlement based on an understanding of his complaints.

 Could the defendant have succeeded in removing the corporations from the list that he implied existed?  The e-mail did not say he could succeed, only that he would try.  Does everyone on a list for possible future acts suffer, or enjoy the future acts?  A raise in salary? A Promotion?  A target for prosecution? Being on a list is not even an assurance of realizing the event.  The e-mails clearly exhorted communication about all of these conditions without making any payment to the defendant and so cannot be said to have had extortion as their intent.  Clearly then, evidence that extortion was their intent was not provided by the language of the e-mails and the prosecution failed to present any other evidence beyond a reasonable doubt of the intent to extort.

The very opposite was true.  The e-mails provided evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant's intention was to interact communicatively with the corporations.  The door was explicitly stated in the e-mails to be wide open for the corporations to find out whether or not the defendant really knew if the corporations may have been real possible/probable targets of terrorism--without their having had to make a withdrawal of money from the bank or to bring money to the table.

It has recently become an established fact in the United States, according to the President, the Congress, the Departments of Homeland Security, FBI and CIA, and, the news media that: information may be able to deter terrorist designs. Paragraph 6 urges the corporations to access the defendant's claim to have information--at no charge. 

The prosecution incorrectly presented as a fact that paragraph six meant talk or die. In fact, the paragraph only calls for the valid inference that a class action suit might be caused by failing to access the defendant's intelligence, but there is no price tag demanded for such access to the defendant. The paragraph is clearly a goad to the corporations to make contact with the defendant.  The paragraph does not permit the inference to be made that as a failure of discussing with the defendant the corporation's situation of being on a list for future terrorist attacks that the corporations would be attacked.  The e-mails clearly and always allow that the corporations might be attacked in any case. The e-mails clearly do not portray the defendant as a definite remedy against future attacks, only as a possible remedy, and as such the defendant portrays himself (probably inaccurately) only as a hedge against possible future legal problems for the corporations in case of terrorist attacks.  The sixth paragraph clearly means: talk with the defendant in order to eliminate ABC's and Paine Webber's risk of being sued, even while the corporations might only have the opportunity to reduce their risk of getting attacked, simply by engaging, not paying, the defendant. "If you do not discuss this situation with me…you will pay dearly," is clearly and only a reference to the corporations winding up in negligence suits for imprudent and irresponsible failure to communicate with the defendant if and only if the future visited upon the corporations the kinds of events that the defendant was projecting and if and only if the defendant ought to have been ineluctably recognized as having some possible remedy (e.g. some information) for the future violence accompanied by natural disasters.  This accurate grammatical and syntactical analysis of the meaning of paragraph six directly contradicts the talk or die and certainly the "pay or die" invalid inferences of the government.

The seventh paragraph is also completely hypothetical.  The syntax of it makes the If…then… proposition completely non-criminal.  It is not a true threat or part of a true threat.  It does not say that any violence will come to the corporations if they do not discuss the defendant's issues with him.  This is the objective, syntactic fact.  The paragraph only continues the warning of the previous paragraph that " If you do not discuss my offer with me and [if]…" violence comes to the corporations then the corporations will wind up in class action suits.  The "if" that begins the first part of the hypothetical clause that opens the sentence must be distributed across the conjunction "and" and thereby makes the violence just as hypothetical as the unknown decision of the corporation to discuss or not to discuss, but that violence is not dependant upon the corporation's decision to discuss or not to discuss.  The "then" clause is the dependant clause and is about class action suits.  The "then" (class action suits) clause is dependant upon the two "if" conditions connected by "and" that are both equally hypothetical. The warning of the paragraph is only about class action suits.  This is the only acceptable, valid syntactic interpretation of this sentence/paragraph.  It is completely invalid and false to suggest that the sentence warns, and less that it threatens, that "If you do not discuss my offer… then violence will come to the corporations.  The paragraph cannot be interpreted that way.  It is not ambiguous and open to both interpretations.  It only warns of possible class action suits if both of two hypothetical conditions are met: 1) no discussions and, 2) violence does come.  And it does not even threaten class action suits; it only warns of class action suits.  And, it does not threaten violence. The violence in the seventh paragraph is completely hypothetical.  The objective, syntactic facts of the sixth and seventh paragraphs work together to exhort discussion even if they failed as a practical effort: They urge the corporations' "legal departments" to communicate with the defendant in order to reduce their vulnerability to future legal entanglements if the worst violence would wind up striking them without their ever having tried to work with the defendant in "amicable cooperation," i.e., tapping his intelligence and even acknowledging his beliefs in his injuries caused by their executives, even through atonement.

The prosecution's invalid inference about the final paragraph of the e-mails was, in its opening and closing statements that "…the second e-mail listed 29 days to respond.  29 days to come up with $250,000 or face the violence and destruction that was described in the message."  (Trial transcript page 24 lines 5-7)  Yet the paragraph actually said: "If you do not respond within thirty days (then, twenty-nine days in the second e-mail), I will not offer you the same amicable cooperation which I am willing to offer you today in this message" The word "Respond" in the final sentence/paragraph clearly means to e-mail back to the defendant.  And, the countdown of days is clearly presented in the e-mails as a time limit just for contacting the defendant, after which the defendant only implied that he would be unwilling to work on any of the issues with the corporations, while the corporations continued to face " real possible" attacks "during the [not 30 days, but 10,950 days of an entire] generation of rage" along with the whole rest of America.

Any good student of English or any attorney can see that the defendant wanted the chance to convince the corporate lawyers that their corporations had damaged the defendant in ways that deserved a settlement to be made by them for his claims.  The defendant clearly offered to give the corporate lawyers insight into the terrorism that was coming to the United States corporate center, and to share his beliefs about God as part of the bargain.  Stockbrokers and the networks have turned out to be central among the early rounds of casualties in this now projected "long war" that has only just begun.

Any disinterested attorney or judge ought to admit that these arguments are apparent, prominent and convincing in the e-mail rhetoric of the instant case, even as disturbing, obnoxious and alarming as some of the language is.  These arguments and the other arguments of this brief are patently not the kind of desperate, last ditch efforts used in the most well known law review threat appeals of U.S. v Cooper (532 F.2d 8 1975 6^th cir) or U.S. v Cox  (957 F.2d 265) or U.S. v Shroeder or U.S. Andino or U.S. v Reynolds or the Kelner or Malik cases, where, typically after the fact, the defense tries to argue that some word or sentence might possibly be able to have some other meaning attributed to it other than the threatening meaning that everyone can clearly see.  In none of the aforementioned cases did the government have to state invalid inferences as facts and then do so repeatedly, as it did in the instant case.  The facts of these other cases spoke for themselves.  By contrast, the facts of the instant case demonstrate to reasonable people that conditional language, hypothetical propositions and ambiguities, clearly not "true" threats, were purposive tactics of the author in order to cause interactive communication with the corporate legal departments. Such obviously purposive use of inexact and equivocal language, as a communication strategy, represent a most fundamental exercise of First Amendment freedoms, exactly what the Kelner criteria was meant to protect.

The government's repeatedly invalid inferences about unequivocal true threats in the instant case, thereby trying to equate the defendant's language with that of Kelner or Malik is as bad as the kinds of distortions that presidential candidates accuse each other of.  Nevertheless, when the electorate votes and that vote is nearly equally divided, as was the defendant's jury, no Court would make the error of requiring an Allen Charge in order to move the dissenting voters to unanimity.

VII. The Allen Charge Presented to the Jury is Unconstitutional in a Case of Pure Speech

The defense can point to his own jury, which returned to Court deadlocked after a whole day of deliberation in the short-circuited e-mail trial, as evidence that reasonable persons could find the e-mails not to be punishable.  At trial, the defense argued that the content of the Allen Charge given to the jury was inappropriate because in a case where pure speech is at issue and First Amendment rights are in play, the jurors should have been asked to attempt to accept the honesty of the opinions of those in favor of the interpretations of language that favored the accused--even without joining with them in their opinions--rather than being asked to join with the majority.  Trial transcript page 301 line 8 to page 302 line 23.

The defendant's standby attorney interviewed a juror right after trial and she reported that the deadlock was actually five for and five against the defendant, with two abstentions and that the reporting juror herself said that she had abstained at the outset as a tactic to move other jurors to her position of guilty later on. The Appeals Court should recognize that an Allen charge represents a 1^st amendment violation in a case where pure language is the issue and that such stratagems as revealed by the one juror in addition to the unconstitutional Allen Charge in a case of pure language ought not to be allowed to come into play if a fair trial and justice are the aim of the proceedings under Rule 33.

Language, inherently can have various simultaneously valid interpretations, and the Allen charge by the Court created a contest of wills among the jurors that is not put into play when an Allen Charge is given in a trial about facts that can, in the final analysis, only possibly be either one way or the other way. The Allen charge in the instant case of pure language presented the judicial authority incorrectly suggesting that either one set of juror opinions or the other set of juror opinions about language meaning could be correct, but this is incorrect when language is at issue.  Therefore, the Allen charge that was given was an error and was a violation of  the First Amendment rights of the jurors, as well as of the defendant.

Even though the Court advised the jurors not to give up his or her opinion if he had no doubts about it, the Court in the instant case failed to advise the jury that a variant opinion about facts about language could be correct even while a juror might experience doubts about it in the face of other opinions about facts about language that may be concurrently equally as valid, something nearly impossible in cases that are not language based.  In non-language based cases, the third possibility, that is, that both sides could have a valid opinion about a fact, may hardly ever exist. The Allen Charge in the instant case was based on the false premise that if the other jurors are right about certain facts, then the dissenting jurors must be wrong about those facts and that they should accede. The jurors were advised to believe that if the other jurors were right then he or she cannot also be right, but the truth of the matter of language is clearly quite different.  That is, that the other jurors could have a valid interpretation of the language while the dissenting jurors could also have a valid interpretation of the language. The Allen Charge failed to suggest to the jury that in a case of pure language the divided jury could easily represent a very valid outcome, even the most desirable outcome, an outcome that would help compel the government, in future cases of pure language, to undertake a vigorous First Amendment screening using experts, contact with the suspect, an unmanipulated presentation to a Judge Magistrate and other methods interested in serving justice rather than in serving giant corporations that are imbedded with organized crime, megalomaniacal U.S. intelligence, or its own bureaucratic self aggrandizement and indifference to truth and justice. The Allen Charge to the jury negated the inherent reasonable variable interpretations that language, by its nature, must be allowed in order not to impinge upon the First Amendment rights of the individual members of the jury, and it is required of any officer of the Court, including a pro se defendant, or any citizen to recognize this and to report this.  The Allen Charge, as it was given to the jury, did not take into account the fundamental First Amendment right of the defendant to have used ambiguous, conditional, inexact language intentionally for the very purpose of creating doubts that would help to exhort interactive communication by the corporations. The Appeals Court should vacate judgment and sentence because the Allen Charge violated both the jurors and the defendant's First Amendment rights, and violated the defendant's rights to a fair trial under rule 33.

VIII.          The Defendant’s E-Mails Merited Protection of the First Amendment

A. The First Amendment Prohibits Federal Laws Abridging Freedom of Speech and the Press or Laws Respecting the Establishment of Religion

The First Amendment to the Constitution states: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.  No other language in the Constitution is so absolute.  All of the other amendments leave room for Congress to re-enter their respective issues in some way, except the First Amendment.  While this does not mean that the framers of the Constitution had to believe that freedom of speech was absolute, it does have to mean that they believed that the Congress of the United States ought not to have any legislative role in moderating the speech of a citizen of the United States of America.

The founding fathers must have believed that only other citizens and the different states should determine the limits to free speech.  Duels, feuds, discussions, mediation through third parties, agreements, mutually imposed and agreed upon restrictions such as keeping one’s distance in the future, etc., etc., and state laws were the mechanisms in practice to moderate speech in America at the founding, and the framers of the Constitution aimed to keep those mechanism in place by prohibiting absolutely the imposition of federal laws on the matters to which the 1^st Amendment is addressed.  Congress was excluded by the Constitution from making laws regarding 1^st amendment rights and Congress recognized this Constitutional prohibition for well over a century: Federal laws violating the 1^st amendment were not enacted.  Instead sedition would be charged for speech tending to threaten the President because such speech was considered to be tied directly to the projected acts of violence and so such law was thought not to be an abridgment of speech, in and of itself.

That freedom of speech can only be absolute in very special circumstances is not the issue.  The issue is that the 1^st Amendment to the Constitution simply makes utterly clear that the federal government is to be excluded from the issue.  The Constitution needs to be amended or the 1^st Amendment needs to be repealed in order to make various federal statutes bearing upon freedom of speech to be Constitutional: The citizenry in the 50 states need to vote on the repeal of the 1^st Amendment just as the 21^st Amendment repealed the 18^th Amendment, if Constitutional integrity is desired.

B. The Supreme Court Has Ruled Narrowly on Congressional Interventions into 1^st Amendment freedoms

The Supreme Court has proceeded very cautiously in allowing Congress to make statutes impinging on freedom of speech. There is little specific guidance as to how to proceed in the area of threats, but it is clear that the Supreme Court wants to remain very protective of the citizen's rights of freedom of speech. In The Nuremberg Files and the First Amendment Value of Threats, by Steven G. Gey, 1999, in the Texas Law Review Association, a very thorough review of Supreme Court rulings regarding threats in the light of the 1^st Amendment has been undertaken.  Gey notes that: The first and most important aspect of Watts is that the Court overturned the conviction, thereby establishing that the First Amendment limits how the government can define threats: "What is a threat must be distinguished from what is constitutionally protected speech." 

Gey observed that: "The Watts Court seemed to indicate that the threatening nature of one's words, by itself, is not enough to justify casting it outside the protective scope of the First Amendment if that speech does not have the effect of signaling some immediately impending danger to the target of the speech." 

C.  The 2^nd Circuit has Made Decisions on Cases Involving Pure Speech

In U.S. v Kelner, the 2^nd Circuit has shown caution and protectiveness of freedom of speech similar to the Supreme Court, albeit continuing the erosion of the defense's position that the Constitution admits of no intrusion whatsoever by Congress.  The high profile Kelner case received a detailed, precedent setting 2^nd Circuit Court of Appeals review of Kelner's language. Nevertheless, in U.S. v. Malik (2^nd Circuit, 1994), the 2^nd Circuit relied on  U.S. v Maisonet (4^th Circ. 1973), asserting that the test of whether or not speech or writing contains a threat has been ruled to be "an objective one--namely, whether 'an ordinary, reasonable recipient who is familiar with the context…would interpret it as a threat of injury,'" although it advised that the jury had to determine the facts of the Kelner criteria and it too applied the Kelner criteria in the Malik case.

The defense asserts that in a case involving pure speech, the burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt always must remain with the prosecution, even following trial by jury. Every time and anytime that anyone looks at prosecuted speech or writing in the United States of America, even after a conviction, the 1^st amendment rights of the speaker must be given the highest deference. If an appeal's court, a journalist, a historian, a philosopher of language, an English teacher or any reasonable person has the occasion to review the speech or writing of a person, the 1^st Amendment to the Constitution warrants that the utmost effort must be made to give the benefit of the doubt to the author of the message regarding his or her right to have composed and delivered his message and such a review always needs to be made de novo because every single reasonable new opinion in a case of pure language is itself new evidence about the purported language crime, new evidence in the form of a  new material witness to the very crime that has been tried.

For Courts to follow by rote, United States v. Lincoln that "Whether a given writing constitutes a threat is an issue of fact for the trial jury" is an unjust and expensive response to ambitious, politically motivated government prosecutors anxious to gain victories using their tremendous resources against mentally disturbed individuals and political dissidents who have little or no resources. When the text itself of a message in a case of pure speech can be shown to represent 1^st Amendment freedoms, the Court must deny any apparent success by the government at trial and question why the case went to trial in the first place.  The Court needs to take strong, even aggressive and definitive action and itself take the role of the reasonable receiver of a text, make every effort to determine if the communication in question had to have been prosecuted, given the 1^st Amendment prohibition against any law by Congress abridging freedom of speech. Even a single member of an Appeals court panel can become a valid, newly discovered material witness in a case of pure language and should require the entire panel to vacate judgment and call for a new trial. The 2^nd Circuit Court of Appeals did everything in its power to take a thorough look at Kelner's television speech after his conviction. The 2^nd Circuit fortified Supreme Court caution towards criminalizing pure speech and even developed precedent setting tools to analyze Kelner's rhetoric.

Since the Kelner case, concern has been expressed by the Court that individuals with true criminal motives might be able to use linguistic ambiguities in order to make threats that could be denied as threats and the Court has found occasion to agree with the interpretations of certain victims that a defendant's ambiguous language was indeed a criminal threat.  Nevertheless, the actual cases when this has occurred have only been ones where the defense has put forward the most marginal possible alternative explanations of the defendant's language and the Court has opined that such fringe possibilities merely demonstrated desperation on the part of the defense.  In such cases the defense was just trying to come up with some unlikely explanation for the defendant's language in order to assert a non-true threat, non-criminal use of language.  The Court has asserted that no reasonable person could possibly agree with such unlikely interpretations as proof that the defendant could not have really intended his language to be interpreted by any audience in the newly invented way the defense was trying to suggest to the Court only as a way of avoiding a guilty judgment.

      The benchmark threat cases have been shown to be unequivocal, unconditional and specific. In U.S. v Cooper, 532, F.2d (1975 6^th Circuit), Cooper's statements were found on appeal to be unequivocal, unconditional and specific during his 13 phone calls, which included his explanation that his hostages could not possibly be rescued, would be killed if police intervened and would only be let free once he collected his ($7000 of) radio time.  The instant case, in sharp contrast, makes no such pay or die ultimatum.  The language in the instant case is absolutely clear that the defendant wanted discussions with the corporations and offered to do what he could for them before a settlement was reached.  All of the evidence at trial presented by the prosecution clearly demonstrated that the defendant believed that the corporations had damaged him in ways that merited a settlement.  It is sheer manipulation and distortion to insist that the rhetoric of the e-mails that form the basis of the instant case cannot be reasonably interpreted as aiming to achieve discussions where the defendant might convince the corporations' "legal departments" that his claims against them had merit. 

In U.S. v Cox, 957 F2d 265, the defendant said "I tell you what, you all better have my personal items to me by five o'clock today or it['s] going to be a lot of hurt people there."  This, once again, is a statement expressing an unambiguous threat, which can be relieved, according to the speaker, only by giving him property."

In U.S. v Shroeder, 902, F2d 1470, the defendant stated "the government either gives [him] money or people would get hurt."  This is also unequivocal, even if not immediate.

The defendant's e-mail rhetoric, in sharp contrast to Malik or Kelner and the aforementioned cases, only reports his belief in a violent future in order to exhort discussion.  The prosecution has shown that the defendant's prior messages and the e-mails demonstrate that the defendant believed his claims merited a monetary settlement and the fact that the defendant used some alarming projections as part of his ethos, logos and pathos aimed at gaining a forum for his claims must not annul his 1^st amendment rights.

The defense believes that the federal statutes addressing the issue of threats are overbroad and a threat to the community. There is a crucial need to recognize the overbreadth of the 875 statutes. A true threat must be distinguished from a report of a possible threat.  The essential importance of this distinction should be more obvious than ever in a post 9/11 environment.  Citizens and agencies on the alert for violent battles unfolding on American soil during the current war need to be receptive to and invite warnings even if such warnings are couched in language that causes alarm.  Extreme care needs to be taken to distinguish between the warning "Death is coming" and the threat "I am going to kill someone."  A warning also may be felt as threatening, but is it prudent to have a citizen be vulnerable to prosecution because of his style of communication?

The defense believes that the Court, by carefully examining the entire speech or writing under complaint or under indictment in a case, as part of a 1st Amendment threshold evaluation or as part of the evaluation of the merits of an Appeal, needs to search for objective evidence in the words of the accused or the convicted that can establish his or her speech as a right under the 1^st Amendment, that is, to speak her mind, even if her words are terrifying.   The Court has a crucial duty to check and balance the executive branch of the government in matters involving Constitutional issues such as freedom of speech, religion and the press, and to distinguish between every kind and style of the report of threats, probable threats and possible threats, that is, alarming speech/warnings/predictions/prophecies as opposed to the unmistakable issuing of "true threats."

 The e-mails that form the basis of this case ought to be protected from federal prosecution because they represent the exercise of 1^st Amendment freedoms under the U.S. Constitution.  The e-mails represent expressions of

religious and literary images, and political and persuasive ideas aimed at promoting multi-party discussions of issues of public concern:

     The first paragraph of the e-mails is an apocalyptic projection combining St. John the Baptist's Revelations and Moses' warnings with Stephen King.  To deny that the first paragraph is an attempt at literature is unquestionably unreasonable.  ABC.Online was an open channel for electronic publication and Comments @ Paine Webber was a public channel that was used by the defendant visibly and simultaneously with the even more public ABC channel. This was further expanded to include The New York Times and Time and Newsweek.  While attempting to broadcast, or actually broadcasting (as in Kelner) does not foreclose on the possibility of expressing true threats, it hardly represents a channel through which to attempt the "pay or die" extortion message that the government has tried to make out the e-mails to be.  Reasonable people could find that the e-mails directed into simultaneous public channels were instead, obviously a competitive attention getting device aimed at a broad audience that might be attracted to a variety of issues of political and public interest, including AIDS, chemical warfare, biological warfare, the environment, the perception and reality of a "totalitarian America" and Judgment Day.  That the e-mails obviously announce and focus on "ABC and Paine Webber lawyers" as desired interlocutors for discussions towards arriving at an agreement to a settlement to which the defendant believed he was entitled does not suddenly cut out the broader ABC.Online or U.S. print media audiences.  In fact, the e-mails only communicate to the corporations' most public of addresses, simultaneously, with the elaborate, literary rhetoric to the ultimate inclusion of the entire general public. Such speech is protected by the 1^st Amendment, even though it might be alarming or "worrisome" as Doris V. Hernandez felt.  Political communication is not limited to messages delivered at a political rally.  Political communication also takes place on the Internet.  Any individual is allowed to be an audience for political ideas, opinions, forecasts, projections and newsworthy blogs, especially as such speech or writing may relate to the receiver's own interests, welfare and action planning.  Paine Webber and ABC are especially appropriate audiences as they relentlessly attempt to influence the public and also solicit comments from the public about their own conduct, policies, products and services.   In turn, ABC and Paine Webber receive countless comments from the public on a wide range of topics and the numberless message senders oftentimes work especially hard to elicit responses from media corporations like ABC and other large corporations with broad public communication programs.  The defendant's message was placed into a competitive, publicly open communication environment, not into the mailbox of a particular executive and it asked for discussions with whole "legal departments."

     The second paragraph of the e-mails begins with a reinforcement of the combined political and religious themes of the first paragraph stating: "A new epoch of revolutionary justice, under God, is in store for mankind…" This global political/religious idea, even focused onto America as a "special example," is protected political and religious speech.  The 1999 portrayal of a virtual war coming to America interlocked with ecological disasters sent to two large corporations with huge interactive communication programs, along with the New York print media surely represents quite "a number of persons," really a public notice, a press release.  T. Emerson in The System of Freedom of Expression suggests that: "The more general the communication--the more it relates to general issues, is addressed to a number of persons, urges general action--the more readily it is classified as expression."  In U.S. v Kelner 534 F2d at 1027

Even the further focus on ABC and Paine Webber as "real probable [adjusted to "real possible" in 2^nd e-mailing] targets during the generation of rage which is about to unfold, since I complained about them to communicative links with revolutionary terrorist elements" cannot be disqualified as protected speech. The 1^st amendment thusly simultaneously protects the responsive speech, and, the "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness" of the audience, in protecting the speech of the speaker of predictions, warnings and prophetic-like expression.  A person's speech must be protected under the 1^st amendment to report that others may be in jeopardy of their property or of their lives and it is a moral or religious duty to make such reports. The e-mails explicitly call for discussions with the entire legal departments of two corporations simultaneously, explicitly ask for discussions of claims, and explicitly offer to share information about terrorist designs against the corporations without first collecting any money, calling this "amicable cooperation." These explicit statements represent protected speech, the right of an individual to seek redress of grievances, not only from the government, but also from the financial supporters of political parties or political candidates who are or who are trying to become the government.  An individual has the right under the 1^st amendment to attempt to seek a redress of grievances using his or her own speech instead of the services of a law firm.  The use of apocalyptic warnings that are clearly not true threats as a device to pursue the redress of one's grievances is protected speech.  The corporations often use non-true threat fear arousal messages in order to try and cause responses in the public audience and a member of the public can use similar tactics.

The defendant suggested in paragraph four of the e-mails that a settlement for his claims against the corporations would be compensation for "damages and pain and suffering and in order to carry out my revolutionary work, which will include publishing my book in progress--A NEW MILLENNIUM REVOLUTIONARY MANIFESTO." (Manuscript in evidence at trial)  The defendant, the corporations and the public have all had their 1^st amendment rights in play in the defendant's publicizing his prescient journalistic manuscript and in offering the corporations a role in its publication.

The e-mails represent protected speech because they are seeking interactive communication.  The rhetoric of the e-mails is such that a reasonable person must admit that its goal is to cause questions to be asked of the author.

The e-mails obviously insisted on urging a lot of discussions before anyone might have wound up giving anyone else any money or any thing of value based on the validity of any claims.  This is patently, explicitly and obviously evident.  The e-mails cannot have produced an undeserved payoff of money nor could they be interpreted as having been intended to do so.  They insisted on and worked at producing dialogue between the corporations and the defendant--dialogue that was to be accessible to the public at large through the media.

The e-mails represented a close to the edge, experimental literary and argumentative form of engaging two corporations in dialogue about HIV, terrorism, ecology, politics, God, personal injury, legal settlements of money and the publication of a political manifesto. The U.S. military-industrial-criminal complex has, nearly invisibly, expanded its contempt for intellectual liberties, wherein lies the real security of the public at large, in its decision to prosecute rather than to engage an individual communicator in dialogue and to pursue honest, expert, objective evaluations of two e-mails that could have and should have been published in 1999, as a warning of the terrorism that has come, alongside of the defendant's manifesto, which also contains a synopsis of his yet to be published University of Pittsburgh, proposed  1976 doctoral dissertation on Freedom Of Speec

 

Submitted by defendant, Mark Lee Krangle, acting pro se,

This 10th Day of December of 2004,

 And, I certify that I have delivered a copy by hand to: AUSA, W.S. Wilson Leung, prosecutor

APPENDIX II

 

Petition/Brief for Writ of Certiorari

In The Supreme Court of the United States

October Term, 2005

MARK KRANGLE

Petitioner,

versus

Alberto Gonzales, Attorney General of the United States; and WILSON LEUNG, Assistant United States Attorney

Respondents.

On Petition For Writ Of Certiorari To The United States Court Of Appeals For The Second Circuit

PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI

Mark Krangle

Pro Se

Standby Attorney: Isabel McGinty, Highstown, New Jersey

Tel. 609-443-0650

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

 

 

                                                                                                                          Page no.                                                                      

 

I.  QUESTIONS PRESENTED FOR REVIEW                                                       3                   

II. OPINIONS AND ORDERS BELOW                                                                  4            

III. BASIS FOR JURISDICTION IN THIS COURT                                               4

IV. STATUTORY PROVISIONS INVOLVED                                                       4

V.  CITED AUTHORITIES                                                                                      5

VI. STATEMENT OF THE CASE                                                                           6

VII. DECISION OF COURT OF APPEALS                                                            9

VIII. REASONS FOR GRANTING THE WRIT                                                     10

IX. APPENDIX                                                                                                        19

 

QUESTIONS PRESENTED FOR REVIEW

1.                            Did the trial in New York of the Petitioner for the alleged violation of 18 U.S.C. 875 (b), which prohibits: “Whoever, with intent to extort from any person, firm, association, or corporation, any money or other thing of value, transmits in interstate or foreign commerce any communication containing any threat to kidnap any person or any threat to injure the person of another…” violate the venue demands of Sixth Amendment where evidence only demonstrated that the petitioner transmitted e-mail from Mexico to California?

2.                            Does a standard Allen Charge, as given in the instant case, compromise the First Amendment rights of free speech of a defendant or his or her jury, and violate the 14^th Amendment rights to due process and rule 33 rights to fair trial of a defendant when the only issues under judgment are those of pure speech?

3.                            Are the 18 U.S.C. 875 statutes prohibiting the transmission of “any threat” in interstate or foreign commerce overbroad and do they violate the 1^st Amendment of the U.S. Constitution?

4.                            Did the refusal and failures of the district court and the Petitioner’s standby attorney to subpoena expert testimony regarding whether or not the petitioner’s rhetoric was objectively a “true threat” or a threat of his own making or a threat controlled by him represent a violation of his rights to due process under the 14^th Amendment of the Constitution?

5.                            Did the incarceration and trial of the Petitioner violate his 1^st Amendment rights of freedom of religion and freedom of speech?

 

OPINIONS AND ORDERS BELOW

The August 8, 2005 “Summary Order” of the United States Court of Appeals denying Petitioner's motion for reversal of judgment appears in the appendix hereto, App. 1. [The order denying Petitioner's motion for reconsideration has not been issued to date].

 

BASIS FOR JURISDICTION IN THIS COURT

The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied Petitioner's motion for reversal of judgment on August 8, 2005.  Subsequently, Petitioner filed in the Second Circuit a motion to reconsider and this motion awaits an opinion and order.  This Court has jurisdiction to review the Second Circuit’s order, adjudication and decree affirming the judgment of the district court.  

STATUTORY PROVISIONS INVOLVED

The statutory provision involved in this case is 18 U.S.C. 875 (b), which prohibits: “Whoever, with intent to extort from any person, firm, association, or corporation, any money or other thing of value, transmits in interstate or foreign commerce any communication containing any threat to kidnap any person or any threat to injure the person of another…”

CITED AUTHORITIES

1. U.S. Constitution, 6^th Amendment
2. U.S. v Brennan 183 F.3d 144 (2^nd Cir. 1999)
3. United States v. Rowe, ___ F.3d___, 2005 U.S. LEXIS 13320 (2^nd Cir. July 5, 2005).
4. United States v. Saavedra, 223 F.3d 85, 88 (2d Cir. 2000)
5. U.S. v Rodriguez-Moreno, 526 U.S. 275, 280,119 S.Ct. 1239, 143 L.Ed. 2d 3888(1999) in U.S. v Kim, 246 F.3d 191 (2^nd Cir, 2001)
6. U.S. v Bithany, 472 F.2d 16,23 (2^nd Cir.) cert.denied, 412 U.S. 938, 93 S.Ct 2771, 37 L.Ed. 2d 397 (1973) in U.S. v Beech-Nut 871 F2d 1181 (2d 1989) at 1190.
7. 18 U.S.C. 875 (b)
8. U.S. v Holder, D.C. Mont, 1969, 302 F.Supp, 296, affirmed 427 F2d 715
9. U.S. v Schroeder, 902 F2d 1469, 1470-71 (10^th Cir) cert. Denied, 498 U.S. 867, 111 S.Ct. 181, 112 L.Ed. 2d 145 (1990)
10. U.S. v Kosma, 951 F.2d 549, 555 (3^rd Cir. 1991)
11. U.S. v Baker 690 F.Supp. 1375 (E.D. Mich, 1995) at 1380-81
12. U.S. v Feudale, D.C. Conn. 1967, 271 F Supp 115.
13. Fed Rules Cr Proc., Rule 18, 18USCA; 18 USCA 3237, 3237A
14. U.S. Constitution, 14^th Amendment
15. U.S. v Johnson, 323, U.S. 273, 275, 278 (1944)
16. Trial transcript page 179, line 1 to p.191, line 21
17. U.S. Constitution, 1^st Amendment

 

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

Petitioner appeals the decision of the court below dismissing Petitioner's motion for reversal of judgment [and for review].

The facts in this case are not in dispute.

Petitioner wrote e-mails addressed to ABC.Online and Comments @ Paine Webber and on May 19^th 1999, the first e-mail, which forms the basis of this case, was transmitted from Mexico.  Doris V. Hernandez, the "webmaster person" of Mark Krefting, a Disney executive, received the e-mails addressed to ABC.Online in Los Angeles.  Ms. Hernandez forwarded the first e-mail to Mark. Krefting, also in Los Angeles, with her own note; the day and exact time are not in evidence. Krefting, approximately 26 hours after Hernandez received the first e-mail, in the late afternoon of May 20, 1999, made a transmission of the e-mail from Los Angeles to New York, along with the note from Doris V. Hernandez and his own note.   Krefting's note to ABC in New York said: "Jerry, here’s the e-mail we discussed, forwarded by my webmaster person." The other note said, "Hernandez, Doris V. wrote: “This message struck me as somewhat demented and worrisome.  Doris"

Here is the text and form of the May 19^th 1999 e-mail that was transmitted from Mexico by the Petitioner and received in Los Angeles that same day:

From: Lot08                         Sent: Wednesday, May 19, 1999 2:18 PM                                                      To: ABC Online Webmaster             

Subject:  Revolutionary Mercy in Exchange for Atonement by ABC Network and Paine Webber   

[First paragraph is a single 89-word sentence]

HIV blood drenched glass shards exploded in all directions in corporate conference rooms, acid thrown in faces of clerks and receptionists, secretaries and boy Fridays pushed onto subway tracks, a new strain of smallpox released into exhibition arenas and more acts of furious judgment against totalitarian America will be carried out in the very near future, accompanied by still greater ferocious tornadoes, earthquakes larger than Northridge and hurricanes more damaging than Andrew, volcanic eruptions, fires, floods, pestilence and every form of plague upon America's Pharaohs and their first born.

 [Second paragraph contains two sentences, the first is 20 words and the second is 41 words.]

A new epoch of revolutionary justice, under God, is in store for mankind and America will be a special example.  ABC and Paine Webber are real probable targets during the generation of rage which is about to unfold as they are under special consideration for attacks as described above, since I complained about them to communicative links with revolutionary terrorist elements.

[Third paragraph is one sentence of 50 words.]

ABC and Paine Webber have caused real and substantial damage to me and my revolutionary work and without lawyers and without consideration of statutes of limitation, I have offered their personnel, involved in crimes against me and the salvational revolutionary movement, the opportunity to reach a monetary settlement with me.

[Fourth paragraph is two sentences, 10-words and 42-words.]

Now, the ante has gone up to $250,000.00 per company.  ABC lawyers and Paine Webber lawyers: Discuss my offer with me to compensate me for damages and pain and suffering and in order to carry out my revolutionary work, which will include self-publishing my book in progress--A NEW MILLENNIUM REVOLUTIONARY MANIFESTO.  [Capitals in original]

[Fifth paragraph is one 25-word sentence.]

Enter into negotiations with me and I will try to take your firms off of the existing list for future terrorist attacks as describe[d] above.

[Sixth paragraph is one 70-word sentence.]  

If you do not discuss this situation with me, even in order to have just acted in a reasonable communicative form for the purpose of being able to show the courts in future negligence and wrongful death suits that there had been no possibility that the complaintant had information regarding terrorist designs against ABC and Paine Webber which may have been able to have been deterred, you will pay dearly.

[Seventh paragraph is one 105-word sentence.]

If you do not discuss my offer with me and your personnel and/or other members of your geographical community are murdered or mass murdered in the ways indicated, or in other ways which may be accompanied by information to the effect that the killings were meant to signal, in part, punishment for your corporations' damages to me and to my revolutionary work, then you will be vulnerable to enormous damage suits for negligence and wrongful death by the surviving family members of your communities, in addition to your moral responsibility for the very loss of life itself.

[Eighth paragraph is one 28-word sentence.]

If you do not respond within 30 days, I will not offer you the same amicable cooperation which I am willing to offer you today in this message.                                                                                                  

The following day, on May 20^th 1999, the 2^nd e-mail has added in the "To" address section three print media receivers:  letters @ nytimes.com, editors @ newsweek.com, letters @time.com. Also, the word "probable" is changed to "possible" and a word in the seventh paragraph, "complainant," is changed to "aggrieved party.”  In the final paragraph of the e-mail text there is the change "If you do not respond in 30 days…" to "If you do not respond within 29 days…." And, finally, an instruction is added to the electronic carbon copy-indicated print media, after the end of the body of the second e-mail, which said:  "(instruction to print media):  BACKGROUND-NOT FOR RELEASE until further notice; filing this material for reference and future use is suggested." 

Petitioner was taken by the FBI from Mexico and incarcerated in New York federal detention on January 18, 2002.  He was held in federal detention from January 18, 2002 through trial that ran from July 14 to July 18, 2003 and then until sentencing in December 2003.  Jury had been deadlocked at trial, but then found petitioner guilty as charged after an Allen Charge broke the deadlock.  Petitioner was sentenced to “time served” on December 19, 2003 and was placed in detention in a federal halfway house for one year and then released to his sister’s house and then released from supervised release to take work in China as an English teacher on January 10, 2005.

 

DECISION OF COURT OF APPEALS

Court of Appeals rejected petitioner’s arguments regarding improper venue, freedom of speech and religion, unconstitutional Allen Charge and insufficient evidence of intent to extort on August 8, 2005.  Appeal’s Court did not follow its past procedure of giving detailed reasons for rejecting freedom of speech arguments as it had done using its U.S. vs. Kelner criteria and it ignored freedom of religion argument.  Appeals Court did not use a reason to reject petitioner’s venue argument that should be sustained in Supreme Court nor did it use a reason that either applied to the instant case or showed how it compared to the instant case as is its normal procedure.

 

REASONS FOR GRANTING THE WRIT

The petition for writ of certiorari should be granted for the following reasons:

1. "The Sixth Amendment to the Constitution provides that "[in] all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to…trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law." In U.S. v Brennan 183 F.3d 144 (2^nd Cir. 1999)

 

 

The 2^nd Circuit has taken great pains in other cases it has reviewed to demonstrate in detailed form that venue was correct under its auspices. For an example of the 2^nd Circuit’s exacting work, see United States v. Rowe, ___ F.3d___, 2005 U.S. LEXIS 13320 (2^nd Cir. July 5, 2005).  The 2^nd Circuit denied the instant case any such process, simply citing the U.S. v.  Rowe case and  United States v. Saavedra, 223 F.3d 85, 88 (2d Cir. 2000), which noted that  “venue is proper in any district where a crime was ‘committed.’  The challenge, of course, comes in determining what "committed" means for the purposes of a specific crime.”  (ibid.)

 

     In the Rowe case, the 2^nd Circuit specifically addressed the issue of venue (ibid., p. 14, l. 13 to p. 20, l. 9.).  The key to the process of determining where a crime was ‘committed’ according to the 2^nd Circuit process, which followed Supreme Court recommendations, had always been to look carefully at the statute under which the case was prosecuted.  The 2^nd Circuit’s opinion on venue in the instant case did not even cite the applicable statute and did not show how venue is proper for the statute in question, which by law and in fact it was not. 

 

     The Supreme Court has directed courts to first identify the conduct constituting the offense and then determine where that conduct occurred.  See U.S. v Rodriguez-Moreno, 526 U.S. 275, 280,119 S.Ct. 1239, 143 L.Ed. 2d 3888(1999) in U.S. v Kim, 246 F.3d 191 (2^nd Cir, 2001).  The 2^nd Circuit has concluded that the Court's duty is to decide "when the defendant's actions have progressed to the point where a court can confidently conclude that [the offense in question] has been committed." See U.S. v Bithany, 472 F.2d 16,23 (2^nd Cir.) cert.denied, 412 U.S. 938, 93 S.Ct 2771, 37 L.Ed. 2d 397 (1973) in U.S. v Beech-Nut 871 F2d 1181 (2d 1989) at 1190.

In the instant case, the alleged crime was a violation of

18 U.S.C. 875 (b), which prohibits:

Whoever, with intent to extort from any person, firm, association, or corporation, any money or other thing of value, transmits in interstate or foreign commerce any communication containing any threat to kidnap any person or any threat to injure the person of another…18 U.S.C. 875 (b).

 

Congress obviously intended and carefully articulated its intention in the 18 USC 875 statutes to punish whoever “transmits” a proven threat and not the “transmitting or causing to be transmitted” as in several other statutes regarding wire fraud and other communication conduct.  Congress wanted the threat itself to be punishable and not be dependent on its receipt by any particular victim or victims.  Congress designed the law to be indifferent to the reaching of any particular target or addressee. Congress intended the offense to not entail any of the special technical conduct, intentions, routings or proofs that fall under the rubric of “a continuing offense,” and in the instant case there did exist none of the elements of a “continuing offense,” which would have required an automated forwarding of a transmission and not a deliberated forwarding of a transmission as in the instant case where the Disney Corporation deliberated as to whether or not to forward one of the thousands of e-mails that it had set itself up to receive in order to monitor its subsidiary corporation.

       In the instant case, "the defendant's actions [had] progressed to the point where a court [could] confidently conclude that [the offense in question had] been committed" (Beechnut, Id.) as soon as the e-mail reached Disney in California, where it was received from Mexico.  This is so, because under 875b, "threat need not [even] have reached person [perceived as] threatened or be of such a nature as to have induced fear in the mind of that person."  U.S. v Holder, D.C. Mont, 1969, 302 F.Supp, 296, affirmed 427 F2d 715.  "The threat need not be communicated to the person or group identified as its target."  See U.S. v Schroeder, 902 F2d 1469, 1470-71 (10^th Cir) cert. Denied, 498 U.S. 867, 111 S.Ct. 181, 112 L.Ed. 2d 145 (1990) (affirming an 875(c) conviction for a threat against people at a post office made to an Assistant U.S. Attorney; U.S. v Kosma, 951 F.2d 549, 555 (3^rd Cir. 1991) (listing cases in which threats against President were made to third persons, under 18 USC 871" in U.S. v Baker 690 F.Supp. 1375 (E.D. Mich, 1995) at 1380-81. In the instant case, 875b prohibits that the accused only transmit a presumed "threat" in interstate or foreign commerce in order to complete the "crime." The "essential element of the crime of making, for the purpose of extortion, an interstate telephone threat to injure person is that there be a communication by defendant containing a threat…" (my emphasis) U.S. v Feudale, D.C. Conn. 1967, 271 F Supp 115.

In fact, the e-mails in the instant case warned of an apocalyptic future for all of mankind.  The e-mails warned of "a new strain of smallpox released into exhibition arenas and more acts of furious judgment against totalitarian America…hurricanes greater than Andrew…pestilence and every form of plague upon America's pharaohs and their first born…. A new epoch of revolutionary justice, under God, is in store for mankind…"  These apocalyptic warnings applied equally to New Orleans as to Los Angeles, where they were received, although to whom the alleged threats applied is not an essential part of the completion of an alleged violation of the 875(b) statute. All that is necessary is the receipt of the alleged threats by anyone, anywhere by the willful transmission of the accused. The transmission of an alleged threat, was complete upon the receipt of the e-mails in Los Angeles.

The transmissions by Mark Krefting of the Disney Corporation to Gerard Whitmore of ABC security in New York were clearly not conduct carried out by the defendant, nor was it conduct essential to the crime described in the 875b statute.  The defendant's purported crime was already completed once the e-mail reached the United States in the state of California.

In the instant case, the defendant "had not begun, continued or completed [his] substantive offense under [875b]…in the district in which [he was] prosecuted…" U.S. Const. Amend 6, Fed Rules Cr Proc., Rule 18, 18USCA; 18 USCA 3237, 3237A" in Beech-Nut at 1182."    For this reason, venue was incorrect in New York.

  The government was incorrect to take exception to the Constitution in this case by removing the case from Los Angeles where the purported crime had clearly occurred at the moment of receipt of the e-mails by the Disney Corporation in Los Angeles.

The possibility that the government in January 2002, when it decided to carry out its prosecution, felt that a terrorist-impacted New York would serve better than Los Angeles, should not be ignored in any review of proper venue in the instant case.  Justice Douglas  advised that it would be unjust to allow prosecutors to carry out their cases in the venue that suited them and to ignore the facts of the location of the acts that constituted the case. (See, e.g., U.S. v Johnson, 323, U.S. 273, 275, 278 (1944) (noting the unfairness requiring trial before “a tribunal favorable to the prosecution…”).

 

2. The Allen Charge given the New York jury broke a deadlock that had demonstrated that the e-mails could be interpreted as non-criminal.  The Allen Charge was unconstitutional in a case of pure language because different subsets of opining jurors could have had different acceptable possible interpretations of pure language, which is almost impossible in a case of physical facts.  It was improper for the district court to read an Allen Charge to the jurors that explicitly advised that only one interpretation could be correct even though it advised them to stick to their own interpretation if they felt sure that they had had the correct one.  Pure language, rhetoric if you will, can and does and should admit variant interpretations to stand side-by-side through thick and thin.

 

 Telling jurors that they were falsely facing the same kind of either/ or realities in the instant pure language case that truly apply in the majority of cases of material deeds was unconstitutional because it violated the freedom of speech of the petitioner and the dissident jurors by advising them that they were deliberating in a universe that only can and only must admit of one correct interpretation of the facts.  Judges, lawyers, English language experts, laymen linguists and many average people know that language can have various interpretations.   In the instant case, and in any case in which the judicial authority might look to break a deadlock using an Allen Charge, the standard Allen Charge is unconstitutional or at least reversibly  incorrect and unfair.

 

The standard Allen Charge in the instant case put the jurors into a socio-psychological position that he or she needs must not have been put into: The jurors were advised to deliberate upon abandoning their preferred position in the light of an incorrect and unfair  false logic—the logic that stated that they must be wrong if the other jurors had an interpretation of the facts that appeared to be correct.  The jurors, thusly, are advised to deliberate in a false universe by a ruling authority, and this fact cannot be looked at as moot even in the face of the additional advice that they were allowed to stick to their guns.  The trial was made unfair by having jurors believe that the possibly reasonable and sound interpretation of some particular language by other jury members would entail the incorrectness of their own contrary or variant interpretation of that same particular language.

 

3.  The 18 USC 875 statutes regarding the transmission of “any threat” are overbroad and violate the 1^st amendment and threaten society’s safety as well as its freedoms.  The reasons for this should be too obvious to call for an extensive argument here.  Congress needs to review the language of the statutes and the Supreme Court needs to participate in causing this.  Paul Revere could have been prosecuted under the statutes as they now stand if he were to have crossed a state border while transmitting the threat he had learned about.  The petitioner’s language in the e-mails clearly is an alarm and not his own threat nor a clear threat nor a type of threat that he clearly controlled.  Nevertheless, it may be considered under the rubric of “any threat.”  If the transmission of speech that can be construed as threatening is prohibited absolutely then the chances of forces of intervention to prevent real threats from actually unfolding into acts beyond mere speech acts will decrease concomitantly. Thus, such overbroad statutes seriously threaten the community.

4.  The petitioner’s e-mail rhetoric was specifically addressed, within the body of the e-mail, to “ABC lawyers and Paine Webber lawyers…” and contains legal language and technical argumentation in the whole second half of it, and the entire first half of the rhetoric has clear religious allusions, references and language. The refusal and failures of the district court and the Petitioner’s standby attorney to subpoena expert testimony regarding whether or not the petitioner’s rhetoric was objectively a “true threat,”  a threat of his own making or a threat controlled by him represent a violation of his rights to due process under the 14^th Amendment of the Constitution.  The record clearly demonstrates that the petitioner had submitted to the Court and to his standby attorney to bring in an expert to testify and the district court also denied the petitioner himself to testify as to the objective meanings of the difficult language and rhetorical constructions of the e-mail.  See the e-mails included in the statement of the case and see beginning from trial transcript page 179, line 1, where, during petitioner’s testimony it says "I am going to give you two points [of view], the objective view[point] and the subjective viewpoint….” But, then, before the petitioner presented his own objective analysis of the e-mails, at trial transcript p.191, line 21, the district court interrupted petitioner after about 30 minutes of his presentation of just some subjective aspects of his rhetoric with "We need to wind this up," which was said in a deprecatory way with a cynical tone and indeed marked the end of the defendant's opportunity to explain to the jury the two, more than 500-word e-mails that were in evidence, with the several changes from the first e-mail to the second one. The 2^nd Circuit opined that the district court was acting within its discretion and the petitioner believes his rights to due process and his 1^st Amendment rights were violated.

5.  The e-mails represent rhetoric that falls within the bounds of the protections offered by the 1^st Amendment for freedom of speech and religion and the 2^nd Circuit Appeals Court did not bother to explain in ways it had done in previous cases why this should not be applied in the instant case.

 

ABC.Online was a channel used by the Disney Corporation to receive news and information, and opinions, requests and complaints, etc. from the public. The e-mails clearly represented these categories of communication and were a publishable, highly stylized, provocative alarm by a scholar/journalist warning of 9/11 events two years ahead of time.  The reactions against the Petitioner to these objective facts of the e-mails, by what President Dwight D. Eisenhower presciently identified as the U.S. military-industrial complex, which includes the Department of Justice, ABC and Paine Weber, and embedded elements of American organized crime within these organizations, is consistent with cover-ups by the executive branch of the government regarding its Able Danger military intelligence operations, the recent  investigation of which has been stuck in the Honorable Arlen Spector’s Senate Committee due to intransigence by executive branch agencies, a reality testified to by the Petitioner during the very trial of the instant case in July, 2003, two years before Able Danger became identified to the Congress(Trial transcript, op.cit.).  The Petitioner had also warned the FBI in November, 1998, that U.S. intelligence operations had collected information from him prior to the Oklahoma City bombing about that bombing and that such agencies were continuing to collect such information about terrorist activities that would continue to occur and would not be intervened upon by the U.S. terrorist intelligence collectors.  The Petitioner had told the FBI, “I do not say what is usually said in such accusations, that it is the CIA, because I believe that it may be the DIA, the NSA or some other U.S. intelligence gathering agency.”

 

The e-mails clearly urged discussion as their goal, discussion with two corporations for the explicitly stated purposes of possibly reaching a settlement of claims, which was explicitly offered to be preceded by discussions that offered the petitioner’s sharing of his beliefs of knowledge regarding future terrorism—with two corporations which were in those two fields of business most victimized by 9/11, the succeeding anthrax attacks and the alarming media headlines of the famous “lists of targets”—i.e. the finance/stockbrokerage and media industries, after the FBI rejected his November, 1998 advice that the FBI ought to attempt to scrutinize U.S. intelligence-gathering agencies.

 

How coincidental this may all seem after the fact, or how speculative, unsubstantiated and lacking in credibility and specificity it may have been deemed at the time of the e-mails in May 1999, the 1^st Amendment protects such discussions as were urged by the petitioner to ABC and Paine Webber, within the ambit of the objective language of the e-mails, to take place without any prior requirement for the transfer of any funds whatsoever or the collection of any money or any things of value by the Petitioner.  (See the e-mails that form the basis of this case included in this petition).

 

It is a crucial matter for the Supreme Court, a matter of life and death as life and death may be influenced by freedom of speech, to acknowledge the legitimacy and sustainability of the points of view of the petitioner regarding his rhetoric in light of the rules, statutes, laws and Constitutional protections that bear upon such freedom.

Very shortly after this submission the petition for a certiorari was denied by the U.S. Supreme Court. 

 

The positions of this speaker/writer remain those published herein regarding both the

 E-mails that have been prosecuted and the New Millennium Revolutionary Manifesto publicized at the center of the e-mails.

 

There is a lot more to all of this yet to be told and more still to unfold.