Real Time Web Analytics

Hillary’s State Dept. Blocked Investigation into Orlando Killer’s Mosque

Infowars

Kit Daniels

 

Hillary Clinton’s State Dept. shut down an investigation into the mosque Orlando killer Omar Mir Siddique Mateen attended because it “unfairly singled out Muslims.”

The Fort Pierce Islamic Center, where Mateen worshipped several times a week, was under investigation by both the FBI and DHS as early as 2011 for ties to a worldwide Islamic movement known as Tablighi Jamaal which was linked to several terrorist organizations.

But the investigation was shut down under pressure from the Clinton-ran State Dept. and DHS’s Civil Rights and Civil Liberties Office out of fear of offending Muslims, according to recently retired DHS agent Philip Haney.

“The FBI had opened cases twice on him, and yet they found no evidence to charge him; it means they didn’t go through the same basic, analytical process that I went through over a three- or four-hour period in which I was able to link the mosque to my previous cases,” he told WND on Sunday.

In other words, the FBI had limited options at stopping Mateen because it was ordered to back off its investigation into his mosque.

Both Clinton and the Obama administration have a history of enabling Islamic terrorism.

In 2012, Clinton’s State Dept. was backing al-Qaeda in Iraq, which morphed into ISIS, and other Islamic extremist groups as a proxy army to topple Syrian President Bashir al-Assad.

“The Salafist [sic], the Muslim Brotherhood and AQI [al-Qaeda in Iraq] are the major forces driving the insurgency in Syria,” a leaked memo between her State Dept. and the Pentagon stated. “The West, Gulf countries, and Turkey support [this] opposition, while Russia, China and Iran ‘support the [Assad] regime.’”

This secret document confirms that Clinton’s State Dept. – and the Obama administration in general – were directly responsible for the rise of ISIS, which is now targeting the West.

The former head of the Defense Intelligence Agency, Lieutenant General Michael Flynn, confirmed the document’s importance.

“I don’t know that [the Obama administration] turned a blind eye [to ISIS], I think it was a decision; I think it was a willful decision,” he said.

Clinton even admitted some responsibility.

“…The United States had – to be fair – we had helped create the problem we’re now fighting,” she said in an interview with Fox anchor Greta Van Susteren. “When the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan, we had this brilliant idea we were going to come to Pakistan and create a force on Mujahideen, equip them with Stinger missiles and everything else to go after the Soviets inside Afghanistan.”

“Now you look back [and] the people we’re fighting today, we were supporting in the fight against the Soviets.”

Additionally, on Oct. 1 President Obama authorized a shipment of guns to ISIS-linked militants in Syria – the exact same day he demanded more gun control in response to Umpqua Community College shooting in Ore.

“The approval came at a National Security Council meeting on Thursday,” CNN reported at the time. “…The President also emphasized to his team that the U.S. would continue to support the Syrian opposition as Russia enters the war-torn country.”

But as his administration admitted in the 2012 leaked memo, the “Syrian opposition” is predominantly jihadist militants – just like the Orlando killer.

FOLLOW for more BREAKING news: https://www.facebook.com/RealKitDaniels
SUBSCRIBE on YouTube:

Brother-in-Law of Nightclub Killer Hates Trump, Works With “Refugees”

Infowars

Paul Joseph Watson

The brother-in-law of nightclub jihadist Omar Mateen hates Donald Trump, works with refugees, and liked a video on YouTube that argued Islam isn’t violent, according to his social media profiles.

An investigation of Mustafa Abasin’s Internet activity by GotNews.com’s Chuck Johnson reveals that he lists one of his employment areas as “refugee camps,” although it appears that his current job is with insurance broker Allianz.

Property records also show that Abasin bought Mateen’s house for just $100 dollars back on April 5, 2016.

Abasin’s YouTube history ironically shows that he watched and liked a video called “10 Lies You Were Told About Islam.” Lie number 4 is “Muslims Support Violence.”

After the deadliest mass shooting in U.S. history, Abasin blamed the rampage not on his brother-in-law’s Islam-based hatred of gay people, but on the availability of guns.

Given that Mateen is a registered Democrat it also comes as no surprise that Abasin hates Donald Trump, sharing numerous posts on Facebook that describe Trump as a racist for wanting to control Muslim immigration and calling him a Nazi.

In one of his own posts, Abasin argues that Trump is taking advantage of the notion that America “belongs to the whites” and that Trump’s success is based on “white power ideology”.

Multiple suspects on the loose in Orlando; total media blackout of eyewitness accounts

Intellihub

ORLANDO, Flor. (INTELLIHUB) According to heavily censored eyewitness reports, totally suppressed from the mainstream, there were likely several other radicalized perpetrators involved with Saturday night’s terror attack, which led deaths of 49 club-goers at Pulse and over 50 others being injured.

One eyewitness to the attack, who was inside the nightclub when it happened, was giving his testimony to the attack, after being trapped inside the club, live on-air, to a mainstream news source when he was abruptly cut off after providing a crucial detail. The eyewitness said that during the attack “there was a guy there that was trying to […] hold the door closed so that we couldn’t exit,” as pointed out by an investigative reporter on YouTube.

Additionally, there were reports that police could be seen quietly conducting an “active search” for accomplices who may have already exited the nightclub after the attack.

Another eyewitness that was inside Pulse when the attack occurred told reporters, “I’m pretty sure it was more than one person, you know, like I said, I heard two guns going at the same time.” The eyewitness said that the event lasted “like eight minutes.”

Another crucial detail that the press is leaving out is that the shooter or shooters were initiating “rapid fire;” which means that the weapons used were likely fully automatic, as depicted by the same eyewitness when he made an animated machine gun-like sound with his mouth for the press to hear.

The witness said that he could smell the gun smoke in the air and that the attackers were “working together.”

“It was not one shot at a time,” but rather from a machine gun,” another witness said, who eventually made it out of the club into the “alleyway.”

Raw footage from the scene also reveals that officers may have been engaging an additional perpetrator outside of the nightclub, backing up other reports.

It has also been reported that both FBI and police, around the country, are increasing their security protocols, dispatching undercover officers and specifically beefing up security measures at the annual Gay Pride Parade which is still currently underway in Los Angeles.

Moreover, officials also are concerned that there is a ‘gaping hole’ in the nation’s security net and that more attacks may occur.

Authorities and even the President of the United States, Barack Obama, are currently downplaying the fact that there is a definite radicalized Islamic ideological connection to the attack and again, are covering up the fact that multiple suspects are likely still on the loose.

Shepard Ambellas is an opinion journalist, filmmaker, radio talk show host and the founder and editor-in-chief of Intellihub News & Politics. Established in 2013, Intellihub.com is ranked in the upper 1% traffic tier on the World Wide Web. Read more from Shep’s World. Get the Podcast. Follow Shep on Facebook and Twitter.

CONFIRMED: FBI Introduced Florida Shooter to “Informants”

Activist Post

Tony Cartalucci

 

It is now confirmed that in addition to two investigations and two interviews, Florida terror suspect Omar Mateen was also approached by “informants” working for the US Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) over a period of 10 months.

New York Daily News in their article, “FBI spied on Orlando gay club terrorist Omar Mateen for 10 months in 2013: FBI Director James Comey,” would admit (emphasis added):

Mateen first appeared on authorities’ radar in 2013 after the security guard’s colleagues alerted the FBI to inflammatory statements he made to colleagues claiming “family connections to Al Qaeda,” according to Comey.

Mateen also told coworkers he had a family member who belonged to Hezbollah, a Shia network that is a bitter enemy of ISIS — the network he pledged allegiance to the night of the carnage, Comey noted.

The FBI’s Miami office opened an inquiry into Mateen.

“He said he hoped that law enforcement would raid his apartment and assault his wife and child so he could martyr himself,” Comey said.

Nevertheless, FBI investigators investigated Mateen, who was born in New York, for 10 months. They introduced him to confidential informants, spied on his communications and followed him. They also interviewed him twice.

Informants Posing as Handlers

The significance of this cannot be understated. “Informants” in this context, according to FBI affidavits regarding similar counterterrorism investigations, refers to individuals posing as members of terrorist organizations who approach suspects, coerce them into planning and preparing for terrorist attacks, before finally aiding the FBI in the suspect’s arrest before the attack is finally carried out.

Among the activities these informants carry out includes providing and training suspects in the use of real explosives, providing suspects with arsenals of weapons precisely like those used in the recent shooting in Orlando Florida, and encouraging suspects to adopt “radical ideology” over the course of the investigation. Suspects are given the false impression that they are working on behalf of terrorist organizations like Al Qaeda or the self-proclaimed “Islamic State,” often cultivating delusions of grandeur among otherwise mentally ill suspects.

The Intercept in its recent article, “Before Nightclub Shooting, FBI Pursued Questionable Florida ‘Terror’ Suspects,” would note that the FBI’s Miami office who investigated Mateen, has been “among the bureau’s most active and aggressive counterterrorism units.”

It would also report on the specifics of this unit’s activities:

For more than a year ending in April — a time during which investigators will now be looking for any clues from Mateen that might have been missed — the FBI in Miami focused on a counterterrorism sting that targeted James Medina, a homeless man with mental problems.

The Intercept would reveal that the FBI informant, not Medina, came up with the idea of crediting the planned attack to the “Islamic State.” In fact, upon reading the FBI’s affidavit (.pdf), it is clear the FBI’s informant encouraged and walked Medina through every aspect of the planned attack, including providing him with what he thought was an explosive device.

Upon reading Medina’s incoherent conversations with various FBI informants, it is clear he possessed neither the mental or technical capacity on his own to perpetrate the attacks he was arrested for.

The Intercept would continue:

Nearly a year before Medina’s arrest, the FBI’s Miami office arrested another supposed terrorist, 23-year-old Cuban-American Harlem Suarez, also known as Almlak Benitez, whom former co-workers described as “a little slow.” The government alleged that Suarez conspired with an FBI informant to bomb a beach in Key West in support of the Islamic State. The FBI provided a fake backpack bomb.

Finally, the Intercept would reveal (emphasis added):

The Orlando shooting isn’t the first case to raise this question. In 2011, when the FBI investigated Boston Marathon bomber Tamerlan Tsarnaev, agents did not deem him a threat.

Instead, at about the same time, the Boston FBI started a nine-month sting operation against Rezwan Ferdaus, who had no weapons and no connections to international terrorists, and whose mental wellness had deteriorated so much that he was wearing adult diapers at the time of his arrest on terrorism charges.

Rezwan Ferdaus, like Medina, was provided assistance by the FBI every step of the way, including being provided 24 lbs of C4 explosives, 6 fully automatic AK47 rifles, and 3 grenades – the FBI’s own affidavit reveals (.pdf). He was brought deep into a fictional world where he believed he was working directly with Al Qaeda for nearly a year – told that “detonation devices” he constructed and passed on to FBI informants were “used” in Iraq to “kill” American soldiers.

Man-accused-of-DC-terrorist-plot-9FE6VKV-x-largeImage: The FBI provided Ferdaus with thousands of dollars to purchase various pieces of equipment for his planned “drone attack” on Washington D.C.

The FBI’s informants conduct similar practices in virtually all of their investigations.

In 2010, the FBI investigated naturalized US citizen and Oregon resident Mohamed Osman Mohamud. In their own official statement titled, “Oregon Resident Arrested in Plot to Bomb Christmas Tree Lighting Ceremony in Portland,” released by the U.S. Attorney’s Office on November 26, 2010 it was stated (emphasis added):

According to the affidavit, on November 4, 2010, Mohamud and the undercover FBI operatives traveled to a remote location in Lincoln County, Ore., where they detonated a bomb concealed in a backpack as a trial run for the upcoming attack.

The FBI in February 2012 provided another suspect with live explosives in the lead up to what was ultimately a foiled suicide bombing planned with the help of FBI informants at the US Capitol.

mohamed-bomb-800x600Image: The bomb the FBI constructed for the Portland “Christmas tree bomber.”

USA Today reported in their article, “FBI foils alleged suicide bomb attack on U.S. Capitol,” that (emphasis added):

According to a counterterrorism official, El Khalifi “expressed interest in killing at least 30 people and considered targeting a building in Alexandria and a restaurant, synagogue and a place where military personnel gather in Washington before he settled on the Capitol after canvassing that area a couple of times,” the Associated Press writes. During the year-long investigation, El Khalifi detonated explosives at a quarry in the capital region with undercover operatives. He is not believed to be affiliated with al-Qaeda, officials said.

Considering the disturbing activities conducted by FBI informants during these “investigations,” the FBI appears obligated to tell the American public just what their “informants” were doing with Florida shooting suspect Omar Mateen in the 10 months they were “investigating” him beginning in 2013.

Did they also walk Mateen through planned attacks he ultimately backed out of? Did he eventually change his mind again after the FBI’s investigation was allegedly closed?

The American media and US elected representatives have an obligation to ask these questions, obtain this information from the FBI, and to reevaluate the FBI’s means and methods of investigating potential suspects through what is clearly a dangerous process of entrapment, indoctrination, and deceit.

The FBI’s counterterrorism program has not made America safer. It has clearly been used to provide a steady stream of “foiled attacks” that otherwise would never have materialized – causing hysteria, hatred, fear, and division across American society. The FBI’s counterterrorism program has also clearly failed monumentally to stop actual terror suspects know to them before real attacks have unfolded.

The FBI is supposed to represent an asset for the domestic security of the United States – but in reality it appears to be one of the most compromised of liabilities.

Top Image: myspace

Tony Cartalucci’s articles have appeared on many alternative media websites, including his own at Land Destroyer Report, Alternative Thai News Network and LocalOrg.I

9/11 ON DEMAND: DECLASSIFY THE 28 SECRET PAGES

CALEB HITT

THEDAILYRESISTANCE.COM

This week on Battle of New Orleans Radio Show, with Goyim in studio, I discussed Infowars reporter Richard Reeves questioning Jeb Bush if he’d like to see the 28 secret pages of the 9/11 report. (Joint Inquiry into Intelligence Activities Before and After the Terrorist Attacks of September 2001).  To which, Jeb Bush replied, “Yea, yea, sure I’d like to see them. You got em, do you have them?”, before hurriedly scuttling away!  I wonder if Bush thought someone had leaked the secret pages to infowars, lol.  Watch the encounter with Jeb Bush in the video below.

I then brought up an interview Rep. Walter Jones (R-NC-3) did about how he introduced House Resolution 14 on January 6th, 2015.  H.R. 14 urges the President to release the pages to the public.  Rep. Jones was instructing listeners to visit 28pages.org, where legislative information is given about H.R. 14 and how people can get involved by writing to their Congressmen, using a pre-written, ready to print letter, asking them to sponsor the bill.  The letter asks the Congressmen for a reply with answers to 2 questions. The first question is, “Have you read the 28 pages?”.  The second is, “If not, have you formally requested permission from the House Intelligence Committee to do so?

The letter goes on to say, “It’s important to me that you read the 28 pages, because it’s impossible for you to reach fully informed conclusions about U.S. defense and foreign policy without knowing about sources of foreign support of the 9/11 hijackers. I want to read the 28 pages for the very same reason.”  To read the full content of the letter and ask your Congressional Representative to co-sponsor the bill, click here.

Rep. (R-KY) Thomas Massie, one of the original co-sponsors after reading the 28 secret pages described them as “shocking” and said, “I had to stop every couple pages and…try to rearrange my understanding of history.  It challenges you to rethink everything.”

As I mentioned on the radio, as of January 9th, 2016, there were 35 co-sponsors.  Since then, 6 more Congressman has signed on, bringing the total to 41.

What I didn’t mention on air though is something I wrote about last June regarding Rep. (R-KY) Rand Paul’s introduction of S.B. 1471, otherwise known as “Transparency for the Families of 9/11 Act”.

The difference between the 2 pieces of legislation is S.B. 1471 requires the President to release the 28 secret pages, whereas H.R. 14 simply urges the President to do so.

Senators who have read the redacted pages have vehemently pointed to Saudi involvement in 9/11.  After all, 15 out the 19 alleged hijackers hailed from Saudi Arabia.  Strangely though, former President George W. Bush didn’t send any troops or bombs there.  One thing that raised some eyebrows is the fact President Bush was observed holding hands with then Saudi Crown Prince Abdullah in April, 2005 at his personal Texas ranch.

www.gettyimages.com  US President George W. Bush (L) holds hands with Saudi Arabian Crown Prince Abdullah while walking past some blue bonnets at his Crawford ranch 25 April ...

www.gettyimages.com
US President George W. Bush (L) holds hands with Saudi Arabian Crown Prince Abdullah while walking past some blue bonnets at his Crawford ranch 25 April …

Senator Paul has stated, “We cannot let page after page of blanked-out documents be obscured by a veil.”

“Information revealed over the years does raise questions about [Saudi Arabia’s] support, or whether their support might have been supported to these al Qaeda terrorists,” Paul noted.

“We owe it to these families, and we cannot let this lack of transparency erode trust and make us feel less secure.” Paul added.

Former Sen. Bob Graham (D-Fla.), who oversaw the Congressional inquiry, and is firm-gripped that there is a Saudi related cover up, said “The 28 pages are very important and will, I think, inform the American people and, in so doing, will cause the American government to reconsider the nature of our relationship with Saudi Arabia,”

“But beyond that, these are emblematic of a pattern of withholding information unnecessarily and to the detriment of the American people.” Graham added.

The section of the inquiry, titled “Finding, Discussion and Narrative Regarding Certain National Security Matters,” is believed to have been withheld by both the Bush and Obama administrations “for fear of alienating an influential military and economic partner rather than for any national security consideration,” the New York Times reported last year.

Rep. (R-NC) Walter Jones and Massachusetts Rep. (D-MA) Stephen Lynch wrote a letter to Obama over a year ago reminding him that on two separate occasions he told family members that he would declassify the pages. “And he hasn’t kept his word,” Jones said to The Daily Beast.

“I don’t know if it might be embarrassing to the Bush administration, how close they were to the Saudi family,” Jones said. “I just don’t know. I can’t put my fingers on it.”

As 28pages.org has stated, Concealing these 28 pages:

A. Prevents the American people from reaching informed judgments about the nation’s foreign and defense policies—past and future.

B. Shields the sponsors of extremism from consequences for their actions—encouraging their continued sponsorship and endangering countless lives at home and abroad.

C. Undermines the ability of 9/11 family members to achieve courtroom justice against governments who aided and abetted the deaths of their loved ones.

This is why it so important you go to 28pages.org today and ask your Congressman and Senators to co-sponsor H.R. 14 and S.B. 1471, demanding President Obama to keep his word.  Now is the time to get involved.  Wake up, resist daily, or become a slave!

 

 

 

PARIS ATTACKS: OBSERVATIONS OF FALSE FLAG ELEMENTS

CALEB HITT

THEDAILYRESISTANCE.COM

In the midst of all the chaos in Paris last night, in which the death toll has seemingly been trimmed to as low as 127, there certainly seems to be some noteworthy anomalies to be observed.  The first one being the discovery of passports identifying  the attackers.  This is creepily reminiscent of 9/11 in which an alleged hijacker’s passport had miraculously fluttered from out of the cockpit, survived the massive jet fuel 1700*F pyro blast explosion and subsequent collapse of the twin towers in which the concrete was completely pulverized into a mega dust cloud reigning down and covering all of Manhattan.  Yet the passport was magically and conveniently discovered on the streets intact on the same day!  Talk about a whacked up conspiracy theory.  They apparently think we’re all stupid enough to believe this crap.  As if terrorism rule #1 is to make sure you have your passport handy before you attack.

Terrorist passport meme

Passport required to commit atrocity

There are conflicting reports about the location of a Syrian passport being found on one of the assailers of the attack.  On one hand, French police said the document was found “near the body of one of the attackers” at the scene of the massacre in the Paris Bataclan concert hall which belonged to an asylum seeker who registered on a Greek island in October.  Nikos Toskas, the Greek minister for citizen protection issued a statement: “We confirm that the Syrian passport holder came through the Greek island of Leros on October 3 where he was registered under EU rules.”

However, Reuters citing sources close to the investigation said the passport was found near the body of one of the suicide bombers who blew himself up on Friday near a Paris soccer stadium.

In addition to the confirmed Syrian bomber, the police have also identified a second terrorist from the Paris attack.

The second attacker was carrying an Egyptian passport when the body was discovered.
European security officials had long feared that jihadists might take advantage of the mass migration influx, that Europe has been experiencing since the beginning of the year.  Greece’s junior minister for migration Yiannis Mouzalas had admitted in September that it would be “foolish” to completely disregard the possibility of jihadists sneaking into Europe among the refugee wave.  Over 800,000 people have crossed the Mediterranean to Europe this year.

But Mouzalas noted that the number of Europeans joining extremist groups in the Middle East was far higher.

“The opposite is happening. They leave from here and go over there,” he said.

Meanwhile, witnesses reported hearing at least two of the terrorists at the Bataclan Theatre speaking perfect French.  According to French daily El Figaro, investigators have recordings of two of the terrorists at the Bataclan communicating in French.
Another anomaly is being reported by France Info Radio.  Another tell-tale hallmark sign of a false flag element running parallel with the attacks.   There were massive drills being staged in Paris on the day of the attacks.  This is huge news because so often we see drills being carried out at the same time as real events unfold, and this of course is no coincidence. In the video below, Patrick Pelloux, an EMT and chronicler at Charlie Hebdo speaks of a planned multi sight attack exercise at the Paris SAMU (EMT) on the same morning, “…so we were prepared.  What needs to be known is there was a mobilization of police forces, firemen, EMTs, associations who came (to participate).  And we tried to save as many people as possible.”  To learn more of the common use of emergency/military drills running simultaneously alongside of real world terrorism events, click here.

We now come to perhaps the most disturbing anomaly as pointed out by International Business Times.  More than 115 people were killed during a hostage crisis before police SWAT teams stormed the Bataclan theater in central Paris at around 1 a.m. Saturday local time, freeing an unknown number of victims and killing three terror suspects, according to a live TV broadcast by CNN.  The Paris SWAT team waited around two hours before entering the building, despite tweets from hostages suggesting that the terrorists were killing people indiscriminatelyIt was not immediately clear how many hostages died before the rescue operation took place, but it’s likely the length of time the police waited will be the subject of scrutiny in the aftermath of the attacks, according to an expert in hostage situations and counterterrorism. “In this case, the police tactical teams should have just gone in straight away, using the quickest preliminary plan they had,” said former Army Special Forces Col. Steve Bucci, now director of the Center for Foreign and National Security Policy at the Heritage Foundation, a Washington, D.C., think tank. “With their high level of training they could have gone in and used their instincts to resolve this situation quickly.”

Why in the world would the SWAT team wait for 2 hours?  Who is going to explain that? It’s as if the Bataclan theatre massacre was ALLOWED TO HAPPEN to maximize the casualties.  All I’m saying is that there is much more happening than meets the eye and with these kinds of questions, the door is certainly open to give consideration to the whole entire false flag concept.  Yes, real people have lost their lives and many people in America are highly sympathetic and praying for the people of Paris, and rightly so.  Funny though, I don’t recall people on social media altering their profile pics with shades of the Russian flag when the passenger plane blew up over Egypt which killed MORE people.  And I didn’t notice a single call to pray for the Russians.  Oh, but I guess we are supposed to believe Russia is our enemy and France is our friend.  What do you think?

 

FBI Evidence Proves Innocence of Accused Boston Marathon Bomber Dzhokhar Tsarnaev

Dr. Paul Craig Roberts 

I have been contacted by attorney John Remington Graham, a member in good standing of the bar of the Minnesota Supreme Court and the United States Supreme Court. He informs me that acting in behalf of Maret Tsanaeva, the aunt of the accused Tsamaev brothers and a citizen of the Kyrgyz Republic where she is qualified to practice law, he has assisted her in filing with the US District Court in Boston a pro se motion, including an argument of amicus curiae, and an affidavit of Maret Tsarnaeva. The presiding judge has ordered that these documents be included in the formal record of the case so they will be publicly accessible. The documents are reproduced below.

The documents argue that on the basis of the evidence provided by the FBI, there is no basis for the indictment of Dzhokhar Tsarnaev. The FBI’s evidence clearly concludes that the bomb was in a black knapsack, but the photographs used to establish Dzhokhar’s presence at the marathon show him with a white knapsack. Moreover, the knapsack lacks the heavy bulging appearance that a knapsack containing a bomb would have.

As readers know, I have been suspicious of the Boston Marathon Bombing from the beginning. It seems obvious that both Tsamaev brothers were intended to be killed in the alleged firefight with police, like the alleged perpetrators of the Charlie Hebdo affair in Paris. Convenient deaths in firefights are accepted as indications of guilt and solve the problem of trying innocent patsies.

In Dzhokhar’s case, his guilt was established not by evidence but by accusations, by the betrayal of his government-appointed public defender Judy Clarke who declared Dzhokhar’s guilt in her opening statement of her “defense,” by an alleged confession, evidence of which was never provided, written by Dzhokhar on a boat under which the badly wounded youth lay dying until discovered by the boat owner and hospitalized in critical condition. Following his conviction by his defense attorney, Dzhokhar allegedly confessed again in jihadist terms. As legal scholars have known for centuries, confessions are worthless as indicators of guilt.

Dzhokhar was not convicted on the basis of evidence.

In my questioning of John Remington Graham, I concluded that despite 48 years of active experience with criminal justice, both as a prosecuting attorney and defense attorney, he was shocked to his core by the legal malfeasance of the Tsarnaev case. As Graham is nearing the end of his career, he is willing to speak out, but he could not find a single attorney in the state of Massachusetts who would sponsor his appearance before the Federal District Court in Boston.

This tells me that fear of retribution has now extended its reach into the justice (sic) system and that the America that we knew where law was a shield of the people no longer exists.

Here is the Affidavit of Maret Tsarnaeva:

AFFIDAVIT OF MARET TSARNAEVA CONCERNING THE PROSECUTION OF DZHOKHAR TSARNAEV

Mindful that this affidavit may be filed or displayed as an offer of proof with her authorization in public proceedings contemplated by the laws of the United States of America, and in reliance upon Title 28 of the United States Code, Section 1746, Maret Tsarnaeva deposes and says:

I am the paternal aunt of Dzhokhar Tsarnaev who has been prosecuted before the United States District Court for Massachusetts upon indictment of a federal grand jury returned on June 27, 2013, for causing one of two explosions on Boylston Street in Boston on April 15, 2013. In the count for conspiracy, certain other overt acts of wrongdoing are mentioned. As I understand the indictment, if Dzhokhar did not carry and detonate an improvised explosive device or pressure-cooker bomb as alleged, all thirty counts fail, although perhaps some lingering questions, about which I offer no comment here, might remain for resolution, subject to guarantees of due process of law, within the jurisdiction of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.

I am currently living in Grozny, the capital of Chechnya which is a republic within the Russian Federation. My academic training included full-time studies in a five-year program of the Law Faculty at the Kyrgyz State University, and I also hold the degree of master of laws (LL. M.), with focus on securities laws, granted by the University of Manitoba while I lived in Canada. I am qualified to practice law in Kyrgyzstan. I am fluent in Russian, Chechen, and English, and am familiar with other languages. I am prepared to testify under oath in public proceedings in the United States, if my expenses are paid, and if my personal safety and right of return to my home in Chechnya are adequately assured in advance.

Aside from other anomalies and other aspects of the case on which I make no comment here, I am aware of several photo exhibits, upon which the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) relied, or of evidence which their crime laboratory has produced, and certain other reports or material. Together, these plainly show that Dzhokhar was not carrying a large, nylon, black backpack, including a white-rectangle marking at the top, and containing a heavy pressure- cooker bomb, shortly before explosions in Boston on April 15, 2013, as claimed by the FBI and as alleged in the indictment for both explosions. On the contrary, these photo exhibits show unmistakably that Dzhokhar was carrying over his right shoulder a primarily white backpack which was light in weight, and was not bulging or sagging as would have been evident if it contained a heavy pressure-cooker bomb. The only reasonable conclusion is that Dzhokhar was not responsible for either of the explosions in question.

On or about June 20-21, 2013, during their first trip to Russia, which lasted about ten days more or less, Judy Clarke and William Fick, lawyers from the federal public defender’s office in Boston, visited my brother Anzor Tsarnaev, and his wife Zubeidat, respectively the father and mother of Dzhokhar. The meeting was at the home of Dzhokhar’s parents in Makhachka which is in the republic of Dagestan adjacent to the republic of Chechnya, and about three hours’ drive from Grozny. My mother, my sister Malkan, and I were present at this meeting. Zubeidat speaks acceptable English. Mr. Fick is fluent in Russian.

Laying aside other details of the conversation on June 20-21, 2013, I wish to note the following:

— The lawyers from Boston strongly advised that Anzor and Zubeidat refrain from saying in public that Dzhokhar and his brother Tamerlan were not guilty. They warned that, if their advice were not followed, Dzhokhar’s life in custody near Boston would be more difficult;

— Mme Clarke and Mr. Fick also requested of Anzor and Zubeidat that they assist in influencing Dzhokhar to accept the legal representation of the federal public defender’s office in Boston. Mr. Fick revealed that Dzhokhar was refusing the services of the federal public defender’s office in Boston, and sending lawyers and staff away when they visited him in custody. In reaction to the suggestion of Mr. Fick, lively discussion followed;

— As Dzhokhar’s family, we expressed our concern that the federal public defender’s office in Boston was untrustworthy, and might not defend Dzhokhar properly, since they were paid by the government of the United States which was prosecuting him, as many believe for political reasons. Dzhokhar’s parents expressed willingness to engage independent counsel, since Dzhokhar did not trust his government-appointed lawyers. Mr. Fick reacted by saying that the government agents and lawyers would obstruct independent counsel;

— I proposed that Dzhokhar’s family hire independent counsel to work with the federal public defender’s office in order to assure proper and effective representation of Dzhokhar. Mr. Fick replied that, if independent counsel were hired by the family, the federal public defender’s office in Boston would withdraw;

— Mr. Fick then assured Anzor and Zubeidat that the United States Department of Justice had allotted $5 million to Dzhokhar’s defense, and that the federal public defender’s office in Boston intended to defend Dzhokhar properly. Zubeidat then and there said little concerning assurances of Mr. Fick. But for my part, I never believed that the federal public defender’s office in Boston ever intended to defend Dzhokhar as promised. And my impressions from what happened during the trial lead me to believe that the federal public defender’s office in Boston did not defend Dzhokhar competently and ethically.

In any event, I am aware that, following the meeting on June 20-21, 2013, Mme Clarke and Mr. Fick continued to spend time with Anzor and Zubeidat, and eventually persuaded Zubeidat to sign a typed letter in Russian to Dzhokhar, urging him to cooperate wholeheartedly with the federal public defender’s office in Boston. I am informed by my sister Malkan, that Zubeidat gave the letter to the public defenders, shortly before their departure from Russia on or about June 29, 2013, for delivery to Dzhokhar.

During subsequent trips Mme Clarke and Mr. Fick to see Dzhokhar’s parents in Makhachkala, the strategy for defending Dzhokhar was explained, as I learned from my sister Malkan. The public defender’s office in Boston intended to contend at trial, as actually has happened since, that Tamerlan, now deceased, was the mastermind of the crime, and that Dzhokhar was merely following his big brother. I was firmly opposed to this strategy as morally and legally wrong, because Dzhokhar is not guilty, as FBI-generated evidence shows. Some ill- feeling has since developed between myself and Dzhokhar’s parents over their acquiescence.

On or about June 19, 2014, during their visit to Grozny over nearly two weeks, three staff members from the public defender’s office in Boston visited my mother and sisters in Grozny. I am told that they also visited Dzhokhar’s parents in Makhachkala.

The personnel visiting my mother and sisters in Grozny on or about June 19, 2014, included one Charlene, who introduced herself as an independent investigator, working in and with the federal public defender’s office in Boston; another by the name of Jane, a social worker who claimed to have spoken with Dzhokhar; and a third, by the name of Olga, who was a Russian- English interpreter from New Jersey. They did not leave business cards, but stayed at the main hotel in Grozny, hence I presume that their surnames can be ascertained.

I was not present at the meeting in Grozny on or about June 19, 2014, but my sister Malkan, who was present, called me by telephone immediately after the meeting concluded. She revealed to me then the details of the conversation at the meeting. Malkan and I have since spoken about the visit on several occasions.

Malkan speaks Russian and Chechen and is willing to testify under oath in public proceedings in the United States through an interpreter in Russian, if her expenses are paid, and if her personal safety and right of return to her home in Chechnya are adequately assured in advance. She relates, and has authorized me to state for her that, during the conversation on June 19, 2014, in Grozny, Charlene the independent investigator stated flatly that the federal public defender’s office in Boston knew that Dzhokhar was not guilty as charged, and that their office was under enormous pressure from law enforcement agencies and high levels of the government of the United States not to resist conviction. [Remember what happened to Lynne Stewart, the federally appointed public defender who actually served her client. She was sentenced to prison.]

This affidavit is executed outside of the United States, but the foregoing account is true to the best of my knowledge, information, and belief, and subject to the pains and penalties of perjury under the laws of the United States of America.

Given on this 17th day of April 2015.

/s/ Maret Tsarnaeva

Here is the Argument of Amicus Curiae:

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

ARGUMENT OF AMICUS CURIAE No. 13-CR-10200-GAO

MAY IT PLEASE THE COURT:

1. Federal jurisdiction: The constitutional authority of the United States cannot be extended to the prosecution of Dzhokhar Tsarnaev in light of the opinion of the court in United States v. Lopez, 514 U. S. 549 (1995), and views of Alexander Hamilton in The Federalist, Ns. 17, 22, and 34 [Clinton Rossiter (ed.), Mentor edition by New American Library, New York, 1961, pp. 118, 143-144, and 209]. Congress has broad power to regulate commerce, including trade and the incidents of trade, but domestic crimes and use of weapons are generally reserved to the States. If there is sufficient evidence to prosecute Dzhokhar for murder and mayhem, he should and can be prosecuted exclusively by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Accordingly, amicus urges that the indictment now pending should be dismissed, and the conviction of her nephew Dzhokhar Tsarnaev of charges under several acts of Congress should be vacated.

2. The actual innocence of the accused: Laying aside misgivings of amicus and many others about of the “official” scenario concerning this case, as broadcast to the world by the government and mainstream news media of the United States, evidence generated by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), confirmed on the judicial record of this cause, and clarified by the indictment, or suitable for judicial notice under Rule 201(b) of the Federal Rules of Evidence, conclusively proves that Dzhokhar Tsarnaev cannot be guilty of the crimes charged in this prosecution.

The formal indictment against Dzhokhar Tsarnaev was returned on June 27, 2013. The document is 74 pages long, and accuses Mr. Tsarnaev (hereinafter called Dzhokhar) of heinous crimes, including many counts punishable by death. The central event for which Dzhokhar is alleged to have been responsible, according to the indictment, took place, on Boylston Street, in front of the Forum Restaurant, near the finish line of the Boston marathon on April 15, 2013. The most important paragraphs of the indictment are numbered 6, 7, and 24 (including several other paragraphs repeating expressly or by implication the substance thereof). Paragraphs 6-7, read in themselves and in context, state that, acting in concert withhis (now deceased) brother, Dzhokhar set down on the sidewalk and detonated one of two “black backpacks” which contained “improvised explosive devices,” these “constructed from pressure cookers, low explosive power, shrapnel, adhesive, and other materials.” Paragraph 24 clarifies that the black backpack carried, and containing the pressure-cooker bomb allegedly detonated by Dzhokhar, was placed in front of the Forum Restaurant and was associated with the second explosion. The indictment says in paragraph 6 that both bombs exploded at about 2:49 in the afternoon (Eastern time), and that the bombs Dzhokhar and his brother placed and detonated each killed at least one person, and wounded scores of others.

On the morning after the explosions, i. e., on April 16, 2013, Richard DesLauriers, special agent in charge of the FBI in Boston, made a public statement at a press conference, which is published in printed form on the FBI website and in the news media concerning the facts later set forth in the indictment. Mr. DesLauriers said, as paragraphs 6-7 of the indictment substantially confirm,

“. . . this morning, it was determined that both of the explosives were placed in a dark-colored nylon bag or backpack. The bag would have been heavy, because of the components believed to be in it.

“. . . we are asking that the public remain alert, and to alert us to the following activity . . . someone who appeared to be carrying an unusually heavy bag yesterday around the time of the blasts and in the vicinity of the blasts.”

The FBI also published on April 16, 2013, a crime lab photo of a bomb fragment found after the explosions This photo is reproduced as Tsarnaeva exhibit 1 in the appendix hereof, and is believed proper for judicial notice.

From this bomb fragment, the FBI crime lab was able to reconstruct the size, shape, and type of pressure cookers, as was reported on information published by the FBI to the nation on ABC News Nightline on April 16, 2013. A still-frame, taken from (about 01:39-01:54) of this ABC television report, is reproduced as Tsarnaeva exhibit 2 in the appendix hereof, and is offered for judicial notice. A larger segment of this ABC Nightline News report (at about 01:31-02:14) elaborates facts set forth in paragraphs 6-7 of the indictment, including reference to three of the four exhibits reproduced in the appendix hereof. Each of the pressure cookers in question was a Fagor, 6-quart model, marketed in or near Boston and elsewhere in the United States by Macey’s. Its external dimensions are probably about 81⁄2 inches in height, including cover, and about 9 inches in diameter. Stripped of hard plastic handles and filled with nails, bee bees, and other such metal, then prepared as a bomb, it would cause a bag carrying it to be, as observed by the FBI chief in Boston during his press conference on April 16, 2013, “unusually heavy.”

Again on April 16, 2013, the FBI published a crime lab photo, here reproduced as Tsarnaeva exhibit 3 in the appendix hereof, and showing a blown- out backpack which is said to have contained one of the bombs, — a black nylon bag with a characteristic white rectangle marking about 3 by 11⁄2 inches more or less as it appeared following the explosions the day before. This photo pictures the “dark colored nylon bag or backpack” which Mr. DesLauriers described in his press conference on the day after the explosions when he described what was carried by the guilty parties. It was one of the “black backpacks” referenced in paragraph 7 of the indictment. It is pictured in prosecution exhibit 26 which was introduced on the second day of the trial in this cause (day 28 on the transcript, March 5, 2015), showing that the bag or backpack in question was found on the street near the post box in front of the Forum Restaurant on Boylston Street, and, as previously noted, was associated with the second explosion on April 15, 2013, which, in paragraph 24 of the indictment, Dzhokhar is alleged to have detonated. This general impression is confirmed by defense exhibit 3090, showing a backpack with black exterior or covering, and introduced on the sixteenth day of the trial (day 42 on the transcript, March 31, 2015). Tsarnaeva exhibit 3 is also suitable for judicial notice.

On April 18, 2013, the FBI published a 29-second street video claimed to have been taken from Whiskey’s Steak House on Boylston Street at about 02:37- 38 o’clock in the afternoon (Eastern time), only minutes before the explosions on April 15, 2013. It definitively settles the principal question raised by the indictment and the plea of not guilty interposed against it. Part of this video is tucked into prosecution exhibit 22 introduced on the third day of the trial in this cause (day 29 on the transcript, March 9, 2015). From this street video, three still-frame photos have been extracted. Two of these still-frame photos were published by the FBI on April 18, 2013, on posters which were used to identify suspects. All three photos were published by CNN and the Associated Press on April 19, 2013. The third still-frame photo from this video is most telling, and is reproduced as Tsarnaeva exhibit 4 in the appendix hereof. As already noted, the FBI and the indictment have together affirmed that the culprits who detonated these explosions were carrying large, unusually heavy, black backpacks concealing pressure-cooker bombs; but, the third still-frame photo from the Whiskey’s Steak House video reproduced as Tsarnaeva exhibit 4, and drawn from a street video already used by the FBI to identify the suspects and acknowledged by the government in this prosecution, shows unmistakably that, shortly before the explosions, Dzhokhar was carrying a small-size, white* backpack over his right shoulder the same light in weight, not heavy laden, and displaying no sagging or bulging as would normally be evident if the bag identified contained a pressure-cooker bomb of the size and weight which the FBI has described.

(*For all practical purposes and to the naked eye, the color is white, although technical computer analysis suggests a very whitish shade of gray.)

Dzhokhar is not guilty of carrying and detonating a pressure-cooker bomb, as charged in the indictment, as is literally as obvious as the difference between black and white. There were and remain other suspects whose identities have been credibly suggested. See, e. g., Toni Cartalucci, Land Destroyer Report, April 19, 2013 (illustrated commentary entitled “‘Contractors’ Stood Near Bomb, Left Before Detonation.”). But here it is enough to reflect on the comment of Lord Acton that “historic responsibility has to make up for the want of legal responsibility.” — J. Rufus Fears, Selected Writings of Lord Acton, Liberty Fund, Indianapolis, 1985, Vol. 2, p. 383 (Letter to Mandell Creighton, April 5, 1887). Whatever is done in judicial proceedings, history will judge this case, as surely as history has judged other significant cases.

3. The grievance of amicus: It is impossible that federal prosecutors and counsel for the accused did not know of the exculpatory evidence which has just been identified and illustrated. Yet federal prosecutors went head without probable cause, as if decisive evidence of actual innocence, impossible to ignore in a diligent study of this case, did not exist, as is wholly unacceptable in light of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U. S. 83 at 86-87 (1963).

Moreover, in her opening statement at trial on March 4, 2015, as reflected in the fourth paragraph of the transcript of her comments, court-appointed counsel for the accused forcefully insisted that Dzhokhar was guilty of capital felonies, as is positively disproved by evidence generated by the FBI, reinforced by the indictment itself. She said,

“The government and the defense will agree about many things that happened during the week of April 15th, 2013. On Marathon Monday, Tamerlan Tsarnaev walked down Boylston Street with a backpack on his back, carrying a pressure cooker bomb, and put it down in front of Marathon Sports near the finish line of the Marathon. Jahar [i. e., Dzhokhar] Tsarnaev walked down Boylston Street with a backpack on his back carrying a pressure cooker bomb and placed it next to a tree in front of the Forum Restaurant. The explosions extinguished three lives.”

And in her summation to the jury on April 6, 2015, as the transcript shows, court-appointed counsel for the accused said nothing of the exculpatory evidence in this case. She did not even ask for a verdict of not guilty. She could hardly have done more to promote a conviction and the severest sentence possible, even though the third still-frame photo from the video at Whiskey’s Steak House, reproduced as Tsarnaeva exhibit 4, showed Dzhokhar carrying a white backpack, as alone was enough to defeat the indictment insofar as paragraph 7 thereof averred that the accused and his brother committed the principal acts of wrongdoing by carrying and setting down black backpacks. Such misconduct is altogether unacceptable in light of Strickland v. Washington, 446 U. S. 668 at 687- 688 (1984).

The misconduct of which amicus complains served to conceal decisive exculpatory evidence by legerdemain. Amicus urges not only that the death penalty may not be imposed in this case, for all three opinions in Herrera v. Collins, 506 U. S. 390 (1993), allow that the death penalty may not be constitutionally imposed where the accused is demonstrably innocent, but that sua sponte this court order a new trial with directions that new counsel for the accused be appointed, motivated to provide an authentic defense for Dzhokhar.

4. The corpus delicti: Paragraph 10 of the indictment recites a statement in the nature of a confession by Dzhokhar written on the inner walls of a boat in Watertown. But with respect to any and all evidence offered or treated as suggesting an extrajudicial admission of guilt in this case, amicus cites the penetrating observation by Sir William Blackstone in his Commentaries on the Laws of England, Edward Christian, London, 1765, Book IV, p. 357: “[E]ven in cases of felony at common law, [confessions] are the weakest and most suspicious of all testimony, ever liable to be obtained by artifice, false hopes, promises of favour, or menaces, seldom remembered accurately, or reported with due precision, and incapable in their nature of being disproved by other negative evidence.” Amicus and countless others suspect that the alleged confession in the boat was staged as artifice to suit the government’s case, and not authentic. But she stands on ancient wisdom which casts doubt on all extrajudicial confessions without adequate safeguards, including the rule that an extrajudicial confession is insufficient to convict, unless the corpus delicti be sufficiently proved up. The rule is defined with various degrees of rigor from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. In federal courts, in any event, the corroboration required to sustain a confession or statement in the nature of a confession need only be independent, substantial, and reveal the words in question to be reasonably trustworthy, as appears, e. g., in Opper v. United States, 348 U. S. 84 (1954).

If such be the law here applicable, the required corroboration in this case must include evidence showing that Dzhokhar actually carried a large, heavy, black backpack on Boylston Street before the explosions on the afternoon on April 15, 2013, as claimed by the FBI and alleged in the indictment. Tsarnaeva exhibit 4, a product of investigation by the FBI, shows plainly that Dzhokhar did no such thing, hence no required corroboration has been established

5. Closing remarks: The views here expressed are not unique, but shared by good Americans, and others the world over. The undersigned and her sister Malkan are prepared to testify as expressed in the affidavit filed in support of the motion for leave to file a submission as amicus curiae. This argument is

Respectfully submitted,

May 15, 2015 /s/ Maret Tsarnaeva

Zhigulevskaya Str. 7, Apt. 4
364000 Grozny, Chechen Republic, RF Telephone: 011-7-938-899-1671

E-mail: marettsar@gmail.com 10

Of counsel:

John Remington Graham of the Minnesota Bar (#3664X) 180 Haut de la Paroisse
St-Agapit, Quebec G0S 1Z0 Canada
Telephone: 418-888-5049

E-mail: jrgraham@novicomfusion.com

CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE

The undersigned certifies that this submission is consistent with the rules of this Court, that it is prepared in 14-point Times New Roman font, and that the bare text thereof consists of 2,331 words.

May 15, 2015 /s/ Maret Tsarnaeva

APPENDIX TSARNAEVA EXHIBIT 1

Appendix Tsarnaeva Exhibit 1

APPENDIX TSARNAEVA EXHIBIT 2

Appendix Tsarnaeva Exhibit 2

APPENDIX TSARNAEVA EXHIBIT 3

Appendix Tsarnaeva Exhibit 3

APPENDIX TSARNAEVA EXHIBIT 4

Appendix Tsarnaeva Exhibit 4

This is the communication I received from attorney John Remington Graham:

TO DR. PAUL CRAIG ROBERTS, GREETING :

Dear Sir, — By way of introduction. I have practiced criminal law for nearly forty-eight years, both prosecuting and defending, and served as a founding professor in an accredited law school in my native Minnesota. I have appeared as counsel before courts of record in sixteen jurisdictions, and have a background in forensic science and medicine. I can provide a résumé on request.

On March 25, 2015, while the trial was underway, I wrote and distributed a short opinion on the prosecution of Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, accused of capital felonies in Boston on April 15, 2013 in United States v. Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, No. 13-CR-10200-GAO on the docket of the United States District Court for Massachusetts, commonly known as the “Boston marathon case”, or “the Boston bomber case”. I used eight photo exhibits to explain my conclusions that, as a matter of law, there was no probable cause to support the indictment, and that Mr. Tsanaev was plainly not guilty as charged. These views were shared by others reporting on the internet, but my opinion was meant to provide professional assurance to fellow citizens that, legally speaking, something was radically wrong with the prosecution. In fact there were then and still are a great many anomalies with the case.

The substance of the Boston marathon case, as I then saw it, and as I still see it, is that, on the day after the explosions on Boylston Street in Boston, the FBI crime lab determined from fragments at the crime scene, the FBI chief in Boston announced, and the indictment itself later confirmed that, shortly before the explosions, the culprits were carrying large, heavy-laden, black backpacks containing pressure cooker bombs. Two days later, the FBI chief in Boston stated publicly that the suspects were identified by a certain street surveillance video, which for some days was later displayed for public viewing on the FBI website. The video had been taken from Whiskey’s Steak House, and was used to create still-frame photos of Tamerlan Tsarnaev (the big brother, now deceased), and Dzhokhar Tsarnaev (the little brother, later accused) as they walked up Boylson Street toward the finish line of the Boston marathon, shortly before the bombs went off. These two still frames were featured on posters distributed by the FBI in soliciting cooperation from the general public. But there is a third still-frame photo, taken from the same video, which shows unmistakably that Dzhokhar was carrying a small, light-weight, white backpack. The backpack carried by Dzhokhar was flat, and did not sag or bulge as would have been apparent if it contained a pressure cooker bomb filled with shrapnel as described in the indictment. This third still-frame photo was published by the major news media of the United States. I retrieved my first copy of this third still-frame photo from an internet report of CNN on April 19, 2015.

The bottom line is that the FBI’s own evidence eliminates Dzhokhar as a suspect, and conclusively proves he is not guilty as charged. This reality is literally as clear as the difference between black and white. The establishment press knew about it, and I cannot imagine how the federal prosecutors and counsel for the accused could not have known about it. So obvious was the actual innocence of Dzhokhar Tsarnaev that there was no need for a trial at all, because a good criminal defense lawyer could have taken the FBI information published the day after the explosions, the text of the indictment, and the third still-frame photo from the street surveillance video used by the FBI to identify suspects, and employed those items to support a pre-trial motion for dismissal of the indictment. I have on many occasions made such motions or seen such motions made by colleagues in federal courts, based on facts revealed by disclosures which prosecutors must and routinely do make available to counsel for the accused under a famous decision of the United States Supreme Court. And I have seen such motions granted on not a few occasions. Such practice is not uncommon, as I know from my own experience.

What was going on in Dzhokhar’s case? Why was there no motion to dismiss the indictment based on indisputable facts? Why was there a trial at all? Why did Judy Clarke, a big-time death-penalty lawyer appointed to defend Dzhokhar, admit to the jury in her opening statement that her client was guilty? She had decisive evidence that her client was not guilty. Why did she not use it, bring the case to an end, and thereby save her client’s life? In her final summation to the jury, Mme Clarke did not even ask for a verdict of not guilty. She made no mention of the exculpatory evidence generated by the FBI and mentioned in the indictment. Available were widely published photographs of possible paramilitary agents near the crime scene in Boston about the time of the explosions, carrying large, heavy-laden, black backpacks with characteristic markings which the FBI crime lab material revealed. But these persons with black backpacks were never investigated by the FBI. Why not?

I contacted Maret Tsarnaeva, the paternal aunt of Dzhokhar living in Chechnya which is part of the Russian Federation, a lawyer trained in the old Russian school of law in the Kyrgyz Republic which was once part of the Russian Empire and the Soviet Union, but has been independent since the conclusion of the former Cold War. A very bright and interesting woman Maret turned out to be, and, from the beginning, she maintained that her nephew was not guilty. My conversations with her over Skype led me to conclude that Judy Clarke and her colleagues in the federal public defender’s office in Boston could not stand up to the political pressure and thus threw the case instead of defending Dzhokhar.

Mme Tsarnaeva executed an affidavit on April 17, 2015, which explains events when representatives of the federal public defender’s office in Boston met with Dzhokhar’s family in Russia. For those interested in details, I attach a copy of her affidavit exactly as sent to me by Maret from Russia and later filed with the federal district court in Boston, except that the affidavit filed in the federal district court includes Maret’s original signature in Russian script which I can verify with my business records.

Maret hoped to call exculpatory evidence to the attention of the presiding judge, because Dzhokhar’s lawyers were not defending the accused and federal prosecutors were acting without probable cause. After diligent research on options was made, Maret decided to attempt an appearance before the federal district court in Boston as a friend of the court. She had to apply to the presiding judge for permission to appear in this capacity, and to make a motion asking the court to appointment me as her personal counsel for this purpose on special occasion. Normally, to be admitted to practice before the court on special occasion, I would need a motion from a member of the local bar. My paralegal assistant and I contacted many lawyers in Massachusetts. Some were sympathetic, but none dared to participate, lest their reputations be harmed. I had practiced before the federal district court in Boston some years previously, and then had no difficulty in securing the routine courtesy of a member of the local bar in sponsoring my appearance on special occasion. But not even the American Civil Liberties Union in Massachusetts dared to assist Maret or myself. I had to assist Maret in making an intervention pro se, representing herself, while she listed me as “of counsel” so as to signal that she was guided by a lawyer, and asked the presiding judge to admit me on special occasion without sponsoring motion of a member of the local bar, due to unusual circumstances. On instructions of court personnel, we could not proceed on the electronic record, and Maret’s pro se motion with supporting documents was served upon the federal district attorney and the federal public defender in paper and by registered mail, and the papers had to be filed with the office of the clerk of the federal district court, again in paper and regular postal service. But our task was accomplished by May 29, 2015.

For your convenience, I attach herewith the formal argument made by Maret Tsarnaeva acting pro se with my guidance, exactly as filed in the federal district court in Boston, except that the copy served and filed included the signature of Maret Tsarnaeva in Russian script, as I can demonstrate from my business records. We showed by text and exhibits, and by reference to the trial record and FBI-generated evidence that Dzhokhar cannot be guilty, because the FBI determined and the indictment alleged that the culprits carried black backpacks, but the FBI’s evidence showed that Dzhokhar was carrying a white backpack.

Maret expressed her grievances against the unethical misconduct of the federal prosecutors in proceeding when they knew they had no probable cause, and the unethical misconduct of court-appointed counsel in not defending in earnest. We enclosed the four most critical photo exhibits, including the results of the FBI crime lab investigation and the exculpatory third still-frame photo from the video used by the FBI to identify the culprits.

I am aware that many incredulous citizens cannot accept that the government of the United States would stage a show trial in Boston to convict an innocent young man and sentence him to death. But such events are not unusual in history. Judicial murder spoils the history of many nations. These incredulous citizens point to Dzhokhar’s alleged confession statements inside the boat in Watertown and at the time of sentencing. But contrary to the beliefs of the uninitiated, it has been clear from ancient times that confession statements are the weakest and most suspicious of all testimony, as is stated by legal scholars going back many centuries. Maret’s pro se argument cited Sir William Blackstone, from whom the founding fathers of the United States learned the law, for this truth. False confessions are very common, and result from fabrication, artifice, duress, unfounded hopes, attempts to curry favor, even brainwashing. Hence, going back centuries the law has struggled to develop safeguards against false confessions.

The intervention by Maret Tsarnaeva in behalf of her nephew in the Boston marathon case is significant because, although denying her motion to appear as a friend of the court, the presiding judge entered an order, which appears on the electronic record, is numbered 1469, and directs that her filings be maintained by the office of the clerk of the federal district court in Boston. These documents should be accessible to those wishing to see and read them. Therefore, it is a matter of public record, not merely a matter of internet protest or gossip, that the federal prosecutors, the court-appointed lawyers for the accused, and the presiding judge are all aware of the FBI’s own evidence which excludes Dzhokhar Tsarnaev as a suspect, and proves his actual innocence. It is also clear that the major news media of the United States, which orchestrated a false appearance that Dzhokhar was guilty of heinous crimes, and called for his execution, were aware that he was not guilty. They knew, as the report of CNN four days after marathon Monday makes plain, that Dzhokhar was in fact carrying a small, light-weight, white backpack, and that the government’s own evidence shows that the culprits, whoever they were, carried large, heavy-laden, black backpacks.

John Remington Graham of the Minnesota Bar (#3664X)

John Remington Graham is an attorney with decades of experience in the fields of constitutional, environmental, and criminal litigation. He served as a federal public defender; special counsel to Brainerd, Minnesota; and Crow Wing County attorney. He has a great many publishing credits in constitutional law and history, and also forensic medicine and science. He has lectured on constitutional law and legal history in the United States and Canada. Graham was also cofounding professor of law at Hamline University in Minnesota. As a young lawyer, he quickly realized an investigation into constitutional history was necessary to properly defend his clients against the judicial machine. Since then, Graham has been a diligent student of American, Canadian, and English constitutional history and law. He recognized that the American Constitution could not be understood without a thorough knowledge of its foundation in English Constitutional law and history. He has participated in major cases raising difficult questions of constitutional law, appearing before courts in sixteen jurisdictions within the United States. Additionally, in 1998 he was the advisor on British constitutional law and history for the amicus curiae for Quebec in the Canadian Supreme Court, a position that afforded him the opportunity of shaping Quebec’s argument in its case for peaceable secession. Graham received both a bachelor of arts in philosophy and a law degree from the University of Minnesota. Graham, his wife, and children have lived in Minnesota and Quebec.

<div “=””> 196

Dr. Paul Craig Roberts was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Economic Policy and associate editor of the Wall Street Journal. He was columnist for Business Week, Scripps Howard News Service, and Creators Syndicate. He has had many university appointments. His internet columns have attracted a worldwide following. Roberts’ latest books are The Failure of Laissez Faire Capitalism and Economic Dissolution of the West and How America Was Lost.

!0th Yr Anniversary Of 7/7 Bombing -History Of Mock Drills During Real Attacks

THEDAILYRESISTANCE.COM

Today being the 10th year anniversary of the 7/7 bombings in London, I wanted to remind everyone of the multiple bombing drills being ran the same times and  locations of the multiple bombings. Could this be a mere coincidence? I doubt it. The odds and numbers are completely against it.

Probability of 7/7 Drill and Attack Coinciding

Infowars.com | July 13, 2005

Comment:
This is absolutely mind boggling. The chances for these two events taking place at the same time, let alone in the same locations are astronomical (numbers so big we had to look up how to say them). And these estimates are within a very conservative five year mean. In other words, most statistical analysis that is designed to create the impression of a similarly incredible improbability is usually framed within a greater amount of time: 50 years since England began experiencing bombings, 130 years since the Tube first opened, etc. We don’t need to frame these results in that way because the chance is so low that these events would ever occur simultaneously without some sort of intervention that one might go so far as to call it impossible.

Probability of 7/7 Drill and Attack Coinciding

LU Stations: 274

RELATED:

Explosions In London

Probability of one attack by hour (5yr mean): One chance in 9,474,920

Open Hours per Day: 19

Probability of 3 station terror hit (5yr mean):
One chance in 850,602,500,906,920,000,000

Open Days a Year: 364

Mean Sample frequent (yrs) 5 Probability of one attack by hour (10yr mean):
One chance in 18,949,840

Mean Sample frequent (yrs) 10 Probability of 3 station terror hit (10yr mean):
One chance in 6,804,820,007,255,360,000,000

Same Time 3

LU Stations: 274

Probability of drill on 1 stations per hour:
One chance in 817,342

Open Hours per Day: 19

Probability of drill on 3 stations per hour:
One chance in 546,023,643,432,766,000

Open Days a Year: 157

Same Time 3

PROBABILITY OF DRILL AND TERROR ATTACK COINCIDING BY CHANCE (10yr mean):
One chance in 3,715,592,613,265,750,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000

Estimate of Grains of sand in the whole world:
7,500,000,000,000,000,000

(http://www.miamisci.org/tripod/whysand.html)

In context: If I go to a beach, or a desert, or under the sea and pick a single grain of sand. What chance is there of you going to the same part of the world by chance and picking up the same grain? You are trillions of times more likely to do this that the London drill coinciding with this attack at that hour

 

It gets better during The Boston Bombing DHS was running a drill by the name of Urban Shield. This drill the same as 7/7 depicted the exact same scenario as bombing. There is more here is a list of just a few drills that were being ran same time as events.

Sandy Hook

9/11

OKC Bombing

Aurora Batman Shooting

There are more examples of this but you get the picture. It would be beyond impossible for all of these events to be a coincidence. Regardless of what, when and how people lost their lives so our prayers go out to them on this day of remembrance.

WAKE UP RESIST DAILY OR BECOME A SLAVE!!!!!!!!!!!

RAND PAUL HEATS UP SECRET 9/11 DOCUMENTS

CALEB HITT

THEDAILYRESISTANCE.COM

9/11 attacks

9/11 attacks

Considering President Barack Obama has self-proclaimed his time in office as, “the most transparent administration ever”, you would think he wouldn’t shy away from releasing the secret 28 pages from the 9/11 documents.  Instead, he has handled those pages like a hot potato.  Senator Rand Paul would like to make the 28 pages a little easier for President Obama to handle by introducing legislation called the,  “Transparency for the Families of 9/11 Act”.  This new legislation would force the Obama administration’s hand to open up the pages, which were extracted from a congressional inquiry into the attacks in 2002 and made secret by the Bush government.

“We all are calling today for the release of these 28 pages,” Paul said at a Capitol press conference on Tuesday, adding “We’re going to try the normal legislative procedure first and see how it goes. But I will bring it up with the president and ask him directly to do this.”

“We cannot let page after page of blanked-out documents be obscured by a veil,” the Senator said.

“Information revealed over the years does raise questions about [Saudi Arabia’s] support, or whether their support might have been supported to these al Qaeda terrorists,” Paul noted.

The Senator was joined by families of victims of the terror attacks, as well as other lawmakers who are lobbying for the documents to be made public.

“We owe it to these families, and we cannot let this lack of transparency erode trust and make us feel less secure.” Paul added.

Other congressmen, including Rep. Walter Jones and Sen. Ron Wyden signed on to Paul’s bill as cosponsors. The two have been lobbying for years to have the 9/11 documents opened up.

Former Sen. Bob Graham (D-Fla.), who oversaw the Congressional inquiry, and is firm-gripped that there is a Saudi related cover up, said “The 28 pages are very important and will, I think, inform the American people and, in so doing, will cause the American government to reconsider the nature of our relationship with Saudi Arabia,”

“But beyond that, these are emblematic of a pattern of withholding information unnecessarily and to the detriment of the American people.” Graham added.

The section of the inquiry, titled “Finding, Discussion and Narrative Regarding Certain National Security Matters,” is believed to have been withheld by both the Bush and Obama administrations “for fear of alienating an influential military and economic partner rather than for any national security consideration,” the New York Times reported earlier this year.

 Recent allegations from a convicted al Qaeda terrorist, Zacarias Moussaoui has rekindled the 28 page debate. Moussaoui says he was tasked by al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden with creating a digital database of the terror group’s donors, and that his list included members of the Saudi royal family, as reported by CNN.

He also claims to have met with members of the royal family in Saudi Arabia and hand delivered letters from bin Laden. CNN also reported in February that the 28 pages “focus on the role of foreign governments in the plot.”

Jones and Massachusetts Democratic Representative Stephen Lynch wrote a letter to Obama almost a year ago reminding him that on two separate occasions he told family members that he would declassify the pages. “And he hasn’t kept his word,” Jones said to The Daily Beast.

“I don’t know if it might be embarrassing to the Bush administration, how close they were to the Saudi family,” Jones said. “I just don’t know. I can’t put my fingers on it.”

Kentucky Republican Representative Thomas Massie, one of the signers, said in a press conference last year that reading the 28 pages was “shocking” and that he had to stop every couple of pages to “try to rearrange my understanding of history.”

 This article may also be viewed at https://floodcaleb.wordpress.com/2015/06/02/rand-paul-heats-up-secret-911-documents/

AIA TO OFFICIALLY SUPPORT NEW WTC-7 INVESTIGATION?

CALEB HITT

THEDAILYRESISTANCE.COM

 

In February I joined the AE911Truth 2015 membership drive.  So far over 2,300 architects and engineers have signed a petition calling for a new investigation of the WTC-7 total collapse.  It just so happens that 55 of these architects happen to be on the board of directors for AIA (American Institute of Architects), the nation’s largest association of architects.  Earlier this week, the Official Delegate Information Booklet for the AIA National Convention was published. On pages 24 and 25 is the resolution that these 55 petition signers co-sponsored. It calls upon the AIA to amend its official Public Policies and Position Statements to include a Position Statement supporting a new WTC 7 investigation.  The text of the resolution reads as follows:

WHEREAS, under the AIA Public Policies and Position Statements, it is the responsibility of architects to design a resilient environment that can more successfully adapt to natural conditions and that can more readily absorb and recover from adverse events; and
 WHEREAS, architects and others involved in the design and construction of buildings depend upon the information obtained from investigations into building failures to inform the development of model building codes; and
WHEREAS, on September 11, 2001, 7 World Trade Center, a 47-story high-rise building,suffered a complete collapse; and
WHEREAS, on November 20, 2008, the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) released the final report of its three-year investigation into the complete collapse of 7 World Trade Center, which concluded that fires, an unprecedented cause of failure for a modern high-rise building, were the primary cause of failure; and
WHEREAS, the cause of failure identified by the NIST investigation would mean that hundreds of high-rise buildings in the United States are susceptible to similar failure from fire; and
WHEREAS, thousands of members of the architecture and engineering professions, including the 55 sponsors of this resolution, believe the NIST investigation did not adhere to the principles of the scientific method and, as a result, the conclusions of the NIST investigation are fatally flawed.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the AIA Board of Directors shall adopt a Position Statement, to be published in the AIA Directory of Public Policies and Position Statements, stating:
The AIA’s belief that incidents involving the catastrophic failure of buildings and other structures must be investigated using the highest standards of science-based investigation and analysis in order to provide accurate and meaningful information in the development of model building codes;
The AIA’s recognition that many members of the architecture profession believe the NIST investigation into the complete collapse of 7 World Trade Center on September 11, 2001, did not adhere to the principles of the scientific method and, as a result, the conclusions of the NIST investigation are fatally flawed;
The AIA’s belief that this perspective merits further study; and
The AIA’s support for a new investigation into the complete collapse of 7 World Trade Center.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that it is advised that this Position Statement be incorporated as Position Statement #3 under the Construction Industry Regulation Public Policy. The recommended language of this Position Statement is as follows:
3. World Trade Center 7
The AIA believes that incidents involving the catastrophic failure of buildings and other structures must be investigated using the highest standards of science-based investigation and analysis in order to provide accurate and meaningful information in the development of model building codes. In adherence to the scientific method, investigations should:
Consider all available data;
Consider hypotheses that most readily explain the available data;
Test those hypotheses and analyze the results without bias; and
Provide for external review and replication by making all data available.
The AIA recognizes that many members of the architecture profession believe the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) investigation into the complete collapse of 7 World Trade Center on September 11, 2001, did not adhere to these principles and, as a result, the conclusions of the NIST investigation are fatally flawed. The AIA believes this perspective merits further study and supports a new investigation into the complete collapse of 7 World Trade Center.
On May 16 th this resolution will go to a vote. If it passes and is later ratified by the AIA Board of Directors, the nation’s largest association of architects will officially support a new WTC 7 investigation.