Probable Cause with Sibel Edmonds- When One for All-All for One Works: Power in Numbers?

Welcome to our seventeenth episode of Probable Cause. In our previous episode we discussed the realities of whistleblowing, and explored the reasons for there being dozens or more silent witnesses for every whistleblower-for every truth-teller. Today, in this episode, we are going to further this angle, and delve deeper into those reasons. We will expand our context from government whistleblowers to mainstream media reporters.

Do silent witnesses engage in ‘self-fulfilling prophecy’ when they cite obstacles and futility for their refraining from standing up for the truth? Would the outcomes be different if multiple whistleblowers unite and come forward to expose criminality and lies, and to stand up for the truth jointly? These are only some of the questions we will be posing before we move to a similar trend applicable to US mainstream media journalists. We will compare and contrast journalists around the world who unite for the truth and against lies and censorship to American journalists and the absence of such a trend among them.

As always, our next episode will be based on your reaction, critique, responses and questions posed in the comments section below.

*To listen to our previous episodes on this topic click here

Listen to the full episode here:


Show Notes

FBI Agent Stifles Investigation into Ptech Figures

Why Kansas Statehouse Reporters Staged a Walkout

Romanian Journalists Walk Out in Protest

Al Jazeera Staff Quit over ‘Misleading’ Egypt Coverage’

Commission on Judicial Fitness and Disability

Oregon Earns 'D' Grade in National Judicial Review


FB Like

Share This

This site depends….

This site depends exclusively on readers’ support. Please help us continue by SUBSCRIBING and/or DONATING.


  1. 344thBrother says:

    Strength in numbers works, but only if one wishes to make a stand in the first place.
    Vetting of the MSM seems to be pretty thorough.
    Desire for personal aggrandizement and profit motivation seem to be high on the “Reporter’s” lists.

  2. CuChulainn says:

    Orwell said real journalism is publishing what powerful people don’t want to see in print–Soral defines a journalist as either a whore or unemployed–real journalists are likely to be killed–Oles Buzina who was killed yesterday in Kiev (apparently with NATO complicity– ) had recently quit his Kiev newspaper job in protest at censorship
    Sibel is exact, the absence of community life is key here–in Turkey journalist still have some professional solidarity, their integrity goes with collegial conviviality–in the Pindosi society of the spectacle there is no place for community or critical sense–where journalists are careerists with no professional mission, all the incentives are for the behavior we see among US journalists–a journalism student told me the jobs go to students with national security/military contractor connections; at Columbia Journalism School the teach the students how to work w. CIA; they’re in it for the money
    as Jean-Claude Michéa says, you can measure the hold that capital has on a man’s soul by his degree of conviviality

    • steven hobbs says:

      Hi CuCuh,
      Seriously Bro, you knock me off my seat once and a while:
      “, their integrity goes with collegial conviviality”
      Damn well said!
      Then you follow w/: “as Jean-Claude Michéa says, you can measure the hold that capital has on a man’s soul by his degree of conviviality”
      Your brevity is a few shorter. Thank you so much for the references.

    • steven hobbs says:

      Oles Buzina!
      Doubt I would have ever known without your shout. Sad passing. Thank you.

  3. This seems to fit in with Episode 17 – in the area of the Media and weaponized information;

    • steven hobbs says:

      Hey Dennis,
      Tend to sleep when Chomsky drones. How, “seems to fit in with Episode 17”?

      Listening intently to 17.
      Chomsky is soporific. So I don’t pay attention, better things to do, and all. At least most of the time and then am thinking of keeping enemies close. I do, however, like to know what Eastern intellectuals and erstwhile pseudo linguists genuflect to From our great Chomp. This is not at all a disrespect for genuine capacity, and syntactical analysis to which he’s contributed greatly.

      • Hi Steven,
        “Tend to sleep when Chomsky drones. How, “seems to fit in with Episode 17″?”
        I agree with what you say about Chomsky. I never quite know what his position will be on any given subject, so I occasionally listen. In this case his comments on US Media was in tune with 17 – which was rather surprising. Most of the time he disappoints.

        • Dennis,

          “Most of the time he disappoints.”- He is as pseudo as it comes. Just like the MSM, he has to mix in some ‘pseudo good’ for that perceived reality and image. He and his gang/tribe are handsomely funded and directed by the same dee-state actors we have been talking about.

          • CuChulainn says:

            Sibel, can you spell out what you are saying on Chomsky, specifically on his gang, sources of funding and direction? would be helpful. thank you.

          • CuChu,

            One recommendation: watch and listen to Corbett’s coverage of Chomsky. He does a great job (as always) to sum it up. Here is one link:

            He is one of the members of Soros-sponsored gang. Belongs to the same tribe as Ellsberg, Mort Halperin, etc. His books are sponsored, paid for, and promoted by the gatekeeper publishers. The circle of academic cabal who has been promoting him: largely gov and deep-state funded. His track record on 9/11 stinks…

            From what I have gathered he is one of those hypocritical academics who write/speak (preach) the opposite of what/how they live. You know the type? Those who live in multimillion dollar homes in gated communities and send their kids to exclusive uber-expansive private schools, yet write/talk about how they need to bus groups/ethnicities/races from one public school to another? Yah- that nauseating elite club. For some reason they tend to gather in either New England or Berkley areas. Full-bellied fluff academic and parasitic pseudo-intellectuals who want to be this era’s JP Sartre, but sound like load of farts.

            PS- As you can tell I am severely allergic to this group. I’d say far more than those within Evangelical or similar groups. Because the hypocrisy of this group (and their lazy ass uselessness) far exceeds any other I have ever seen or known in my life;-)

          • CuChu,

            I forgot to mention his tireless campaign for Obama …

            Leftist-Liberal-anarcho-syndicalist: WTH is that?! Reeks with triple oxymoronic implications!

          • steven hobbs says:

            Hi Sibel,
            “Leftist-Liberal-anarcho-syndicalist: WTH is that?! Reeks with triple oxymoronic implications!” — Yep! I can say, WTF. Chomp and ‘left’ media are there with most-est linguistic confusion collecting miscreants rebels into divided corners — for isolation. Each word taken individually may have a dis-positional meaning, together they are smoke and mirrors. His master monotone wordsmithing is soporific and divisive.

          • CuChulainn says:

            thank you. as for Sartre wannabes, JPS himself was one, Céline describes the phenomenon in a pamphlet called _à l’agité du bocal_.

          • 344thBrother says:

            @Sibel RE. Chomsky

            I listened to the corbett report you referenced below. One thing Chomsky said that floored me was “Indoctrination is the essence of Democracy”. WOW.
            Thanks for the great link, still listening.

  4. Its because they think it will cost them less than silence. They haven’t had the experience of having to endure an inescapable darkness such as in those countries… Although that doesn’t make sense either as Germany had that problem and I doubt its much different from the US. Maybe its just because that darkness doesn’t seem to be the immenint threat it is and because the payoff to shut up is higher. May be that the … The guy above covers that part.

    Actually my first sentence stands correct. But why do they think that?

  5. I mean they think silence will cost less than talking. This could be for a whole variety of factors though. The blackmail/framing/threatening family members thing may be worse. Or it may just be that they think it will all go away if only they shut up. Who owns the media in these foreign countries?

    And it sounds more like collectivism to worry about peer pressure and not having anyone to back them up… But they do have people to back them up….

    I should stop typing. It just comes down to people not having a general realization that shutting up costs more in the long run. I’m not sure shy that is.

  6. Taking into account I am in Scotland it would be nice to say that there is some integrity in the press here. Unfortunately there is not. The fact is if you are hoping to make it as a journalist in the UK, if you want to be hired by any of the MSM outlets here then you will have spent many £1000s of pounds on attending courses run by an organisation called “Common Purpose”. During these courses you will be assessed for your ability to write what you are told to write and if you don’t tick all the right boxes then you will never make it in MSM. In the UK we are forced to go to RT or small independent online sources to get anything beyond the official narrative. Since journalists are actually pre-screened then the chances of any collective dissent from them is near nil.

  7. What is up with RT anyway? They had one reporter resign on air for supposedly good reasons then supposedly she is with the US establishment. I don’t watch them often but from what I’ve seen they are honest. Or is that a front to slip in some lies here and there that I haven’t had a chance to notice. and on that note, are the US, china’s, and Russia’s interests really different at the top? Sometimes I wonder if at the very top they are really enemies at all. The bricks thing seems to be the same thing as the western version with a different sticker on it. But I read the news very shallowly so that may be why. I wonder sometimes if the coming war will just be more theater for all three of them to grab more control. They hob knob with the same bankers apparently…

    • Not sure that I’m any more expert on RT than you but my impression is this:
      Putin is not friendly with the Zionist hegemony that controls the US military industrial complex. He would like to be more friendly but on terms that suit him and with a much higher status than they are willing to grant him. He is seen by the ZH as an obstinate upstart who is averse to their agenda and thwarting their wholesale rape of Russian natural resources.
      Putin sees himself as a superior tactician, and he probably is. He is a genuine Russian nationalist who believes mother Russia to be equal to and deserving of equal status as a superpower. And he will accept no less in his diplomacy. He is respectful of the power of the ZH but enjoys antagonising and out maneuvering them. To him it is a real life game of thrones.
      As for RT it is a mixed bag. Journalists there are however given more or less free reign to publish straight facts that embarrass or reveal the hypocrisy and dark underbelly of the ZH. However there is bias there too when it comes to internal Russian politics. Revealing false flags is however discouraged as Putin himself uses the technique himself and wants to keep speculation on them to a minimum.
      A reporter did famously defect to the ZH media a year or so ago but that not really relevant to anything. Abby Martin left/was pushed recently but this was probably because she can’t use an Autocue than any political motive. Its a shame as she was an excellent journalist, even if I disliked her apologetics for certain Saudi funded Muslim front organisations. I do not think you can trust RT to get the hard truth but you do get an alternative to the western MSM which is always useful.
      The problem is these days that even alternative news outlets are steadily being infiltrated and usurped by the ZH. Democracy Now, the young Turks, daily beast etc etc are all thoroughly controlled at editorial level. It is getting harder and harder to trust any source of news.

      • This one I have to ask about. Alex Jones. Is he legit? He seems to be at least tied down in a commercial sense. And some of the people he has on like Bob Barr and Bruce fein. Maybe the did him like they did Ron Paul?

        • A Name,

          I am not sure. I really don’t know. But I believe he was able to build it up and make it a major operation despite the odds and without any mainstream/deep-state backing. Now, whether we like his style or not (that boisterous style with entertainment ingredients not my cup of tea, but we can’t hold that against anyone: every person has his/her own style/objectives/etc.), he’s been successful with his ‘model.’

          Barr/Fein: That’s true, but on the other hand he has had me on his show ( at least 3 or 4 times), Russ Tice, I believe Corbett … So maybe some people can view it as a balancing act.

          Anyhow. I know what you mean by commercial angle- but if you pay attention you see that even the product/whatever advertised are not in mainstream category (I don’t like those things but so what, right?). There are many commenters there that truly turn me off. There is a huge degree of hyperbole and sensationalism … so not my style. But not liking someone’s style is not the same as without any proof calling him/her nefarious. Additionally, he is so loathed by the mainstream media/crowd …I haven’t been following him/his site/his work for a long time, so I am not an authority to answer this question with any degree of confidence/knowledge.

        • Alex Jones is an enigma wrapped in a mystery. One of these “only in America” characters that combine an in your face evangelical ranting with the odd bit of spot on insight. He is way too Looney for my liking. He gets a lot of accusations that he is some sort of reverse psychology school whose purpose is to be so over the top everything he says is tainted by it. If that is true I would not be at all surprised. Whatever the facts of his true agenda are he is certainly getting quite wealthy off the back of it.

          • Schill not school…damn the autocorrect.

          • David,

            … and most importantly, it tells us that even the majority of those who turn to ‘alternative’ are those who seek entertainment, alternative ‘fluff,’ and make-believe ingredients.

          • I couldn’t agree more. Even those of us who understand how confirmation bias is a normal cognitive characteristic in the human animal are not immune to it. It evolved in man for very good reasons and it takes constant vigilance and discipline not to slip into its comforting arms.

          • steven hobbs says:

            “Alex Jones .. gets a lot of accusations that he is some sort of reverse psychology school whose purpose is to be so over the top everything he says is tainted by it.“ — I won’t argue that. The method of delivery soils the message. I won’t even try to unpack this enigma with in a mystery. But, when someone surrounds themselves with (some) fools and says foolish things once and a while, how else are they perceived? Certainly not as sober rational critic.

          • The biggest problem I have with Alex Jones is the fact that I feel like he reinforces the stereotype that, for example, people in the 9/11 truth movement are “crazy conspiracy theorists” that you can write off, laugh at, or simply ignore. Even though I share many of his concerns and believe he’s knowledgeable about many of these issues, I find his style incredibly abrasive and unprofessional in a way that I feel does a disservice to the issues he’s trying to get people to recognize as important. In this manner, contrary to exposing the agenda of the establishment/deep state, I think he’s supporting it by perpetuating the state of marginalization that he seems to thrive off of; only appealing to limited base but repelling a potentially larger audience. Whether or not he’s aware of this or not I don’t know. That’s just my take on it.

          • BennyB,

            “Whether or not he’s aware of this or not I don’t know. That’s just my take on it.”- Same here.

          • 344thBrother says:

            Chiming in on Alex Jones here:
            Especially in the last few years, Alex has become much more commercial and sensationalist. He does have excellent guests like Syrian Girl, PJW, Paul Craig Roberts, Wayne Madsen, Ted Gunderson and of course Sibel. His habit of interrupting them drives me insane so that’s a negative, but I believe the man actually tries to keep quiet and he’s just this explosive ball of fire that can’t shut up when something triggers him off. It would be hell to work for him.

            Alex was the first person to popularize 911 truth big time and for that I give him my biggest props. And even with his circus barker style, he’s made some things main stream that otherwise may have withered on the vine. “911 was an inside job” Bull horning the Bilderbergs, breaking into Bohemian Grove, Begging people who disagree with him to call in and “Go to the head of the line”, giving away all his stuff for free just to get the word out (and of course to increase his listener base), inventing Google bombs , his use of voice mimicry (Especially of the Brit royals), creating by exposure, and tons of other things including being a platform for experts to speak to large audiences, was all Alex Jones.

            But ESPECIALLY for his 911 stand from day one when no one was brave enough to poke their heads up, I say GO ALEX! At a time when I thought I was losing my mind trying to wake people up on 911 I stumbled on him and almost fell out of my chair in relief. Pretty amazing and talented individual really. I’ve spoken to him quite a few times “Dave from Northern California”. I think it was one of my rants on his show about Rudy Giuliani that triggered the sister of one of the NYFD members who was killed in the towers to start hassling “Rudy” all over New York about why he kept sending firemen into the buildings if he knew the buildings would collapse. Rudy started fleeing before her. I believe that’s the reason Rudy bailed when he was looking pretty good in the FAKE polls, so that makes me feel good. I wonder what the world would look like after 8 years of Rudy as pres.

            So, from a “Getting the word out” and a ‘Making an impact” point of view in my opinion Alex is #1 and I respect him for it.

            Of late, I’ve stopped listening to him except to watch the occasional “Special report” to get his take on things, the man is usually out in front of most issues (With the notable exception of Israel and all its bad stuff), so if something new happens that interests me, I sometimes get his short version take on it and file it under future reference. One must admit that he’s been pretty spot on in most of his analysis of sea change events.

            His “Red alert” stuff annoys me, fear porn is a good description, I think he gets overwhelmed by the whole thing and freaks out. I can relate to that. Anyway, I see the man as a good hearted, very intense, scarily smart individual with a nearly photographic memory. Everything he’s done has been against the grain and breaking new ground and I’m not surprised he goes over the top.

            And he’s good for a laugh once in a while. So, God bless you Brother Alex, wherever you are.

            And God bless us every one

          • David,

            We are on the same page- mine echoes yours. And despite all his sensationalism, manners, in some cases taking credibility from some important issues (backfiring), etc. we have to give credit where it is due. I haven’t listened to him for years, and I cannot stand the commenters (most of them not all), but because of the points you made I refrain from bashing him, and respect what he did.

          • candideschmyles says:

            “Dave from northern California”. Well done for standing up for AJ. You make many good observations that taken together give the man a whole truckload of kudos in the truth movement. Such a shame his filters and style are not so laudable. However, and with my usual cynical suspicion, he had to do all these ‘good’ things you listed if he wanted to own and thus guide the thinking of his viewers. So I remain unconvinced of his real motivation. The perps of the great atrocities of our age rely mostly on the average Joe never even looking at the inconsistencies in the official narrative. When Joe does look then there needs to be a bosom to suckle that seems credible. Jones is all too conveniently omnipresent in that role, giving enough sweet milk to sate but with a healthy dose of madness mixed in to polute not just the issues but the mental credibility of those ready to take him verbatim. I could be wrong, I often am, but I just don’t trust him.

        • 344thBrother says:

          @A Name: I replied to your Alex Jones question above.

          • @Brother: I don’t think Alex Jones is all bad by any means. I don’t care for his approach a lot of the time for the reasons I mentioned, but I think he’s done some really good and important work (and probably continues to, although I haven’t checked it out recently). He was definitely one of the first people who were really out front following 9/11 from day one, as you mentioned, and I got a lot of information from him early on when not a lot of people were as on top of it as later on, so I give him a lot of credit and respect for that alone.

            Overall, for a lack of a better way to put it, I’d say the things that vex him tend to resonate with me. It’s more a matter of tactics that’s all.

  8. steven hobbs says:

    Hi Sibel,
    I’m picking up what you are laying down.
    Paraphrasing an incisive question:
    “Is it true that, silent witnesses’ (self-fulfilling) prophecy (standing up is useless) proven — when they don’t stand up — abandoning their compatriot to harsh suppression?” — Nope. It is not proven. Just offers succor for confirmation bias, not lasting relief.

    Scope clarification appreciated.
    Project stages; Road map … Action map; Defining moments; Research; Organizing research; Opinion polls, surveys; Legal [and historical] research & opinion; Ethics; Media & publishing [finding our voice]. [] added. Maybe add street info.

    I’ve a number of curiosities about this sweet in-justice club we are preparing to bust.
    1. How is the volunteer pool invited?
    2. Who decides on volunteers seated?
    3. Any benefits on sitting?
    4. Why since last report (2009)?
    5. Many seated volunteers are retired w/o replacements; are quorum requirements met? Or, is the body defunct?
    I could go on, but homework calls.

    Sibel, this is an excellent focused, targeted, community project — of the first order. Thank you for throwing the flag.

    Thinking about just calling them up (haha), and asking questions. Ambition gets ahead of me. I’d prefer to be considerably systematic in approach, unified in purpose. More target knowledge will be helpful. Does anyone have an ally in statehouse or courthouse offices? Cool to have a backchannel. It is not wise to rush a front while demanding information, when the deeper goal is in the interstices. Sometimes backchannels need rising.

    Podcast raises issues of benefit and strength in camaraderie and collectivist views, contrasted with individualist [isolated, precarious] views. And, of possible strategic gains via silent witnesses or journalists finding a common voice.

    Paraphrasing: “If you have 6-7 witnesses coming forward at the same time. It would be much harder to suppress such a group. Is CNN going to black it out? Thus leading CNN to be exposed with a black eye? Will the public look the other way and ignore? Or, will they hear the testimonies?” — Such complicated questions require multiplicitious answers — maybe, I’ll get back with you on that.. Answers to this question are (obviously) hypothetical. Context is an essential part of a denominational goal

    First thought: (cynical) power in numbers is simple calculus. Two, more powerful than one; three more powerful than two; etc. Wealth and power overcome narratives when other stories are NOT interesting. Wealth and power don’t have a market on love; they do have on egoism, status quo, and (sometimes) subsistence. Our deep state friends don’t realize their resident insidiousness. As institutions obviously, indubitably, and most miserably fail they become ripening ground for possible backchannels. A different knowing, a different zeitgeist (egalitarian & anarchist) perspective is emerging. Timing of a larger wave of popular unrest/mind-shift, and loss of Great Zog fear may be ready.

    Let’s prepare for internal and external readiness on this occasion. Like surfing, catch a peaking wave, territory map, trajectory w/ shifting currents is in our offing anyway. Mind shift readiness, apropos presence, Elders and children may be our compass

    • steven hobbs says:

      Operator error: outa control word-checker: read “denominational” as “definitional”.

    • Steven,

      “Such complicated questions require multiplicitious answers — maybe”- After posting this episode I remembered one case (per my suggestion they organized as a group and became our-NSWBC partner/sister org) where 8-10 whistleblowers came forward and tried to fight collective: These were VA doctors/nurses/med employees who blew the whistle on VA hospitals … Despite the topic ‘not being Intel/secrecy related, and the wider/more support among the majority for VAs, they did not get that far…

      • steven hobbs says:

        Hi Sibel,
        What a sad situation — a handful of whistle blowers will never have a big enough loudspeaker, until they do! Background timing, strategy, and organization are crucial, to say nothing of allies in media. I don’t know how to do this, but know that I don’t have to come up with all the answers because I’m a part of a moving team. Thank you.

    • Steven,

      “Sibel, this is an excellent focused, targeted, community project — of the first order. Thank you for throwing the flag.” – and thank you for the badly needed encouragement. So far I have received 6 serious feedback and support notes on this project. We have many more to go.

  9. Even a group of 6 or 7 coming forward in a unified exposé will meet an MSM stonewall. They might get 30 seconds of obfuscatory coverage, just so MSM can say the story was covered, but it will be slotted to have minimal impact on the psyche of the general population. MSM has been honed to slick perfection in giving only opinion, not news. And it would be naive to rely in any way on them serving truth and justice in any shape or form. Whatever solutions there may be out there reliance on the MSM to provide any assistance is grossly naive.

  10. 344thBrother says:

    @Sibel: A suggestion for your consideration.
    Consider answering the specific questions that were the most thought provoking to you on brief episodes just for that purpose? Similar to what you did in episode 1. It might save time and typing. And we would get to hear your voice more often. I enjoy that.

    Re: Chomsky (The great)
    I have a bright line issue with him. He said something like “Even if 911 was an inside Job what would difference would it make”. Now… I cannot get past that idiocy.

    It points out how radioactive the whole 911 issue is, and why it’s so important for everyone to keep shoving on it as hard as possible. I believe that it is the ONE thing that can bring down the “Powers”. I believe that they know it. I believe that we are winning, but the inertia is enormous. Fear. Denial. Grief. Comfort. Anger. Stupidity. Political viewpoint. All contribute to the inertia.

    Every person that “We” wake up is one more person who can never go completely back to sleep. That’s why I believe that we are winning.


    • Dave,

      That’s a good and sound idea. I will be looking for the questions.

      Soon I will have some BFP updates for all of you as well. On the positive side: 1- We will have BFP Exclusive article/analysis series by Erik Moshe (We just added his bio to ‘About Us’ page. 2- Starting first week in May, Tom Secker will have a new podcast series (2 to 3 episodes per month) on some very significant macro topics- it will be available to BFP members. 3- Guillermo and I are discussing and planning the coming BFP Roundtable Video shows- currently we can only do that once or twice a month: this too will be available to BFP members @ BFP (like the original EyeOpener Series with our own streaming video rather than the trashy YouTube;-).

      The not so positive: After our quarterly fundraising I bid on another part-time contract for translation/analysis work (no, nothing to do with gov; private international businesses-non US). I will be working hard for 4 months (Until Sep 1 when the contract ends). Meaning: I will have to cut back on my podcast episode numbers and go to twice a month). It is a shame. Because my passion is BFP, and I have been looking forward to make it my full-time/only work/job. Hopefully with the coming quarterly campaigns we’ll get there. Until then it will be putting up with boring/tedious and time-consuming part-time contract work for financial survival. This is one of the biggest reasons the mainstream and deep-state-funded outlets have been winning.

      More later …

      • 344thBrother says:

        @Sibel: “Sound idea” heh glad you liked it.

        Twice a month is plenty for me. I wish you well on your new job venture and hope it pays you dividends. I would never begrudge anyone doing what they have to do to make a living.


      • Sibel:
        Financial reality is so damned overwhelming: but you gotta what you gotta do. You are a warrior and will handle it. The world has become so strange for me that while you are doing this job, the long awaited global currency collapse could occur and this will seem like a dream. Good Luck with whatever you have to do.

      • @Sibel: I always give what I can during the fundraisers, but I’m going to make a mental note to try to earmark a bit more BFP money for when the next quarterly comes around. Partly for selfish reasons: I’ve been particularly enjoying and feeling enthusiastic about this podcast series in particular. But beyond that: BFP is what you’re passionate about and for good reason 🙂 I have the utmost respect for you and your strict adherence to the listener supported business model and believe it should and can be possible to stick to your guns and make enough money at the end of the day to just stick to BFP. In the meantime, as ron said; you gotta do what you gotta do. But here’s to thinking to the future. I see particularly good things coming out of this podcast and I only see that moving in a positive direction moving forward. Not to get all Hallmark, but thanks for everything you do here, I can’t understate how much I appreciate it.

        • Come to think of it, I don’t know if understate was the right term (?), but maybe I’m just too burnt out ATM. Either way, you know what I mean 😉

  11. Why did the 8-10 VA whistle blowers fail? I’ve wondered. We know fluoride damages IQ and probably so to vaccines especially with the schedule ramped up since the 80’s. (Russell blaylock has a good article about this on age of autism. Is he legit BTW?). I wonder if the psychological effect may be an even more important factor. I keep getting the impression that there is something that limits peoples ability to feel the impact value that things really have. I recall this a lot in myself when I was younger.

    What needs to happen is that somehow an undeniable importance must be burned into the public’s mind that ignoring and wishing away the problems they face will not suffice and that they cannot afford it.

    The missing nukes thing might work if there was a way to reveal undeniably that it is a false flag, supposing they go through with it. This is why I proposed a survellience society. If you could get vid of Dick Cheney or Lindsay Graham talking about doing such a thing and then release it after it happens, its not really possible to stop acts like these IMO, then that could turn the tide completely.

  12. steven hobbs says:

    Hi 344thBrother,
    “I have a bright line issue with him. He [Chomsky] said something like ‘Even if 911 was an inside Job what would difference would it make.’ It points out .. why it’s so important for everyone to keep shoving.. I believe that it is the ONE thing that can bring down the “Powers”. — Chomsky ‘s being ‘the greatest intellectual,’ serves well as a role model for those who dismiss genuine truth, but wish to consider themselves thoughtful .
    Hi A Name,
    “What needs to happen is that somehow an undeniable importance must be burned into the public’s mind that ignoring and wishing away the problems they face will not suffice and that they cannot afford it.” — I wish I could believe it will take only one thing such as a group of whistle-blowers coming forward at once. My guess: we are in need of 1) powerful allies (from the ground up); 2) perceived existential crisis; 3) synergy of movements, rebellions and uprisings; 4) a contextual demystification of the DS and it’s workings; 5) organizational capacity; 6) a rooted plan already tested and already active. And, these may be necessary components but not sufficient, we also need resilient human bonding with a solid praxis . It won’t be successful unless this fascist inverted totalitarian capitalist system is also torn down and replaced with something more egalitarian. Obviously, most of this will not happen in our lifetimes, which is another reason we need youth in our movement.

  13. Ribbit-Mark says:

    Sibel, I am very happy that you have taken the next logical step, a step that has been hinted at and suggested by members in previous comments: the implementation of an action item.

    I will support the action you outlined in whatever capacity I can. Please add me to your list.

  14. 344thBrother says:

    My name’s David too… I may have answered someone else’s response.
    These things happen when your first name is so common.

    • David,

      :-)))))) So true. Should we distinguish with Dave and David?

      You know, everyday I get hundreds of e-mails. Most of the time the senders end their e-mails with their first name: Mike, Dave, John. Usually their e-mail addresses have nothing to do with their first-last names. They leave me with this: ‘hmmmm Which one of 17 Mike’s I know are you???!’ Sometimes I get so frustrated, not knowing who I am receiving a note/e-mail from. Of course it is normal. Each may be sending one or two e-mails like that, but I get to receive hundreds of e-mails a day!

      • candideschmyles says:

        I have changed mine to candideschmyles, a name I chose long ago in part to distinguish myself from the other Dave’s Davey’s and Davids of the forumsphere.

      • 344thBrother says:

        I go by Dave Sibel, that works, and it’s not as clunky as 344th. Brother is fine too.
        Heh, thanks for asking.

  15. Is there any way to get some people like Binney and Corbett, mathy types, to read Roger Penrose’s books, especialy road to reality and perhaps that Amit Goswami stuff although I wonder if he would be as important to this as he has his own strong bias on this stuff… Anyway, it’d be interesting to get them to read the Penrose books and write an article explanining them to the lay man. I’ve wondered if a solution may lie in them. There’s also some Russian scientist that wrote about a “noosphere” but I don’t remember much about that.

    • steven hobbs says:

      Hi A Name,
      Had not heard of this fellow. Roger Penrose, YouTube at 17.42 of 47.45; “I think it’s reasonable to view a nervous system as an information processing device built to it’s own peculiar rules and restrictions. I see no reason to believe that there are any hidden processes that can not be emulated in other kinds of hardware. I don’t think there is any magic in the nervous system.” — No comment on is his quantum qualifications. His metaphysics are lacking. Living organisms are vigorously informed and bonded within their environmental context. You can’t take one away from the other and build a machine, IOIO, and get the same results. It’s a bit of a epistemic lucuna, as a brother here previously commented previously.

      • Ronald Orovitz says:

        Maybe this helps with Penrose… – I don’t think he would necessarily deny that “organisms are vigorously informed and bonded within their environmental context” as you put it -it may be that ‘Orch OR’ states can transcend individuals… Think about the power of television in this respect, especially at those moments of national trauma (Kennedy assassination, 9/11). That power is somewhat diminished however in the era of on-demand viewing -millions of people no longer see the same thing at precisely the same moment.

        Vernadsky is the noosphere guy (also introduced the term biosphere). Lyndon LaRouche has been a big proponent of his ideas in the English language.

        I’m developing the epistemic lacunae concept, as relates to navigating “conspiracy theories” – and may take up Sibel on the offer to publish articles by contributors. It’s coming along slowly because as usual I’m creatively over-extended.

        • steven hobbs says:

          Hi Ronald,
          Although our dialogue is off topic, I’d like to respond once only with a thought, a quote and a link. I still hold to the absurdity of Penrose’s statement I previously quoted for reasons stated. Theories of mind (seeking that ghost in the machine) often emerge quite appropriately with scientific paradigm shifts resulting from new discoveries. These science based metaphors are quite helpful, IMHO, toward posing novel questions about mind to further or explorations and understanding which they do quite well. Perhaps you remember the hologram theory mind. Sometimes these theories offer a mythos so missing from our lives after God was kicked off his perch. But, these metaphors have, so far, been rooted in a reductionist expositions of all things in a most mechanically way, which will always fail. I know this opinion shows me as more of a positivist than a mystic.

          I wouldn’t say such a project useless, just metaphorical, and not substantially or comprehensively true. OK, the quote: “Quackery always accompanies science in controversial and still under development areas and since the quantum mind theory is a science youngster it must clearly demarcate itself from the great stuff of pseudo-science currently patronized by the term ‘quantum mind’… The unwarranted recourse to paranormal phenomena as supporting the quantum mind theory plus the extremely bad biological mis-modeling of brain physiology lead to great skepticism about the viability of the approach.”

          • candideschmyles says:

            All this mention of Roger Penrose is so good to see. Anyone who does not know about him and his long list of mind bending papers and insights into the geometry of post Einstein space/time really should dedicate a bit of time to taking a look. For me he is in the top 5 scientific minds of all time.
            Stephen I am in strong agreement with your position. Leave the current batch of interpretations on quantum wizardry on the shelf marked “palpably disengenious”. Though it must be said that many of the papers published in our esteemed scientific journals on quantum space/time are perhaps deserving of the same fate.

        • Okay. That explained a bit. Especially it makes the idea of psychotropic weaponry seem even more likely as some dud MD working for the MIC could have come upon it empirically by testing various types of energy waves and so forth.

          But what do road to reality and other books by him and Goswami say about the nature and formation of conciousness? It seems like the microtubules could jut be an input device for a deeper and so called non physical force. What’s causing them to vibrate? The so called physical world can obviously have effects but is there more to it than that?

          • Perception is most definitly altered by energy waves. I thought I should quote this.

            “An important new facet of the theory is introduced. Microtubule quantum vibrations (e.g. in megahertz) appear to interfere and produce much slower EEG “beat frequencies.” Despite a century of clinical use, the underlying origins of EEG rhythms have remained a mystery. Clinical trials of brief brain stimulation aimed at microtubule resonances with megahertz mechanical vibrations using transcranial ultrasound have shown reported improvements in mood, and may prove useful against Alzheimer’s disease and brain injury in the future.”

  16. Sibel;
    Before I get to the Oregon Commission on Judicial Fitness and Disability(I did a little research) and Oregon’s “Integrity” place in the scheme of things–1 of 50 states; I’d would like to ask you something about those many individuals who knew your whistleblowing case–actually as many as you can remember.
    In your mind how would you rank their reluctance(I’m not referring to the 5-6 who were close to your struggle).
    There is a method to my madness. I’ll postulate the usual reasons:
    Fear of demotion or punishment.
    Getting fired.
    Getting black-listed.
    Make no waves, just because…
    Murder(if you are CIA, that is a possibility, and btw, drive an older model car with few computers under the hood)
    I am curious to know if any of the usual reasons apply to those people–or were there others? We commenters are left to our usual speculations. And considering that we now live in a surveillance/police State 24/7 most of our speculations will be true–just never addressed by the MSM.
    I downloaded the STATE INTEGRITY INVESTIGATION undertaken by the Center for Public Integrity. I Found this to be interesting because NOTHING surprised me. This was the investigation in 2012(updated 2014) which gave Oregon a “D” in Judicial accountability. Also as per your article you posted, Oregon had a D- for POLITICAL FINANCING (interesting, no?) and a D for Executive Accountability. Overall grade for corruption risk was C- .
    I will not get into the Commission on Judicial Fitness and Disability workings and all the Questions it raises at this time. I would like to note however, that if a journalist, detective, or private eye throws a dart(blindfolded) at a map of the USA and begins an investigation of whatever state and all levels of state government he/she is bound to come across this stuff(all quotes from the state Integrity Investigation):
    “Crucial budgeting decisions made behind closed doors by a handful of power brokers. Scores of legislators turning into lobbyists overnight. Disclosure laws without much disclosure. Ethics panels that haven’t met in years.”
    “State officials …tout the transparency of legislative processes, accessibility of records, and the openness of public meetings…but these efforts fall short…(of) any legitimate hope of rooting out corruption”
    “Not a State-not one-earned an “A” grade from months long probe. What’s behind the dismal grades? Across the board, state ethics, open records and disclosure laws lack one key feature: teeth”
    “Transparency” is not always presented in a useable or digestive format…say, linking campaign donations to state contracts–can be nearly impossible….It’s disingenuous hiding in plane sight.”
    “You can only look at(databases) particle by particle, atom, by atom” an investigator said. when he requests entire databases from state agencies, they refuse citing a lack of technological expertise to properly export the data.”
    “Public loyalties can be a potential problem, especially since many ethic agencies(think the Oregon Commission) are staffed by gubernatorial appointments.”
    Well of course there is more, but here is a HOT one: “Special interests have discovered judicial elections and the money is pouring in.”
    For American corruption we must, apparently begin in our own backyard. For me, it should be noted that, of course, state governments are crawling with various degrees of psychopaths corrupting everything they touch.
    Hell, your local county has a few in various departments. So given the magnitude of it all, we still carry on.

  17. Ronald Orovitz says:

    One suggestion/question: is there a specific egregious case of injustice in Oregon that you can use as an example – one which the judicial review board failed to address? Without a concrete example(s), “judicial review board reform” is a bit too abstract for the attention span of the general public. I can think of other cases in other states that are quite egregious: Rev. Pinkney’s in Michigan… and Roger Shuler in Alabama… -just to name a couple.

    • Ronald,

      Yes. I know (directly) of one case: slam dunk. And as we proceed (by stage 3) we will have others submit cases as well.

    • steven hobbs says:

      HI Ronald,
      The Oregon Commission on Judicial Fitness and Disability, doesn’t look at decisions — only the fitness and/or disability of Judges. The Oregon Code of Judicial Conduct may be our most useful tool.$file/codejudicialconduct.pdf

      • steven hobbs says:

        I don’t know if my above statement is completely accurate; have not heard a correction?.
        This is not my field, anywho, these Commission rules seem (possibly) precise enough to show flagrant violation (and there are more?):
        Rule 3.5 Competence, Diligence, and Cooperation…………………….. 8
        Rule 3.7 Decorum, Demeanor and Communication with Jurors..……… 8
        Rule 3.9 Ex Parte Communications…………………………………… 9
        Rule 3.11 Responding to Judicial and Lawyer Misconduct…………….. 11

        I’m curious about public evidence.

        • steven hobbs says:

          Regarding: Rule 3.3 Impartiality and Fairness
          “(B) A judge shall not, in the performance of judicial duties, by words or
          conduct, manifest bias or prejudice, or engage in harassment, against parties,
          witnesses, lawyers, or others based on attributes including but not limited to, sex,
          gender identity, race, national origin, ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, marital
          status, disability, age, socioeconomic status, or political affiliation and shall not
          permit court staff, court officials, or others subject to the judge’s direction and
          control to do so.”

          This rule seems to be at odds with judicial witness testimony: “I had a child custody case last week where the child’s primary caretaker for the last four to five months had very good facts that he could not bring out,” says McKnight, who has been a Multnomah County family law judge since 2002. “He might have prevailed, but he was at the mercy of the lawyer on the other side. I hear cases, at least two to three a week, where the outcome might have been different if the person had a lawyer. And I’m just one judge.”

        • Steven,

          The example case we have goes to the heart of ‘Conflict of Interest’- one of the main areas within the commission’s jurisdiction. They even go as far as including ‘Appearance’ of conflict. And, usually, Conflict of interest and corruption go hand in hand.

          To give you a general idea with the later-to-be-exposed case:

          1-The case brought before a judge by certain citizen(s) involves a target that works for an entity who has major stakes in the case: The entity faces major legal and even criminal liabilities.

          2- a) The judge, before being elected served as an ‘active’ board member of this entity (facing legal & criminal liabilities); b) The judge was directly responsible for the target’s hiring, oversight and management; c) The judge’s election was directly and publicly endorsed by the entity (facing legal/criminal liabilities); d) The entity with major stakes directly funded the judge’s elections, and organized events to obtain funding for the judge’s elections; e) The judge also served on several other boards together with the heads (CEO/President/etc.) of the entity with major stakes; f) The judge has had ongoing personal and social relationship with those serving major positions for that entity with major stakes. Note- the judge’s spouse is said to have current/ongoing ties (work and personal) to the entity with major stakes: to be researched and determined.

          Based on several attorneys’/legal experts’ opinions: The judge should have immediately recused himself from the case due to highly significant conflict of interest. Yet, he did not. Not only that, according to a ‘timid witness’: The judge had been given information about the case by ‘the entity’ prior to case being filed, and he was assigned to the case under ‘very odd’ circumstances.

          Now, we are not going to get into the judge’s decision and some highly dubious opinion. Because the commission does not deal with ‘decision’ cases.

          The case was presented to the commission with all the supporting facts and evidence and documents: public documents regarding his prior position/job with the entity, the election endorsement, the election funding, etc. Two months after receiving the report and related documents, the commission responded with a one-sentence letter: The commission will not investigate this case, thus, the case is dismissed.

          Once we have all the preliminary work/research done on the commission. We will use this case (with redacted names-to start with) to obtain ‘On the Record’ legal opinions from current and retired judges, attorneys, ethics experts. Once we have that: we can go public and expose the commission based on a solid case, independent on-the-record opinions from the legal communities, and ask others with similar cases to come forward. And after that: we will get to that;-)

          • steven hobbs says:

            Hi Sibel,
            Thank you. Talk about flagrant disregard? The and impunity is contemptible. Looks as if much of of what’s needed for persuasion has already collected. As you’ve suggested, now for a plan of attack.

  18. Another good podcast asking the right kinds of questions. It does seem obvious that a group of whistleblowers blowing the same whistle would wield far more power. We’ve speculated about issues of integrity, courage, retribution, and so on, things that create the “self-fulfilling prophesies” that make our fears come true. Clearly, the challenge is on-the-spot organizing. Sibel, in your case, given that you seem able to identify some 5-7 non-criminal types who potentially could have helped you, I’d love to hear more about why that group failed to coalesce. Did you know who these “silent witnesses” were at the time, before it was too late? Did you urge them to come forward and they were still too frightened?

    I *have* read Classified Woman but it’s been a while, so apologies if these stories are in there and my foggy memory is failing me. I’m just wondering if one of the problems is identifying the potential fellow whistleblowers, or do you think it is generally obvious who the candidates are? Do you think there’s also a risk that approaching others to help blow the whistle creates other dangers, like maybe one of them is a rat and somehow creates trouble for you?

    There’s Stephen Kohn’s Whistleblower’s Handbook, which is about how to protect yourself legally. I don’t know if there’s a section on how to maximize effectiveness, how to organize a whistle-blowing team, and strategies for how that team should best cooperate while exhausting first the official channels and then doing what it takes to go public (if indeed that would be the desired order of events). If not, a document like that might be useful.

    Stop me if I’m getting too paranoid, but in a case like a 9/11 or a JFK assassination, it’s hard to picture the vested interests giving up meekly even if a concerted group of whistleblowers were to appear. One could almost picture them resorting to violence…

    • John,
      “why that group failed to coalesce”- I cited the main ‘reasons’ put forth by them: ‘It is futile; nowhere to go (congress, media, etc.);’ ‘I am the only breadwinner for a family of 4, and I can’t afford losing this job…;’ ‘I have put 19 years into this work, and all that will end in one day if I were to come forward: my retirement … everything I have worked’ …

      “Did you know who these “silent witnesses” were at the time, before it was too late?”- Of course. In fact one of the agents made some of those discoveries before me.

      ” Did you urge them to come forward and they were still too frightened?”- Of course.

      “There’s Stephen Kohn’s Whistleblower’s Handbook, which is about how to protect yourself legally …”- Attorneys, this includes WB attorneys, are only concerned with one thing: ‘What can you do to maximize the money you recover from the courts … hopefully without even fighting in courts.”- Basically, the first thing they want to do: go to the agency heads and say: ‘You settle this case before it goes to court for $$$$, or, we will expose this and that via congress, courts, media, etc.’ I have not seen/known a single attorney who doesn’t see it this way. The settlement comes with ‘built-in gag orders’: ‘We’ll give you this money and you go away for life and never mention any of this ever…’ I can tell you this much: there are hundreds of these cases every year that the public never hears about. I was offered (twice) to take $$$$ and close the case for good. When you refuse that, the attorneys will wash their hands off your case in a minute …

      • Gerald Hines says:

        Perhaps Sibel, this Irate Minority should employ the same tactics drummed upon the masses: Riddled Daily Until They Get it! Other than my workplace setting, (They’ve already been ‘Blitzkrieged’ with my call to sensibilities) getting others informed has noble success with one on one. The featured products ( mouse pads, coffee mugs, T-shirts ) reassure those of us ‘clued-in’ on a daily basis, but that is about it’s extent. Your analogy of Boiling Frogs is spot on, but I feel a Mugshot of YOU, silkscreened along with IM’s BFP web address would add that human factor. Possibly on the back, add names & dates of past false flags with a fill-in blank for what’s next on the DS agenda. Or something that gets in people’s faces. Hell, for that matter, reverse the front shirt pocket to the back and fill it with business cards denoting the BFP website.
        Oh, & btw Sibel, you could have optional horns or smoke out your ears!

      • Hmmm, yes that’s what I thought. I guess what I’m clumsily trying to wonder is whether, as you reflect on your experiences, you think there is any reason to hope that whistleblowers who share knowledge of a certain situation might be able to overcome their fears and join forces. Could anything have been done to make a better outcome, or could anything still be done? Any form of reassurance or persuasion or protection or organizing or incentivizing? Or do you think it depends utterly on whether there randomly happen to be several people in one place with existing and uncommonly deep reservoirs of courage, principles, and determination?

        Personally, at one long-ago restaurant job I couldn’t even get one other person to protest after the coke-head manager beat up a waiter whose attitude he didn’t like. That’s how fearful for their stupid little replaceable jobs they were. They just un-saw it. (I quit on the spot, hooray for me, but I had a second job already.) So if that’s a generalizable experience, getting people with actual careers to stand up to world class murderers with overwhelming power over everything has got to be a bit of a hard sell.

        But I have to believe, since you raise the issue, that there is not just weary cynicism but a shred of hope still in those refrains of “what a wonderful world.” I suppose you’d have given up long ago if you felt all hope was lost — and I appreciate that you raise the Oregon issue as a way of seeking a viable way forward.

      • 344thBrother says:

        @Sibel, you wrote:
        “I was offered (twice) to take $$$$ and close the case for good. When you refuse that, the attorneys will wash their hands off your case in a minute ”

        Wow, that explains so much. So damn much. Hats off to your for your integrity. I know a lot of the 911 families took the money (Or the lawyers did) and have gone silent.

        “Money doesn’t talk, it swears” Bob Dylan

  19. Ribbit-Mark says:

    Or do you think it depends utterly on whether there randomly happen to be several people in one place with existing and uncommonly deep reservoirs of courage, principles, and determination?

    I was thinking the same thing as you.

    While I agree with Sibel that 6 or 7 whistleblowers teaming together would have a far greater chance of getting media attention than would a lone whistleblower,

    what is the likelihood that 6 or 7 people at any given point in time, will simultaneously go into full throttle whistleblowing mode over the same issue?

    Lone whistleblowers are such an uncommon breed; but 6 or 7 whistleblowers in tune with each other over the same issue at the same point in time? Reality says the odds of that occuring are are virtually nil. 🙁

    • Mark,

      Here is an example/context: One of our WB members Russ Tice stated that dozens of NSA employees were alarmed, utterly disgusted, and in full disagreement with their agency conducting criminal/unconstitutional surveillance of all Americans.

      There- we’re talking many dozens. Were the H… are these people? What would be the reaction of the media, people, congress … if dozens of these whistleblowers outraged/disgusted with gov criminality were to come out jointly?

      It is not uncommon to have dozens of people in a given agency who see and view a major criminality similarly …

      • Ribbit-Mark says:

        It is not uncommon to have dozens of people in a given agency who see and view a major criminality similarly.

        Yes I agree with you Sibel.

        But one more critical ingredient needs to be added to the mix before there is an explosion; the simultaneous will of these people to go public with their disgust at the same time.

        That’s why I stated:

        what is the likelihood that 6 or 7 people at any given point in time, will simultaneously go into full throttle whistleblowing mode over the same issue?

  20. Part of the answer to “where the h— are these people?’ has been answered by Max Weber in his studies of bureaucracy. In the totally administered bureaucratic society, nobody is ultimately accountable. Anyone who has ever tried to complain about anything knows this full well. You speak to a functionary, whose hands are tied other than referring you to other functionaries, perhaps higher up the chain, but it is an infinite chain that leads to nobody responsible, because it skips from somebody too low to be responsible to somebody too high, who can refer you back down in a different direction. Whose job is it? Nobody’s job.

    Any big trouble is always the problem of somebody at a higher pay grade. The trail leads only to dissipating smoke.

    It’s not just unaccountability, it’s the feeling of powerlessness people have when problems are bigger than they are. It’s the combination, (presumed) unaccountability and (perceived) powerlessness.

    I know how some people feel about solving government problems with more government, but I can’t help wonder whether the world might be just a little bit different if we had a few laws that not only protected the rights of whistleblowers, but rewarded them financially, for life. Afraid for your job? What if a decent lifetime pension and a big cash bonus awaited you for uncovering corruption, on a sliding scale that got juicier rewards for revealing juicier crimes? Might even make people think twice about engaging in corruption, surrounded by witnesses suddenly eager to report it. I know, I know, you’d need an honest judiciary to administer it, there goes another beautiful idea…

    • John,

      Thank you for bringing up two excellent points here.

      You are absolutely right re: bureaucracy. We have been talking about and analyzing ‘the deep state’ factor here, and we have not gotten into the other ever-present beast: bureaucracy where nobody is ‘ultimately accountable.’ It is its inherent nature. This point applies to almost every single subtopic discussed here @ BFP- From education to whistleblowing (or lack of). In my own case both factors were in play: the deep state & the bureaucracy. During the initial stage it was mainly the bureaucracy, later, when it went all the way up, due to the core facts, it became the ‘deep state’ battle to fight alongside the bureaucracy.

      “The trail leads only to dissipating smoke.”- I could not have said it better.

      “I know how some people feel about solving government problems with more government, …”- Here you have made the second great point. In fact, I’d say, this has been one of the main reasons (if not the main) for the diseases getting bigger, more chronic. Even when ‘a’ problem is identified by the public, actively tackled and fought, the system (with the people’s consent) makes the solution to be: More laws, more regulations, bigger and more expanded bureaucracy, and by doing that: making the problem/the disease that much more chronic and un-curable.

      Another point to consider: look how the laws are written (hundreds of pages, filled with legal jargon and contradictions, containing hundreds of small-print and jargon-filled foot notes … confusing …). How many percent of the population can read and comprehend the laws written under which they are ruled (aka governed)? Okay, just compare them to US constitution/Bill of Rights. This is also by design to achieve several deep state objectives, but also to sustain ‘the bureaucracy.’ How can people fight something they don’t even understand? I remember being very confused when dealing with purchasing our first house here in the states: there were hundreds of pages of documents, and we were/are required to have a title attorney and pay him?! This is not the case in other countries I have lived in. When I asked my husband: ‘Why do we have to pay so much money for an attorney to just purchase a house?!’ He said: ‘Try to read the documents, and see if you can understand … that’s the reason …’ It was the same with signing dozens and dozens of pages for my FBI contract. I started reading the first few pages, and then I gave up: they were filled with legal and policy jargons, there were dozens of references to other rules/laws referred to only by their numbers (Policy 5423-Section C, etc.). We were taught to never sign anything without reading and understanding what it is. Now, from employment related documents to insurance, healthcare, homeownership, education … we the Americans are totally used/conditioned to sign and accept things that we have no clue about. It is a way of life- it has become a fact of life.

      “What if a decent lifetime pension and a big cash bonus awaited you for uncovering corruption, on a sliding scale that got juicier rewards for revealing juicier crimes?” – Interesting that you brought up this example. You see the gov has passed that law, but it is only applicable if the whistleblower is working for a private/public corporation, if the whistleblower blows the whistle on that corporation, and if the case being fought results in government fining that corporation for large sums. When you get a chance take a look at corporate/business whistleblower laws, and check out millions and millions awarded to those who have blown the whistle on corporations resulting in gov winning the case and fining the corporation for many more million dollars. Those whistleblowers are awarded a significant percentage of damages collected by the gov. This is why it is much easier to find an attorney if you are a corporate whistleblower. This is why, many attorneys who used to fight all whistleblower cases (including gov), have decided to limit their services and only cover Corp whistleblowers. Even Steven Kohn (my former attorney’s law firm): Since 2005-2006 they have been mainly taking on corporate whistleblower cases … Why? You end up on the side of the big government and bureaucracy with unlimited resources/money (thanks to the tax payers), with very high winning chances. That, rather than, taking on the big gov/big bureaucracy that is positioned as the ultimate power with unlimited force and resources, and is in control of the courts/media/congress…

      Again, thank you for bringing up these highly significant and relevant points!

      • Thanks very much for your generous response. Very interesting how you ran into the deep state directly only after the bureaucratic maze failed to destroy your spirit. At least you forced them to tip their hand, which in itself is so valuable. The gag orders serve only to transfer credibility from them to you.

        So anyway, the rewards for *corporate* whistleblowers seems to have been effective to a point. That experience would seem to suggest it would be desirable to have a similar thing in place for government — especially including national security — whistleblowers. Even knowing full well how impossible it would be to achieve, it would be an interesting thing to push for, if only to see them squirm in trying to explain why it wasn’t a good idea. 🙂

      • Sibel:
        Thanks for laying out so much. Please bear with me a bit.
        The deepest regions of my skepticism lie in the very nature of modern humanity’s personal and sociological configurations which are still not understood at any meaningful level by psychology and neuroscience. Almost everything we believe abut our own behavior is questionable. Some say only 2% of our brain is in play when we communicate and feel clearly awake. So-called “free will” and the notion of a “self” is getting shakier. We exist in states of conflict, etc.(we talked about this earlier w/cognitive dissonance, etc. So, what I have noted so far is a sketch that leads into huge areas of concern.
        But now that I am looking into the phenomenon of “the psychopath” and the stunning number of them–especially in our bureaucracies, govt. and the financial system; if the reader of this considers him or her self “normal”–that is about 95%–then I strongly recommend some research in this the area. There are a spate of books out and many, many articles on the web.
        “In a recent paper, it is suggested that psychopathy may exist in ordinary society in even greater numbers than anyone has thus far considered.”
        “One researcher, Alan Harrington, goes so far as to say that the psychopath is the ‘new man’ produced by the evolution pressures of modern life'”
        Regarding working in a psychopath’s presence…”90% of normal people know that something is wrong! They just can’t put their finger on it; and because they can’t, they tend to think there is nothing they can do about it, or maybe it is just god’s way of punishing people” Psychopaths can have a very negative/strange affect on masses of people: …”if an individual in POLITICAL power is a psychopath, he or she can create an epidemic of psychopathically linked behavior who are not, essentially, psychopaths”
        And psychopathy…”remains a subject of discussion whose solution does not appear possible within the framework of presently accepted principles of thought.”
        These quotes are from Political Ponerology by Andrew Lobazewsky, 2007,2013
        And if all of the above is difficult to comprehend , the author notes that an entire nation–once taken over by psychopathic behavior–pathology becomes “The rule” –not the exception.
        So, what does all this mean when we study a given bureaucratic structure in a given state? It tells me that no matter how much we change the structure, streamline it, place ever newer regulations, fire and hire, arrest and jail people(that part I like); the psychopaths, so far to date keep slightly ahead and adapt. ‘Been his way since Hellenic and Sumarian days.
        Sibel, you have known several psychopaths(I read Classified Woman twice).So have I. We can study them, but since the MSM and the Deep State are psychopathic in and of themselves…Damn!! When we are in the days of post- Oregon Commission on Judicial Fitness and Disability, it will be interesting to see if you sensed a few psychopaths–not so easy to do, actually. But I know you will spot some, since you learned through your” baptism of fire” led by likely psychopaths..

    • candideschmyles says:

      So well illucidated, and dreamed! Is beaurocratic inertia a side effect of or a designed in feature of pyramidal power? I wonder how long its been that way? Perhaps we should look for pyramids in history to see if rulers were consciously aware of the socio-geometry. Anyone heard about ancient pyramids?

    • steven hobbs says:

      Hi John & all,
      I treasure smart stimulation & passionate dialogue .. few comparisons, really. Quite inspirational for intelligent spelunking. I’m so much enjoying the discovery paths prompted here. Thank you all.

      An additional thought to Weber’s bureaucratic malaise: “habitus” coined by Bourdieu. If I may be so bold, meaning “habit” – “us”.

      “Habitus is neither a result of free will, nor determined by structures, but created by a kind of interplay between the two over time: dispositions that are both shaped by past events and structures, and that shape current practices and structures and also, importantly, that condition our very perceptions of these (Bourdieu 1984: 170). In this sense habitus is created and reproduced unconsciously, ‘without any deliberate pursuit of coherence… without any conscious concentration’ (ibid: 170)”

      So, “class capitol” (a hegemonic stylistic expression of preference, presumption, and perception) are determinants in dis-positional proclivities of whistleblowers; and, us all. Cognitive dissonance arising between one classes’ capitol perceptual field from another classes’ provides (a challenge and a gift of) an opportunity for resistance to presumption. Growth (i.e. knowledge integration) may happen in the interplay – at the edges. Choosing to speak a stylistic language of a different class means (possibly) abandoning one’s class capitol, and therefore, job security (plus). This knowledge is known to DS — probably.

      Alex Jones! Yeah, hyperbolic class capitol, maybe. Pass the “tin foil” hat. That ain’t straight talk for me.

      Sorry for the jargon, the concepts are new. I’m working to simplify.

  21. I thought i ightbask the following since your already on the topic of the judicial system. And I would like to add this question to the below: Has anyone ever tried to sue the government for not providing lawyers to those who can’t afford them and their $200 sheets of paper? It does lock anyone who can’t afford an attorney out of the civil court system.

    Here are my main questions though.

    1) Does the state have the right to force you to endanger your safety? For example, if you were driving in a downpour and felt safe doing so only at 25mph but a cop tickets you because he thinks you were going too far under the speed limit asserting that you could have been doing 40 mph safely. Is that ticket legal?

    2) Does one have a right to travel? Would forcing you to endanger yourself be interference with that right to travel?

    3) How do you file charges on a cop who tries to coerce you into endangering your safety?

    Please explain the reasoning behind your answers to the first two questions.

    Also, is there any way to recoup the losses from fighting a ticket that was written for doing something that was legal?

    • steven hobbs says:

      Hi A Name,
      “Does the state have the right…?” — Yep. Might makes right in the belly of the beast.

      You might enjoy looking into “No Treason: the constitution of no authority”

      • Maybe this is a better question. Where does one go to get understanding of the law and legal questions answered when one hasn’t the money for an attorney?

        • steven hobbs says:

          Hi A Name,
          ” Where does one go to get understanding of the law and legal questions answered when one hasn’t the money for an attorney?” — Well there are not a lot of alternatives. And, there are no really good answers, but you could start by googling local legal aid services, and/or go to your local law library.

          • Steven,

            Other possibilities: academia, smaller organizations (those that deal with ethics & integrity issues), independent retired judges/attorneys who don’t have to worry about ‘maintaining connections.’

        • A Name,

          One possible idea: searching for honest/good/dependable academics (ex: Legal Ethics). Some of them are interested for their own research purposes, others are active in public causes. With some research and initial communication we should be able to pinpoint a few good candidates. At least I hope we can.

          • I’m not trying to get involved in your effort in Oregon. I dont want to mislead you on that. I am not an activist. There is a legal precedent I would like to set involving cycling issues. This is my own little project that was forced on me out of the blue thanks to some revenue hunter. So don’t waste time on this. Although, how would you even start looking for such people? Doesn’t sound like the thing a search engine turns up and I’ve tried looking help. It is obviously all uninterested unless you have money or you have certain issues which the state will provide help for, this not being one of them.

  22. Ightbask is might ask

    • Remo:
      Powerful article. Now add “the nuclear fuel cycle” and the daily increase in global radiation. That means the coming Dark Age will have green and purple sunsets and a few mutated things scratching around for food.

    • steven hobbs says:

      Hi Remo,
      Thank you, I’d have missed it otherwise.
      Abbreviating the link’s discussion:
      First: transnational capital, [TNC?] new global production, financial system which nations and much humanity is integrated [willingly or not]
      Second: Transnational Capitalist Class (TCC) is the hegemonic fraction of capital on a world scale.
      Third: is the rise of Transnational State (TNS) apparatuses.
      Fourth [not fully ex-posited]: novel relations of inequality, domination and exploitation in global society, including an increasing importance of transnational social and class inequalities relative to North-South inequalities.

      I would say to the author, what about plebs consciousness? There is little hint in his dialogue. Hey, if you are looking for a revolution that involves awareness, praxis, etc.

      Anyway he continues, “..Given the particular configuration of social and class forces and the correlation of these forces worldwide, national states are hard-pressed to regulate trans- national circuits of accumulation and offset the explosive contradictions built into the system…Is this crisis cyclical, structural, or systemic?” — Spot on.

      And, “A structural crisis opens up the possibility for a systemic crisis… either to capitalism being superseded or to a breakdown of global civilization..” — Shades of Bourdieu’s “resistance” between class capitol is hinted in, “a crisis of social polarization, that is, of social reproduction… system cannot meet the needs or assure the survival of millions of people, .. crises of state legitimacy and political authority, or of hegemony and domination…”

      Particularly important for everymans’ mythic considerations:
      “5. There is a disjuncture between a globalizing economy and a nation-state based system of political authority. Transnational state apparatuses are incipient and have not been able to play the role of what social scientists refer to as a ‘hegemon,’ or a leading nation-state that has enough power and authority to organize and stabilize the system.”

      — This last, “5” calls out for more detail, too many elements are included. “Hegemon”; has numerous meanings, exampless: 1) dominant mythos; 2) dominant military; 3) dominant economic power; 4) dominant knowledge base. A large problem for DS regarding their hegemonic authority over plebs consciousnesses is the lack of historicity and mythos of our emerging narrative. In other words, people don’t feel propaganda true — in their bones — rather, they know it false and seek more veracity in their commons.

      “Popular, grassroots and leftist resistance from below. As social and political conflict escalates around the world there appears to be a mounting global revolt..specter of downward mobility. It involves militarism, extreme masculinisation, homophobia, racism and racist mobilisations, including the search for scapegoats, such as immigrant workers and, in the West, Muslims. Twenty-first century fascism evokes mystifying ideologies” — Yes, mystifying ideologies are not convincing to others.

      “We have entered a period of great upheavals, momentous changes and uncertainties. The only viable solution to the crisis of global capitalism is a massive redistribution of wealth and power downward towards the poor majority of humanity along the lines of a 21st century democratic socialism, in which humanity is no longer at war with itself and with nature.”
      IMHO, I don’t see “redistribution” happening without re-purposing our lives, and taking power.

  23. I salute everyone who is willing to get off the bench and take action in the name of the common good, and if the OR project “goes live”, as they say, I wish you all the best of luck.
    However, because no one else has raised any of the following considerations, I feel compelled to do so – but with the caveat that I fully support any action you, the Frog Siblings, take, and that wholeheartedly. I feel compelled, as well, to begin this polemic with, “It is with heavy heart that I come forward to point out, etc.” With no further ado, then…

    Tactical considerations:
    1. Time is of the essence. Methane release in the Arctic is accelerating (no matter your stance on global warming, this has already initiated processes which will devastate the planet; e.g., sulfur dioxide, which many have sniffed in the air in the vicinity of Seattle). We are being bombarded daily with toxins that make us less effective, cognitively and physically (read/listen to Dane Wigington, Mike Murphy, Russell Blaylock, Cliff Carnicom, even James Corbett for info on geoengineering). The planet is in meltdown, not just the economy. But even economic meltdown will render the judicial system moot, according to most plausible scenarios.
    We don’t have the luxury of being in the game for the long haul. All the science supports that claim.
    2. This is just a personal belief, but it seems to me that a more global approach would be more likely to grab attention. If one of you were to run for office on the platform that the whole government has been corrupted by special interest money, you would get press, and get supporters. Everyone on this website is intelligent, articulate, and informed enough to do this. Certainly Sibel would be the ideal candidate, for the above-stated reasons and because of her name recognition, but she is obviously very busy already.
    The purpose would not be to win an election, but to be given a voice. Office doesn’t matter, although it oughtn’t to be too small. I would think Sibel would have the credentials to run for governor. Just a thought.
    However, it is a very big step to take, as I know from having done it myself. That said, if I can do it, anyone can. Even in my case, the awareness-raising factor went miles beyond what I had expected, and I was offered a job writing a political column for the local paper after the election. The situation is desperate, and much as I loathed every moment of being in the public eye (being the World’s Shyest Person and all), I would do it again if I were still in the US.*

    Strategic consideration:
    It seems to me that there is some danger in choosing an isolated issue. That is what many groups have done, and they have become marginalized.

    I very much wish someone else had brought these things up. I am the only stick in this froggy mud, and don’t like the role at all. As I said earlier, I very much support the group, no matter what! But a little discussion can’t hurt – I hope.
    Now for something completely different: huuuuge Penrose fan here!

    * Soon to be in Scotland, candiDavid (I knew that was you! We virtually met on another site. Welcome aboard!)

    • plt,

      “It seems to me that there is some danger in choosing an isolated issue.”- Now I’m baffled. Judicial Integrity= isolated issue? Also, the issue is totally national- especially when it comes to Federal Courts. Another important point: taking smaller chunks-succeed-make it a model to follow vs. take on extremely massive chunks, run like headless chicken, get overwhelmed, and then get disgusted and give up. For Ex: Legalization of Marijuana- starting with one State and then multiplying and spreading to other states. Another Example: Rejecting and Getting rid of Common Core in one state, become encouragement/model, and have other states following the trend. Another example: States can reject TSA in their own state airports. That was attempted in Florida (to a degree), but it fizzled. It should be tried- in other states. Another example: Obama backed off from ‘Gun’ issue due to strong and cohesive reaction/response from many local communities/local sheriffs …

      We started this series with Change & individuals. The next logical step, at least in my opinion, is change & local communities … after that, cities, states … and spreading from there. It all starts with small chunks- it is about setting a trend/an example. It is about showing that ‘things’ can be done. Again, that’s my view/opinion, and I am totally open to all of your views.

      • Completely agree. I don’t think any other approach is even possible. Nobody can tackle the whole globe, so we need to start with one small vulnerable piece at a time. Something manageable, i.e., do-able. Believe-in-able.

        Same idea in martial arts, incidentally. How can you hope to defeat some crazy guy who’s way bigger than you? Don’t attack the whole guy. Find a weak vital point anywhere you can reach. Attack that.

        • John,
          “I don’t think any other approach is even possible…”- My exact conclusion as well; after 13 years looking for, trying, experimenting with other approaches.

          “Something manageable, i.e., do-able. Believe-in-able…”- Exactly. Think about it, who would ‘Not’ agree with and side with ‘A Major Step towards Judicial Integrity’? Once it is shown (with strong/naked examples) the ‘facts,’ who would ‘Not’ side with/support an move that says: 1- A Commission tasked with ‘oversight and investigation’ of judges can NOT be made of members who are active judges and connected officials (Of course they will be protecting one another, covering up, burying the corruption/etc.) 2- We the citizens want the current system/commission to be dissolved (completely), and be replaced with one that is made of independent ethical citizens (maybe one retired judge who is known for integrity, two dormer attorneys, one or two civil liberties activists, a couple of teachers, a doctor , etc.).3- The new commission should be operated with complete transparency, and commission members should be replaced every X years …

          The idea is not new. And here is another case that shows this is NOT an isolated/local issue:

          All people have to do: research judicial corruption & judicial integrity, and you’ll see the incredibly disgusting state of our nation when it comes to its judiciary. Thus, taking one ‘feasible’ state, with already public failing grade (even admitted to by the mainstream media!), with a high percentage of activism-oriented state citizens, with bullet-proof two or three real cases, has a high chance of becoming a success story. And ‘When’ that happens, we move for a bigger chunk …

          Anyhow, thank you, John. This proposal is also a good way to see (and demonstrate) how easy it is for people to talk, talk, talk, opine, opine, opine, analyze, analyze, discuss, discuss, argue, argue, and when the push comes to shove ‘pass gas’ and show up as an absentee;-) Very few have the guts, dedication, strength of character, needed resolve to say, ‘Let’s roll up our sleeves and get on to it.’

          • steven hobbs says:

            Hi Sibel & John,
            “Nobody can tackle the whole globe, so we need to start with one small vulnerable piece at a time. ” — Agreed, as referenced: “Same idea in martial arts..”

            “‘Something manageable, i.e., do-able. Believe-in-able..’ – Exactly. ” — Yep

            “I don’t think any other approach is even possible…” — Other approaches are possible, practicality of same depends on specific goals within a larger frames. Other approaches and allies may be worth considering.

            “Think about it, who would ‘Not’ agree with and side with ‘A Major Step towards Judicial Integrity’? Once it is shown (with strong/naked examples) the ‘facts,’ who would ‘Not’ side with/support ..” — Here things get complicated. Habitus, stands in the way, to say nothing of apathy, dissonance, confusion, psychic numbing, or an unmoored mythos. This is not a reason to resign such an integral project.

          • ….”for the world , which seems
            To lie before us like a land of dreams,
            So various, so beautiful, so new,
            Hath really neither joy, nor love, nor light,
            Nor certitude, nor peace, nor help for pain;
            And here we are as on a darkling plain
            Swept with confused alarms of struggle and flight,
            Where ignorant armies clash by night.”
            From the last lines of Dover Beach by Matthew Arnold

            Over 150 years later “armies clash by night” engulfed in a series of endless wars. We are the lucky ones.
            I Cannot speak for Pit.
            I have never been in such a time with so many ticking monumental phenomenon that have already begun their assault. I need not list them all. We will all be affected by them.
            Taking on a rotten judge in a corrupt system or wailing at the military/bank/deep state?
            If it is done with integrity–that’s all that really matters Sibel possesses that and I sense others have it.. In the grand scheme of things…?
            I admire Pit’s courage, because it is all so overwhelming.

          • I guess I better volunteer to help! I have been afraid to commit time because I’m up to my ears in PhD work these days. But I don’t want to be all talk and no action, so if there’s something I can manage, surely you can count me in. I’m afraid my contribution will be a bit puny!

          • 344thBrother says:

            @John: You wrote
            “Same idea in martial arts, incidentally. How can you hope to defeat some crazy guy who’s way bigger than you? Don’t attack the whole guy. Find a weak vital point anywhere you can reach. Attack that.” Great analogy.

            This is why I keep hammering away at 911, I see it as the soft underbelly of the entire system in the USA.

            On the issue of crooked judges, I will cruise along for now on this one and try to find a niche to fill. So, tally ho!

    • steven hobbs says:

      Hi Plt,
      “The planet is in meltdown, not just the economy. But even economic meltdown will render the judicial system moot, according to most plausible scenarios.” — Agreed, yet that’s not a reason to stop gaining skills or seeking alternatives. Not that you were suggesting it would, necessarily.

      “A more global approach would be more likely to grab attention — Maybe. Challenge is persuading and motivating. Sometimes a surgical focus, so to speak, may be more effective to begin a momentum.

      “It seems to me that there is some danger in choosing an isolated issue.” — Agreed – And, the particular focus at any given time may not be more important than building a participatory agency.

      I’m glad you speak to these issues, Plt. We need critical internal examination to be coherent and effective.

    • @plt: To echo what others have said, I appreciate you sticking your neck out. It’s never a good feeling but it’s part of what we need to do around here 🙂

      I actually think the more global and attention grabbing issues and tactics are the least likely they are to gain traction. Once an issue becomes overly politicized or sensationalized the forces bent on curbing any constructive change will swoop in like vultures, picking apart your platform like carrion, and sh##ing on your coalition for good measure. Choosing an “isolated issue”, as you referred to it, is precisely why I think there’s a chance for success. The larger the issue the greater the opposition and the resources at hand to see that nothing happens. For the time being, I see focusing on issues at a local level; out of the spotlight, putting to use some of the strategies we’ve discussed here to use, particularly learning from what hasn’t worked or has been otherwise corrupted, is the way to take action that can lead to success to build on.

      • Just a thought…
        It’s possible that I’m going too far in my comment about keeping “out of the spotlight”. I guess the specifics of this need to be discussed further. Does the gist of that make sense to people though?

    • Ronald Orovitz says:

      Yeah, judicial review board reform isn’t exactly a sexy issue, but I get the logic of this approach. It is quite obvious that all three branches of gov’t at state and federal levels are rotten to the core so that the checks and balances system is simply not functioning. One way to unravel the corruption and restore checks and balances is to go after the board which is supposed to insure the integrity of the judicial branch. Once that integrity is restored, then we can begin to unravel the corruption in the other branches.

      There are efforts to do the same beginning with the legislative branch, which you’re getting at with #2: ” If one of you were to run for office on the platform that the whole government has been corrupted by special interest money, you would get press, and get supporters.” Consider Doug Hughes gyro-coptr stunt – he didn’t run for office, but he certainly got people’s attention. Whether it will have staying power is another question – I heard his interview on Democracy Now and even in that outlet, which he probably naively believed was the best venue to make his case, his issue was sidelined as Amy Goodman had the gall to make it personal, asking about his son’s suicide, and suggesting that Hillary Clinton was on board with him. -Yeah, Sibel is no fan of Goodman and I can see why.

      • steven hobbs says:

        Hi Ronald,
        Not to dismiss some good work that Goodman does. I didn’t find my true contempt for her until I saw this video of her ducking and running as Bldg. 7 came down. She refuses to talk anything about 9/11, always diverts the conversation.

    • candideschmyles says:

      Really! Excellent! Then I hope we can find an opportunity to meet up. if you want to arrange that with me. I do work in highlands weekdays but am back in Edinburgh every weekend. Hope to hear from you.

  24. chris bagg says:

    Sibel- Great idea to expose judicial fraud in Oregon. A clear cut case will always open people’s eyes, though you may find that the interest you generate is regional rather than national. Still, every egregious case helps the cause of waking people up.

    There is, however, a case of national interest playing out at this very moment that has the potential to truly capture people’s attention, if not bring down the US government itself if properly exposed. I am talking about the Boston Marathon Bombing trial, which is demonstrably an out and out fraud. All of the participants, from the defense, to the prosecution, to the presiding judge are committing fraud, and knowingly terrorizing the American people. I say this because the evidence has been out there for quite some time proving that the entire event was staged by the government and the city of Boston. No one died, no one was injured, and the perpetrator on trial is simply an actor playing a role. It is inconceivable that the neither the defense nor the prosecution have been able to uncover this truth, for there is overwhelming photographic evidence that this event was staged, using crisis actors, fake blood, and fake emergency medical technicians, etc. This is perhaps the most clear cut case of systemic fraud to have emerged since 911.

    If what I am saying is new to you then you need to watch this presentation by author Dave McGowan on you tube:
    While the host can be somewhat off putting, McGowan’s analysis is spot on. If you don’t have time for the whole discussion, then watch it in pieces. Or, if you would like to start with smaller bits of information, you can watch the excellent videos by Plasma Burns on the subject. I recommend starting with this one:

    The sad reality that we are being deliberately terrorized by our own government is one which America will not tolerate for long. This incident has as much potential to wake people up as 911 does, though it is much more recent, and thus cannot be dismissed as “history”. This is a story that people will pay attention to as it is all over the news 24/7. The time to expose this fraud is now.

    • Ronald Orovitz says:

      I haven’t watched the McGowan video yet, but I am familiar with the arguments alleging “no one died” as presented by Jim Fetzer, so let me give the same caveat here as I do for Fetzer: video fakery, evidence of staged injuries, presence of crisis actors, etc. does not prove “no one died”. That the uncle of the alleged bombers was closely tied in (literally an in-law) with oil interests and intelligence operations in the Caucasus region however does strongly suggest that this was a false flag event. Such operations have many dimensions, including producing false, misleading evidence as diversionary candy for investigators, particularly those of the “conspiracy theory” type.

      One should be careful then how one speaks about what occurred – especially in assertions like “no one died” – you could be setting yourself up for a very embarrassing moment if perchance you should encounter the friend or relative of someone who did in fact die or was injured.

    • 344thBrother says:

      They did kill the brother though right? So, if what you say is accurate, it was a theater production in which one man was murdered.

      That’s interesting

      • chris bagg says:

        My conclusion is that they did not really kill Tamerlan. Did that corpse in the photo they released really look like someone who was run over by a car? Showing pictures of the “dead” brother makes the cops and robbers fake shoot out seem more real. It also gets him out of the way so we only have to try one brother. Shooting both of them would have made the scenario even more questionable, and the trial gives the perpetrators the opportunity to retraumatize us all with gruesomely vivid descriptions of all the fake injuries. Get ready for a repeat with the Batman shooting.

        This whole Boston Bombing event was a moulage fest where quite impressive hollywood style gore was employed. One can make a living person look like a corpse quite readily with the right paints, glues, dyes, latex injuries, etc. Take a look at the morgue photos of their friend Todashev, who was supposedly killed by the FBI inside his apartment while unarmed. This story makes no sense on its face, but does serve to reinforce the Tsarnaev’s guilt. Just google Todashev autopsy photos. Rigor mortis sets in within hours, yet they were able to sit the “corpse” up for the photo shoot? The sutures look identical to the fake sutures on one of the “victims” of the Aurora Batman shooting. These psyops always seem to involve secondary “deaths” that reinforce the authenticity of the original event, even as they spur conspiracy theories about who did what, when and why.

        • Ronald Orovitz says:

          I recommend Descartes’s and his “evil genius” meditation -it is far more applicable in our own time than it was in his. It speaks to what the senses allow us to say with certainty.

          While we should doubt what is presented to us as facts by official media, we should also refrain from coming to opposite conclusions based on impressionistic analysis. That something does or doesn’t “look like” what we would expect to see does not give evidence one way or the other – it may be that our expectations are mistaken; or, as noted above, it may be that the “evil genius” technicians of today are trying to divert our attention away from more pertinent things, while at the same time making those of us who entertain such radical perceptions look ridiculous to the “uninitiated”.

  25. chris bagg says:

    Please don’t confuse McGowan’s analysis with Fetzer’s. The latter is out to distract and mislead, and has little credibility, in my opinion. He was very late to pick up on this story and has added nothing new, whereas McGowan was onto of it from the beginning and was one of the first to call this fraud. Do listen to McGowan’s carefully researched talk. Plasma Burns’ videos, linked to above, also offer some very good evidence.

    Both “bombs” were merely hollywood style special effects. No pressure cookers were involved. There was no shrapnel, as we can see by looking at photographs of the flimsy paper and cloth barriers that were undamaged. McGowan thoroughly analyses the photo and testimonial evidence proving that the various victims faked their injuries.

    If there were no real bombs, I don’t see how anyone could have died at the scene of the bombing. By the same logic, if there were no real bombs why would the two Tsarnaev brothers shoot a policeman? This was just a deliberate echo of the Tippit shooting from the Kennedy assassination, intended to establish the guilt of the “bombers”. Furthermore, why would they engage the cops in a shoot out if they hadn’t really left bombs at the marathon finish line? All of the subsequent action is just a scripted drill to cause panic and alarm.

    In fact, it is from the original Battle of Marathon that we get the word panic. The greek god Pan, who delighted in using his pipes to confuse and alarm his sheep, was said to have used his special powers to terrify the enemy of the Greeks during the battle, leading the Athenians to victory. Whoever designed this drill was having fun at everyone’s expense. It was all smoke and mirrors designed to cause Panic. I am not amused.

    • steven hobbs says:

      Hi Chris,
      “If there were no real bombs, I don’t see how anyone could have died at the scene of the bombing.”
      Time is limited, critical thinking useful, as is, self criticism.
      Do you believe McGowan more than MSM, local media, and/or street activists? By what distinction? Who are we to believe what? Believe stories? In other’s lives?
      I don’t care to get lost in a forest without greeting trees. “Everybody knows” (Cohen) is a favorite song as is “Dance Me to the End of Love.”

      Chris, triangulating sources is useful for navigating bearings.
      Thank you for bringing McGowan to attention.

      What do you think about targeting lack of judicial integrity in a localized area, such as, for instance Portlandia? If for no other reason than praxis?

    • Ronald Orovitz says:

      Chris, I’m about halfway through the first McGowan video. Not persuaded however that no one died. If anything, the contrast between the professionalism of the legit hyper-realism video and the amateurness of the Boston bombing imagery would do more to support my point: that such easily detectable fakery is so designed in order to divert and discredit independent investigation – as if crisis actors were told to be lax, or perhaps only the trainees were hired for this job. Can we rule out these scenes being shot on a movie set in an entirely different location? There were reports however of a drill planned ahead of time; in which case the images McGowan, Fetzer et al obsess on may be exclusively those of the drill set while the real gore images have not received wide distribution out of respect to victims and their families. These are possibilities you need to consider before jumping to “no one died”.

      The “no one died” allegation has also been said of Sandy Hook. Again, there are many highly unusual aspects of that event, but do these irregularities conclusively support the notion that there were no casualties? Here is an account by Dr. James Tracy of how he was approached by certain dubious “handlers” pushing him towards the “no one died” meme – apparently these same handlers did manage to snag Wolfgang Halbig, however, who has subsequently been saying “no one died”….

      • Ronald,

        Good points. This is what I call the needed healthy skepticism while keeping open mind. I have heard people/groups who claim there were no casualties in 9/11 … With so many solid facts, angles, I will never spend a second of my life on these types of not-backed hypothesis/speculations … But then again, that’s me.

      • chris bagg says:

        What other “real gore images” are you talking about? All of the images which McGowan analyses were presented by many mainstream media outlets as real photographs of the bombing. Most are in the public domain. The victims depicted are supposedly the same people who are testifying in the bombing trial. If these photos were shot on a movie set in a different location then this itself is clear evidence of fraud. What McGowan does is prove that what the victims and their doctors allege to have happened is impossible given the photographic record. This is very significant as it shows that we are being lied to not only by the media, but also by the US government that is prosecuting the “bomber”. The obvious conclusion is that the bombs themselves, and all of the victims, were fake. The whole thing was nothing but a drill presented as a real event.

        In fact, Obama’s director of FEMA at the time of the bombing wrote a plan for just such a drill involving the Boston Marathon when he held his previous job as director of Boston’s EMS service. This smoking gun document predates the bombing by at least three years, You won’t find it easily because it has been scrubbed from Google, but here it is:
        What do you make of this?

        • steven hobbs says:

          Hi Chris,
          Don’t know if you looked at Descartes’s “Evil Genius of Doubt,” (Stanford E. of Philosophy is accessable) it’s actually quite good. I would also like to suggest “Hopi Time: A Linguistic Analysis.” The later, because in their language (if I’ve it correct) the only known fact is stated now, otherwise it’s a story, or a story of a story, or a story of a story of a.. etc. By the way, a friend told me a story of a friend of theirs injured in that blast, but still, it’s just a story.

      • Personally, I see going the route of calling into question the legitimacy of injuries or casualties suffered by the victims of any sort of terrorist attack problematic. Beyond the fact that for example, in the Boston Marathon bombing, I don’t find the evidence of crisis actors compelling (aside from the repeated “eye witness” accounts, which is pretty hard to dispute), there’s so much that’s alarming about the incident that’s not even factually controversial that the energy being expended on trying to prove the crisis actor theory feels a bit to me like being served the wrong dish at a restaurant then complaining that it’s too spicy.

        The Boston Marathon bombing effectively traumatized people and allowed a number of alarming events to take place in its wake, most notably the virtual implementation of martial law, with little to no scrutiny. Of course the truth in all aspects of the incident matter, but to me, focusing on the most controversial, difficult to prove, and legitimately offensive parts, is more or less an act of self-marginalization as far as truth telling and raising awareness is concerned.

        After all, if someone starts shooting a gun off in a crowded area but it turns out they were only shooting blanks, that does little to console those terrorized by the incident. If an independent investigator showed up on the scene following such an incident and started inquiring about what kind of blanks were used by the perpetrator, it would come as no surprise if the victims involved viewed this line of inquiry insensitive at best. Particularly let’s say, if the official narrative was that the guns weren’t using blanks, word was that people were critically wounded, some were dead, and there was blood all over the place.

        Once you go that route, no matter how talented and committed an investigator you are, you’ve already marginalized yourself and alienated people to the extent that not only have you potentially done irreparable damage to your credibility moving forward, you’ve also you provided the deep state with future propaganda talking points for grouping you among examples of the types of “conspiracy theorists” who lack credibility and therefore, no matter how compelling and damning the information you have supporting other elements of a coverup/false flag, can safely be ignored.

        I’m not trying to be a jerk or condescending, but I just feel ill at ease whenever I hear mention of crisis actors in the sorts of events.

        • chris bagg says:

          Sorry Benny but this is ridiculous and foolish comment. It absolutely does matter that the Boston Marathon Bombing was a staged terrorist attack using actors. If we fail to see this, we cannot hope to understand this event, nor what happened in its wake. If you bother to look at the links that I have provided, you will see that there is incontrovertible proof of what I am saying. What this means is that our government is quite willing and able to stage large scale psyops aimed at traumatizing the entire US population. This is what happened in Ferguson, and what is happening right now in Baltimore. We are about to experience a repeat with the trial of James Holmes for the Aurora Batman shooting.The fact that Sibel and the rest of the readers here are ignoring this is very disturbing. It is not my credibility that is at stake here. What I am saying about the Boston Bombing is well understood by many thousands of people outside this forum. I am trying to bring some enlightenment to this discussion, and establish a consensus. I am mystified by your response. What can I say…You can lead a horse to water but you cannot make him drink!

          • @chris: I’m not saying that it doesn’t matter that this was a staged attack. Of course it does! My point is that there are so many other aspects of the entire episode, such as the absurd allegations of the MIT shooting you mentioned, that are so easy to point to if you want to demonstrate that this was a fabricated false flag event. If your concern is exposing this to people, why would you focus on pressing the most controversial, difficult to prove element, that’s going to legitimately offend people to the extent that they’re no longer going to be willing to listen to what you have to say.

            Even now, when I hear you suggesting the same thing with Ferguson and Baltimore, my immediate reaction is: this guy is more concerned with a technicality I’m skeptical of than the fact that these cases revolve around two black men who were gunned down by police, that’s messed up. The second part of the scenario, which we’d likely agree on, is that both situations have greater underlying implications as to how this fits into police state violence and the ways these events are being manipulated to bring about a secondary set of nefarious circumstances, but I’m someone who’s far more informed than the average person on these matters. I might be inclined to listen to what you have to say, but the vast majority of people who you encounter pressing this angle are going to recoil and say: wow, this guy is an insensitive dick, conspiracy theorist.

            You can’t go around trying to appease people, but let’s face it: the average Joe can’t even digest the idea that 9/11 was a staged event, or that the twin towers came down by the use of explosives. All of us in the truth movement, myself included, have a tendency to assume that we are going to be marginalized and ignored and not without good reason. But at times that seems to devolve into a self fulfilling prophecy when we go off at times on self indulgent aspects of these events that we can’t even agree on. Like I said (I think) BFP is a good place to discuss these matters, because all of us have enough healthy skepticism and knowledge of the extent the deep state goes to manipulate events.

            I’m not dismissing what you have to say out of hand. I think it’s entirely plausible that crisis actors could’ve been used I just haven’t been presented with compelling evidence. And here’s my point precisely: you probably do have compelling evidence to present, as you’ve clearly committed far more time to investigating the matter and I have no doubt are far more well informed than me. But the crisis actor meme has been making the rounds for a while now and I feel that people are using it way too liberally and in a way that makes me really uncomfortable. I know for a fact that you and I are on the same page on many, if not most topics which we’ve engaged in here, but the crisis actor thing makes me feel at odds. That’s absolutely fine and healthy, but if we really want to wake people up to what’s going on, we need to have a certain amount of self awareness, that’s all.

            Whether or not crisis actors were used is probably the least important aspect of what happened during the Boston Marathon proceedings. I desperately want people to recognize how important these different aspects are, but I’m well aware of how well people have been trained to accept the “official narrative”, so I’m pragmatic. If you’re a lawyer and you want to convince a jury that a crime was committed, you start with the most compelling, critical evidence you have. This is just my opinion though. I’m not saying it’s what’s right, however I don’t think it’s ridiculous or foolish, but I don’t have a problem if that’s how you feel and I can understand why you feel that way. I’m not looking to change your mind or tell you how to go about things, I’m just trying to give you some feedback about why I find the crisis actors issue troublesome. Hopefully I’ve added some clarity to that, but if I haven’t that’s fine. I don’t think I have anything else to add and I don’t even think I disagree with you, so it’s not a matter of convincing me. It’s all good, chris. I appreciate what you have to say and even just from what you mentioned here, I’m inclined to believe your argument carries some weight. Nuff said, I’m thirsty (and hungry 😉 time for dinner (seriously…)

          • Just a clarification:

            these cases revolve around two black men who were gunned down by police

            Obviously I misspoke, as the cause of death in the case of Freddy Gray has yet to be determined (and probably never will be on any satisfactory level).

    • Ronald Orovitz says:

      Interesting observation on the Battle of Marathon -often times such events are tied into ancient mythological themes, the planners thereof being of a pagan faith.

  26. Here is where the expression “went over like a lead balloon” comes in handy 🙂
    For those who are interested in some context behind my lead balloon, listen here:

  27. Your balloon is fine.
    At least you have a tactical opinion.

  28. Ribbit-Mark says:

    I still am ready and willing to help out in the OR action plan that Sibel has given details of.

    I am wondering if another group may be tapped for their expertise in this area, for there is no sense re-inventing the wheel, so to speak.

    The group is ‘Judicial Watch’.

    From their website:
    Judicial Watch, Inc., a conservative, non-partisan educational foundation, promotes transparency, accountability and integrity in government, politics and the law. Through its educational endeavors, Judicial Watch advocates high standards of ethics and morality in our nation’s public life and seeks to ensure that political and judicial officials do not abuse the powers entrusted to them by the American people. Judicial Watch fulfills its educational mission through litigation, investigations, and public outreach.

    The motto of Judicial Watch is “Because no one is above the law”. To this end, Judicial Watch uses the open records or freedom of information laws and other tools to investigate and uncover misconduct by government officials and litigation to hold to account politicians and public officials who engage in corrupt activities.

    Judicial Watch could potentially give us advice on strategies that have worked for them in the past.
    Or perhaps they could play a larger role in our project.
    They have a very impressive legal team behind them as well.

    Judicial Watch has a proven track record and has been instrumental in

    -helping to obtain release of the 2nd Pentagon video.
    -Obtaining FOIA docs detailing the flying of 160 Saudis out of U.S. in the days following 9/11
    -helping to reveal the 9/11 Saudi financial connection

    If anyone has any dirt on Judicial Watch, now would be a good time to hear about it.

    • Ribbit-Mark,

      I think that’s a sound suggestion. I had first-hand experience with their org on Dirty Judge Reggie Walton. They did good. I have not aware of any ‘red flags.’

      I think they mainly focus on ‘Federal’ courts and national issues, but it is worth checking.

      Would you like to give it a shot? At least to start the dialogue? Our Primary Target: Oregon’s Commission on Judicial Fitness & Disability; Our Main Issue: Covering Up for Corrupt Judges and Cases involving major conflict of interest. Of course, the secrecy (lack of transparency) governing their work.

      You can use the article written on them (Grade D-), my name/this website’s activist community.

      • Ribbit-Mark says:

        Sibel I will make contact with them today and see if they can lend any support to our project.

        • R-M,

          Thank you!

          Here is what I’m doing meanwhile:

          I took our example real-case, summarized it (redacting the names-judge/respondent(s)/etc.) to fit in less than two-pages. I am making sure it is very brief, clear, to-the-point, and very easy to follow/understand.

          Next, we need to summarize, what is this Commission-what it does-how it does it, what is it about & what is supposed to be about (to serve what purpose), and what is wrong with it (Ex: 100% Secrecy-Zero Transparency, accountability, conflict of interest-members, etc.), and what are the main implications (Lack of judiciary oversight & integrity). This too has to be very brief yet clear and easy to understand (No more than 1.5-2 pages).

          These are our first stage small chunks to accomplish. With these we’ll have a solid overview, issue/problem statement, implication(s) statements, plus, so far, an actual solid straight-forward case.

          Once we get these done, we’ll tackle stage 2. This is what I mean by breaking it into small and do-able chunks.

          • Ribbit-Mark says:

            Sibel I have read over a good deal of what the Commission’s does/how etc.

            I am now a little confused.

            I am assuming the example real-case you have concerns a judge who is not sitting on the Commission?

            I am curious to know how you will be able to prove that the Commission
            was not fair in their decision about the judge?

            Was it because of the process that the Commission was followed?
            That they failed to provide reasons for their judgment?
            Just a blanket case dismissal etc.?

          • Sibel:
            This document seems the most in depth description of what the “Commission” is and how it works.
            The term “master” is an interesting one. “Masters” means special masters appointed by the Supreme court upon request of the Commission.”
            In this doc. when one gets to Rule 18,” Temporary Disability ” and part “d.”…The following is mentioned,” …the Commission may hold a hearing to inquire into the alleged disability, or request the Supreme Court to appoint three qualified persons to act as masters, to hold a hearing and maintain a record on the matter referred to them and report to the Commission on the alleged disability.”
            Your particular case may not have involved any use of “masters”, but it would be wise to know everything possible about the A case involving masters amounts to 6 sitting Commission members plus 3 more appointed by the Supreme Court–9 people in all. From my point of view, I’d suggest an attorney’s analysis of this particular document.

          • Ron,

            See, this is exactly what I mean by collective effort. Thank you for keeping on top of this.

            The entire thing/process is intentionally ambiguous and fuzzy by design. Add to that their 100% secrecy (total lack of transparency). Oregon judiciary is known for its Chronic corruption/disability (ex: conflict of interest cases), yet, when you look at the records (let’s say in the past 10 years) you see only one or two cases processed by the Commission- one of them (a drunk judge who kept showing up totally drunk for the court sessions-obviously, this, witnessed by many people).

            Now, here, just with the point you raised, we are looking at a major problem with the Commission. Do they receive dozens of valid complaints (with supporting documents) per year and make decision not to pursue/investigate them? Do they receive one or two per year? People have no way of knowing. So, considering the total secrecy regarding the cases/reports they receive and the responses they issue, when they claim not receiving any complaints on these maters, it is simply an unverifiable allegation.

            Finally: you are absolutely right: when we get to stage 2-3, we are going to need (we have to obtain) independent legal opinions per each actual case. I have one pretty straight forward example (I have summarized it clearly-only 1 page + supporting documents). Once we get to Stage 2 we will begin collecting other cases (We’ll ask people who have submitted reports to the Commission on ‘corruption/disability/conflict of interest’ to submit to us: one page factual and clear case summary (what they filed with/submitted to the Commission, the date they submitted and the letter/response they received) + supporting documents (factual/public documents establishing their case). We will analyze these reports and select 3 or 5 or 10 that are strongest (clearest cases). Once we have these additional strong cases (even if 2 or 3), we will take those (together with the case we already have) to dozens of independent experts (active/retired judges, active/retired attorneys, active/retired academics-legal ethic professors, etc.), and request for their on-the-record opinions (legal opinions) on these cases. And once we have those (ready to be publicized) we will move forward with Stage 3.

            Does that make sense?

  29. James Fordham says:

    A comment on a past episode. You had just returned froem your trip to southeast asia, and had commented how a woman had commented that she had no time to consider the world problems of climate change, inequality and, corruption because she had to work 12 to 14 hours a day just to keep food on the table. This is the tactic of the elite. They want to keep everyone in precarious conditions, whether by austerity or by proxy wars of terrorism so that no one can have the balance or security in their lives necessary to challenge the status quo.
    The ’60’s, the last time the people challenged the elite order was a time of relative prosperity. The elite is going to make sure that does not happen again. however, as you said, those of us with relatively full bellies have an obligation to do something to oppose the global fascist order.
    I have a question. In your book, The Lone Gladio, you had alluded to muslim mullahs that were supported by the CIA and the deep state. I have been wondering that in the light that the text books for the madrassas that trained the mujahadin and the talaban, and the extensive secret work that the CIA has done in mind control, is it possible that the CIA may have modified the Quran to enable the kind of savage conduct that we have witnessed recently with ISIS and Al Qaida?
    Thanks for all you have done for the sake of truth .
    All the Best: James Fordham

  30. @Ribbit Mark:
    Please check out Sibel comment; 4-23 @ 5:28 PM 2nd paragraph and the 3 key points she made regarding the Commission on Judicial Fitness and Disability. It is Oregon’s way of providing an ethics commission to review and vet judges. Other states may or ay not even have such an entity.. The “commission” winds up being a very dodgy “club” relative to local judges and politicians in Oregon. There is no transparency, hence easy room for corruption. In fact it needs to be abolished!! She will get you the proof( I am not speaking for her). … this format of commenting and waiting kinda bothers me a bit, but Sibel has offered her time ad I feel I am working within restricted conditions–But, that’s OK–it is what it is.

  31. candideschmyles says:

    Well this wander from Chomsky to Jones and Penrose has been interesting more for shining a light on the calibre and rationality of thought and elucidation of the forum members than anything else. At least for me. Despite my long of tooth cynicism I would like nothing more than to also contribute meaningfully. Yet despite my high regard for you all I don’t see how piecemeal actions change much unless they are multiplicitous and time coordinated by very many people across the world. Many “International Day of Action” events do get scheduled. I think actively seeking them and bolting on your own appropriate action to them is the only way to get the kind of momentum required to get noticed and grow the number of participants. Perhaps we can collectively look out for, inform each other of and then initiate our own actions in synchrony with other events? Just a thought.

    • candideschnyles;
      One black woman decided when she was 22 to sit at the front of a segregated bus in Alabama on Dec.1, 1955. A simple “piecemeal” incident. Rosa Parks triggered a countrywide civil rights movement which took another decade or more to change America. We do not know what a small event can do. In Tienamin Square one of the great iconic images of history: 1 man stood by himself and froze a row of tanks.

      • candideschmyles says:

        Yes. Yet again in the US killing blacks is a sport amongst police officers… And Tianemen square changed what exactly? Damn you! The post you responded to was at least positive… Now you go remind me of the futility.

  32. Matthew Devall says:

    Hi Sibel,

    Excellent insights as usual. I’m new here, but have you ever addressed why people work for these government agencies in the first place? For instance, you? Why did you decide to work for the U.S. government? I’m imagining that you just needed a job, and that job made sense at the time, and you may or may not have been aware of what you eventually realized. Wouldn’t we hope that people wouldn’t want to be involved in that work in the first place? Or maybe, a lot of people do know what’s going on, and that’s why they want to work there? I’d be very interested in your thoughts.


  33. Ribbit-Mark says:

    I am quoting myself here:

    I am curious to know how you will be able to prove that the Commission
    was not fair in their decision about the judge?

    Was it because of the process that the Commission was followed?
    That they failed to provide reasons for their judgment?
    Just a blanket case dismissal etc.?

    After reading another of your posts Sibel, I think I understand it now:

    2- We have a solid real case: A test case that was brought before them. with all relevant facts and evidence and documents, yet, as they have been doing with 100s of cases a year, they refused to take it on and cited no reason, because their by-law says they do not have to provide why they refuse cases.

    So basically it seems that the issue you would like to make with this OR action item is to show the ineffectiveness/corruption of the Commission, as evidenced by their refusal to take the ‘test case’ on.

    Sounds simple enough on paper.
    Although, on a one-off case, if pressed by higher-ups, they could come back with a simple explanation as to why they decided not to take it up.

    Still, it’s worth having a go at it.

    • Ribbit-Mark says:

      Sibel when you say for your test case that:

      “… they refused to take it on and cited no reason, because their by-law says they do not have to provide why they refuse cases.”

      Did they not look at it at all or did they look at it, but decided not to hold a hearing into it?

      Another related question that might be pertinent.

      Is it possible to find out how many cases are brought before the Commission each year (on average) and what percent of those cases receive hearings?

  34. I should ask this too. Has there been anything credible on psychotronic weaponry, especially the type that may target people in such a way as to cause them to be apathetic toward one thing but adamant about another? Seems like it could be possible especially if one could cause certain substances to be ingested by a target as then a microwave or some such thing could cause that particular substance which would deposit itself in a particular part of the nervous system to vibrate and alter the function of that particular spot. Combinations of substances with combinations of energy waves could be used to achieve more complex and specific effects.

    • Yes, plenty of it. Starting with the woodpecker project (not sure if that is the formal name) of the Soviets back in the Cold War era, through to ionospheric heaters of today (of which several dozen exist). You can find much information about microwave weapons at
      Moreover, the unexplained meteoric rise in the quantity of heavy metals (as nanoparticulates, not found in nature and not tested for by official agencies) in lakes, snowpack, rainfall, soil, etc., indicates that this is coming from the skies. Thus, it is in the air we breathe. Thus, we are all highly conductive, way beyond what nature intended.

      • Actually, when it comes to microwave weaponry the best source is probably Barrie Trower, who was directly involved with perpetrators and victims of such during his time in the Royal Navy, and went on to teach wave physics. He is also a delight to listen to.

  35. And some more posting that may or may not end up being relevant. The YouTube effect as I call it. I went back to enenews recently and noticed that the stuff in the comments sections is much different from what I recall it being like a year or two ago. I am certain that “they” hire out firms and people to screw up the dialogue in forums like enenews. This was especially noticable when i was reading on an autiam sit esome comments that seemed to be made by english speaking indians. The way they insult people is distinctive. One problem you have is sifting out the hired garbage from the legit garbage.

    Hers an idea for if your site gets bigger. Have forum and break it into levels. At the bottom level anyone e can post. Even the paid spam squads. Then you have moderators monitor that for people who post decent to great comments and move them up to a second tier. Then that would be monitored for people who would be invited to the top tier. All tiers would be viewable by everyone. This would allow everyone to post while allow the more constructive commenters more visibility and preventing it from turning into a YouTube style comments section/forum. Might tick off and alienate some people though.

  36. I should explain why I am all over the map (cept for the post about right to travel. I didn’t know of a good place to ask that and still don’t. So I was being g opportunistic there. But being locked out of the judicial system is a big problem. Maybe making it more accessible to the broke would be a “sexy” effort that could be combined with this oversight corruption stuff? Gain more traction by riling up the poor?). The common theme is voice mitigation. If you can control peoples thoughts or even moods you can control their way. If you can put their more effective comments in a sea of crap you can mitigate the efforts of those with more effective comments. And if you can dum them down with fluoride and psych drugs (see brain disabling treatments in psychiatry by peter breggin. There’s one story in there about a woman whose IQ went from high to low thanks to those drugs.) processed food, chemicals and more. Then multi tier this with ingested or absorbed substances and the potential they may add for psychotropic accessibility and then add the YouTube effect on top with some blackmail and framing added for good measure… Then you get a very effective tar pit for all good efforts to sink into. So how does one counter something tiered like that?

    Also one thing that could be done to control government and end corruption, terrorist infiltration and spy infiltration is by putting the various officials and bureaucrats binder constant surveillance. What event/s could happen to drive the public toward the necessity for this to happen?

  37. Psychotropic should be psychotronic. “Control their way” should be control their reaction or something along those lines.

  38. Ribbit-Mark says:

    Sorry for my posts being all over the place, location-wise.
    The site refuses to allow me to post a reply where I want to.

    Ron said:
    From my point of view, I’d suggest an attorney’s analysis of this particular document.$File/CJFDRules.pdf

    Thanks Ron for that, the document was very helpful.
    I don’t think an attorney is required for analysis. If I could understand it, I think most people can. 🙂

    To me the following three sections stood out, as they pertain to Sibel’s case:
    Informal Disposition:
    Retention of Records:

    I found it interesting for Retention of Records; matters that don’t proceed to a public hearing,
    matters that do proceed to a public hearing, and administrative materials all are clearly designated as public records or not public records.

    Strangely, although minutes of all Commission meetings shall be retained permanently, no mention is made in the Rules of Procedures whether these records shall be in the public record or not.

    • Mark:
      Yeah, I hear what you are saying. But no one but Sibel knows the “enemy” and she and others w/some help from us must be PREPARED to wade into their zones of power and corruption, in order to succeed. I assume, for example, there have been many complaints launched against this “Commission”. Although, this document appears understandable, an experienced attorney has different eyeballs and gives one “street creds”. I appreciate your work btw.

      • Ro9n,

        Please see my comment/response above. You said it perfectly: We have to make the case very strongly and on 100% solid grounds. We have to make it ‘bullet-proof.’ And to do this we MUST obtain not 1 not 2 not 3 but dozens of solid on-the-record independent expert opinions. This is an absolute key. And it will be the ‘key’ for our other coming projects. To summarize the steps: 1- Put together a clearly and factually summery of the target, the process, the issue(s), thus the implications (I’d say no more than 2 pages: Here is what this Commission is and says it does, here is their general process, here is why they were established, …then, here is the problem/issues, and here is the implication(s), thus, why they must be dissolved and replaced by …); 2- Put together a precise and clear summery of 3 or 4 cases, each with dozen or so legal opinions from the legal experts (I’d say no more than one page per case + legal opinions listed under each case); 3- One page clearly stated conclusion which includes call to action to dissolve the Commission and have it replaced by independent citizens with integrity for Judiciary Oversight).

        • Sibel:
          I mentioned this many episodes ago…namely, commenters are eager to contribute and without meaning to(plus your incredible politeness) can take a “project” a little sideways and a bit of confusion occurs. That is what we must anticipate and work with.
          Let’s call your focus “The Commission Project” or whatever YOU decide; because you will be doing the heavy lifting, as it were. So, for my part, I am not interested in discussing the endless horrors of the deep state, etc., NOW. Now you/we are obviously in the first stage of the “Project” I agree 100% with everything you said regarding the” run-up”. Prepare, prepare, prepare. You will find people as your allies in Oregon–especially retired attorneys and judges. I would also talk with College/University Law departments. Portland is considered the most progressive city on the West Coast–I’m sure there are law STUDENTS, interns, et. al. who would jump on this. Also consider young aspiring journalists and check with any of the counter-culture groups.
          To deal with what smells like a “clubby” old-boy network will be no east task.
          You will somehow have to form a core group around you. Also, any of the above, needs real eyeball to eyeball contact and handshakes. You and/or members of your core action group must brainstorm on several things.
          You are not tackling something that happened once or twice–You are attempting to undermine an all too cozy clandestine phenomenon that is entrenched in the Oregon Judicial AND political system. It is systemic! You will learn as you go and discuss among the core group what your goal is every so often…things can drift—FOCUS with INTEGRITY is everything. My feeling right now is that if you and your core group can shake up things among the systemic corruption(Oregon Politics got a D- rating); you will discover more bad shit. Why? Because psychopaths, in particular, roam in those zones. Based upon my studies, psychopathy can develop in any given organization. I’m guessing a bit , but a handful of psychopaths can warp an organization of hundreds. Based on this one venture, I see you making connections and finding all sorts of targets.

    • Ribbit,

      You make a very good point re: public or not. This so-called commission meets every two months (only for a few hours). Supposedly they go over all the reports/complaints (all submitted by letter/mail), and stamp them (From what I have gathered it is rubber stamping everything as ‘rejected). Then, they send a one-sentence letter to complainants stating: ‘The commission will not investigate your complaint’. That is it. I have tried to find a way (including FOIA) to get info on the complaints submitted to and met-upon by the commission. You can NOT get anything. Is it possible that they have hundreds of these reports a year with dozens being valid and investigation-worthy? YES. Is it possible that there are dozens of these reports/complaints with several strong/legit cases? YES. Is it possible that they receive 2 or 3 …? YES. The point is: no one knows. But here is what is known to all: They get D- grade when it comes to Judiciary Oversight + Oregon judiciary is known for its Chronic Corruption/conflict of interest. In addition to that, I have tested the system with an actual case.

      Now, I agree with Ron re: obtaining solid legal opinions on our example real-life cases. We absolutely need this for our Stage 3, and to make this a solid issue/case of activism. After we get a bit further, we are going to put together several (even if 3 or 4) strong/solid real-life cases (thoroughly and carefully documented). We then will take these well-organized cases to attorneys/judges/academics (retired or active; anywhere in the country-not Oregon), and ask them to issue on-the-record legal opinion (if we redact the names of parties and involved judges they will do it- we know how scared of the judges they are). Once we have these cases + on-the-record opinions we’ll move forward with the ‘Public Stage’ of our project: we’ll publicize what we have, disseminate, inform, and ask for the Commission to be dissolved …).

    • Ribbit,

      One of our members provided us with this important info on Commission members:

      The idea of having active attorneys and judges from the state is repulsive: A Major Conflict of Interest. Everyone, and by this I mean everyone in the legal community/profession knows that NO judge or attorney would ever want to get on the wrong side of a judge(s). Take Judy Snyder for example. She has a very fancy and lucrative law office in Portland (I’ve seen it). She, her lucrative private law firm, brings cases before these same judges every day. Do you think this woman is going to opine on the side of Public Interest, or, self interest (and self preservation)? That’s just one example. The same applies to all the attorneys/judges. Many of them are or about to run for ‘Public’ offices. They are board members of various political-business-NGO entities that are part of the same corruption-ridden machine. Thus, how could one expect those with the same major conflict of interest accept and investigate those judges with the same kind of conflict of interest?

      • steven hobbs says:

        Hi Sibel and all,
        On thinking about this project, a number of issues and curiosities have arisen for me. Although, these may be only my concerns I’m compelled to mention them for dialogue and consideration. Firstly, this conversation was most generously offered by Sibel, and she’s a huge task of midwifing it through in addition to all the other devotions she has going. We started out talking about revolutionary potential and possibility, which as become more focused on a “doable” and “focused” project for us to hone our activist teeth further. I would like to modestly propose that we never finished the first converstation(s) and are need of further clarity regarding this one. This is not to propose that any of these conversations will come to anything other than a natural organic ending.

        Recently, Bill Moyer’s work has come to my attention and I would like to share it with everyone here.
        and, call your special attention to the roles of activists: Citizen, Reformer, Rebel, and Activist – along with the effective and ineffective modes of each category. Each of us may have or preferred activist role. All roles are a part of the movement – “Unity of purpose, diversity tactics.”

        From the, “Participatory Action Research Toolkit.”
        Our group seems to be in the very initial action stage of: Establish relationships and common agenda with all stakeholders & collaboratively decide on issues. Next up, Re¬flection On research design, ethics, knowledges’ and accountability.

        I don’t care much about Oregon’s dysfunctional justice system, but injustice anywhere is injustice everywhere. Maybe I’ll feel differently when I hear the cases. I also don’t believe this system can be reformed – at least taking a short view — before the oceans rise. Nevertheless, it’s more vital to be involved and working toward positive change somewhere rather than nowhere. Additionally, big changes start with small ones and refining praxis is about living life fully.

        In a macro frame, this work is about justice, as is the 9/11 truth movement. It goes right to the streets for the many here who’ve connected the dots. The larger movement may be social justice & truthiness, and, it would seem, a larger project is to make it very clear to JQ Public how those dots connect with their palpable sense of things not being fair.

        In a micro frame, this work is about 3) dissolving the OR Commission as it presently stands and replacing it with independent citizens. By 2) having a concise summary of statute violations demonstrated by 3-4 or more cases and opined on by esteemed experts. Starting with 1) quoting Sibel, creating a factual summary, “the process, the issue(s), thus the implications … what this Commission is, says it does, here is their general process, here is why they were established, …then, here is the problem/issues, and here is the implication(s), thus, why they must be dissolved and replaced..”

        Some questions for consideration:
        1) What do we propose as a replacement for this commission and it’s composition, transparency, etc?
        2) What are the cases we have available to work with?
        3) What about those cases violates the Commission’s integrity?
        4) Once we have a convincing set of documents, what next?
        5) Are there already allies in the wings; who are the natural allies for such a project?

        I’m offering these questions to (possibly) help focus our collaboration and refine our target. One other thought, it seems that oversight boards are traditionally populated with (at least some) from the guild in question. So I don’t know a strong case can be made to exclude Oregonian attorneys and judges from Oregon’s Commission.

        • Steven,

          ” I would like to modestly propose that we never finished the first converstation(s) and are need of further clarity regarding this one….”- That conversation(s) will be ongoing forever- actions, small actions, experiments should never be hinged upon ‘some’ conclusion(s) to ‘some’ ongoing conversation(s). Otherwise we all should become philosophers/authors- keep wring and engaging in debates/discussions until the end of our lives.

          “Our group seems to be in the very initial action stage of: Establish relationships and common agenda with all stakeholders & collaboratively decide on issues. Next up, Re¬flection On research design, ethics, knowledges’ and accountability.” – that’s even more reason to go about the process with an experiment/action. The process itself will further other points. In fact, the process will further highlight/clarify the relationships and dynamic. Until then everything is ‘abstract’ (talk- air-words-air).

          “1) What do we propose as a replacement for this commission and it’s composition, transparency, etc?”- That’s part of the process. Starting with some pre-determined ‘solution’ proposal takes us away from the group action process arriving at ‘solution proposal.’

          “2) What are the cases we have available to work with?”- We have one or two, but again, during the ‘PROCESS” we will be collecting more cases. That’s why I have been emphasizing Stages. You are jumping to Stage 2, before even the preliminary work to kickstart Stage 1.

          “3) What about those cases violates the Commission’s integrity?”- I don’t understand this question.

          “4) Once we have a convincing set of documents, what next?”- Depends on what and how much we have at that point.

          “5) Are there already allies in the wings; who are the natural allies for such a project?”- Why don’t you take the initiation and come up with some examples & suggestions. Spoon-feeding is absolutely a ‘no no’ in my book. Someone suggested ‘Judicial Watch’: that’s a good suggestion. That member also committed to finding out whether they are willing to help/join us. See, that’s what I mean by ‘people taking these little small steps’: that is what I mean by our group process. Why don’t you find out other options, check them out, contact them, and then, share with us your finding(s)- that way we can add or eliminate.

          All right. This is not going to be some teacher/professor setting up steps, doing them, answering all questions, and spoon-feeding pupils. My suggestion (That is if you are interested and willing to work for that interest): you carve out a small chunk/piece, research, contact relevant people/orgs, talk with whatever expert(s), and then, share with us your findings- that way we’ll be one small step closer to what you just proposed in this comment.

          • steven hobbs says:

            Hi Sibel,
            Thank you for such a detailed set of clarifying responses, particularly the focus on process. Regarding my confused non-specific question ““3) What about those cases violates the Commission’s integrity?”- I don’t understand this question.” — I meant to refer to cases you have in hand. Access to those seems necessary in building an argument for conflict of interest, and possibly more.

            I agree with the appropriate focus on process, just making a plug for vision. The two seem to go together quite nicely, even if (necessarily) intermittently.

          • Steven,

            You are right.

            ” I meant to refer to cases you have in hand. Access to those seems necessary in building an argument for conflict of interest, and possibly more.”- I will do exactly that once we get a bit further. One case: direct case, and it will be our first one since I know it inside and out. The other one: without the complainant’s consent I cannot share it. With both cases, to start with, I will redact the judge’s name, the plaintiff’s name(s), and the exact location. At least to start with. Why? 1- Lawsuits- we are dealing with the judges and their unlimited resources/power (once we are a bit further into this: I’ll make sure they are ‘fair games’- every single one of them); 2- When we go to the ‘experts’ for their on-the-record legal opinions we need to have that ‘redaction’ because those ‘experts’ will NEVER provide us with legal opinions (on-the-record) without those redactions (a- They are afraid of lawsuits; b- They are afraid of pissing off their employers/connections/power-players within the legal community); and so much more).

            I have already prepared our first example case without having to list those names/identities. Let me give you an idea:

            The state: Oregon; Court: Family Circuit Court; Plaintiff(s) filed a petition to obtain ‘restraining order’ against XYZ entity. The assigned judge, Judge Z, used to be employed by XYZ entity before his position as a judge (See document A); Judge Z has been a board member of two business entities where XYZ entities are also board members (See document B); Judge Z’s election was publicly endorsed by XYZ entity (See document C); XYZ entity directly contributed to Judge Z’ election campaign and held several large fundraising events for Judge Z and raised large sums with their sponsored fundraising events (see document D); Judge Z’s spouse has contract position with XYZ entity (See document E); Judge Z and her/his family have personal and business/political relationship with several high-level managers of XYZ entity (see documents F & G) … Under these facts/circumstances/conditions Judge Z was required to recuse herself/himself from the case, however, Judge Z did not recuse herself/himself.

            Additionally, according to witness W who works with/at this circuit court the assignment of Judge Z to this particular case was “highly unusual” and under ‘unusual circumstances.” Another Witness closely familiar with XYZ entity has alleged that XYZ entity had contacted Judge Z prior to the case filing by the complainant and had briefed him/her on the coming case, and had asked him/her to intervene on their behalf. According to this witness this allegation can be established by examining Judge Z’s personal and work phone records …

            The Commission received the complaint and all supporting documents (including official documents & related news articles) on #### date. The commission rejected the case without citing reasons despite the fact that the case/complaint met the criteria cited by the commission guideline(s).


            This kind of a precise account of the cases, without the names/identities, would be the best way to obtain legal opinions from our ‘experts.’ However, before that, once we get to Stage 2, we have to work on getting the word out, and having other complainants submit to us their factual complaints that had been submitted to the Commission yet turned down. We get those cases, we organize and summarize them methodically, and then … we’ll be in Stage 3 (firework)

        • Steven,

          “So I don’t know a strong case can be made to exclude Oregonian attorneys and judges from Oregon’s Commission.”- Are you serious? Having active judges and active attorneys is the biggest conflict point here. So, commission member X receives a complaint about his buddy judge from the same court where they serve, and then, goes about investigating and trying that buddy colleague. Attorney A with posh law office and lucrative business, puts cases before the judges on daily basis (check out the member commissioners’ law offices and businesses). The million of dollars, the livelihood of this attorney depends on the cases he/she brings before the judges and those judges’ decisions. And then, this attorney A with his livelihood and Million $ business dependent on judges’ decisions, gets to investigate and bring down one of those judges.

          There were some den.. people who could not understand why Henry Kissinger heading the commission on 9/11 was a huge conflict of interest. What does the term ‘conflict of interest’ mean to you? How do you define it? You don’t think vaccine production pharma companies (their CEO/CFO) being appointed to a commission to investigate vaccine side effects is a major conflict interest?

          All right. I have to stop, and take a breath or two;-)

          • matthew_d says:

            Glad I decided to pay for the subscription. Now I get to see your arguing style, and I like it, mainly because it’s mine too. When arguing on the internet, you can’t let someone take you down the mindlessly aggravating rabbit hole of this or that technicality when the discussion is clearly about a broader idea. You just have to say, “No, nope, no…not going down that route. We’re talking about 1,2,3, and you’re trying to make this about A,B,C. At the same time, it’s not always fruitless to engage them, but only as long as you realize the audience isn’t just you two, but also the people sitting on the sidelines observing. Keep up the good work!

          • steven hobbs says:

            Hi Sibel,
            I agree with you greatly, if not quite entirely. The issue, as I understand it, is that this IS the way most of these bodies are composed, from my limited knowledge. So, approaching it from this angle may be difficult. Other options might be, as you suggested, retired members of the guild, and/or those from another state. Playing the devils advocate, how is the argument that members of the guild have special knowledge that is appropriate to have on such bodies overcome?

          • Steven,

            “The issue, as I understand it, is that this IS the way most of these bodies are composed, from my limited knowledge…”- Exactly. When Dennis Hastert was serving as the Speaker of the House, corporations/foreign lobby organizations hired his sons and placed them on various boards: This is one way to get around the so-called rules, and indirectly bribe public officials. We are seeing similar cases with FDA, EPA … you name it. We need to stop this- stop it. No ifs or buts. Here, this case, is one possible way to stop one. If/when it works, there will be another. Most importantly, it may be a way to show the rest of the country that ‘yes, it is possible to stop, and no, not by going after all of them all at once. We take one, and show that it can be done. We take another. Some will take our example and take another or two …’ The process has to start somewhere, with someone. Sitting on our buts and saying: ‘Look, how corrupt and dirty and scummy all these people are …’ or casting a vote every two years or so, expecting those elected to ‘do something,’ or, asking for more laws to be passed, or … won’t get us anywhere. On the other hand, small victories, followed by other small victories, followed by others achieving further smaller victories … now, that is something that is not being attempted/tried. Of course, as I covered in one of our podcast episodes, the false sense of assurance that ‘some organization’ somewhere will ‘somehow’ do something like this some day, has also gotten us to where we are today as a nation.

            Maybe we will succeed in bringing down a commission filled with conflict and corruption and replace it with a real oversight commission for judicial integrity. Maybe we will next succeed in getting one or two additional states rejecting Common Core. Maybe that will help open the floodgate and bring about replications … Maybe it is just a maybe, but we won’t know unless we try. Try in action. Try with resolve- methodically, deliberately and with resolve.

          • steven hobbs says:

            Hi Sibel,
            Thank you for laying out the case you have in such a clear manner. It’s quite disgusting and egregious, and worthy foundation for complaint. There’s a lot more in your detailed responses that have given me thought, too. I like moving forward with process, always have and always will. The initiative shown in this dialogue is generating a sense of team work. Actually, when I jumped onto this thread I made an attempt to connect with aa group on the larger issue of 9/11 and it fell flat. I will continue with the newer, smaller, focus. It’s occurred to me to write a small article describing some of the conversations here and the emerging goals for other venues than BFP to garner allies, but I don’t want to jump the gun.

          • steven hobbs says:

            Seems we lost the thread. Was hoping to coordinate with Rabbit on reaching out.

            Nevertheless, it will be great to hear a little of your personal experiences, Sibel, regarding this particular personality disorder.

  39. So there are NO public domain records listing complaints received/complaints rejected/complaints investigated?

    • Hi Remo,

      You got it. There is nothing. In fact when people file complaint/reports with them, the initial response (their receipt acknowledging that they have received the letter/report attaches something like a gag order to the complaint/reporter). Based on their process/rules: only those cases they take on (to investigate and try) become public (which is very very few- as I mentioned before it is something like 2 or 3 cases on cases like drunk judges; nothing on conflict/corruption in the past several years)- all other reports/letters remain secret (never become public). Are there hundreds of those? Dozens? Handful? No one know, no one is able to find out. ZERO record. Zero transparency.

    • steven hobbs says:

      Thanks Remo

    • Ribbit-Mark says:

      So there are NO public domain records listing complaints received/complaints rejected/complaints investigated?

      Been doing a bit more homework on this.
      There is a lot more to this than meets the eye initially.

      State Commissions usually meet only once a month and are not paid for their services as commission members.
      They usually have legal staff who vet the complaints initially. Some complaints may never even be seen by the Commission (so there is room for corruption at this level as well).

      Commissions vary state by state in terms of how they are set up, and how efficient/effective they are.
      For example:
      The State of Texas issues annual reports with details of how all complaints were handled (transparency).
      The State of Oregon does not issue annual reports and provides no details of how complaints were handled (secrecy).

      Most complaints filed with state judicial conduct commissions are dismissed, (generally more than 90 percent each year).

      • Ribbit,

        Excellent- thank you so very much. You are expanding my info as well. For example: I did not know about the ‘legal staff’ vetting the complaints initially. With my dealings with them their letter said they meet once every two months. I wonder how their legal staff gets paid.

        “Most complaints filed with state judicial conduct commissions are dismissed, (generally more than 90 percent each year).”- You see, they tried to fudge this by claiming that it was due to most complaints being about ‘case outcomes/judges’ decisions,’ which we know is not covered by the Commission. However, based on my direct info, and my research, they have been receiving legit reports/complaints re: corruption and conflict of interest (which usually goes hand-in hand). Yet they have been declining every single one of those complaints/reports.

        I think one of the objectives we have for their replacement: Publicly accessible database (one that is updated frequently) where people can view these complaints, the review process, why they’d been accepted or rejected. I know how this secrecy helps the commission to cover up- Think about it: patterns will be established. Let’s say you see X number of complaints regarding Judge A involving corruption. How could they reject and cover up when people (with access) can see the pattern with particular judges? Right?

        I can see you are delving deep into this (Exactly what we need). When you get a chance please e-mail me (if you don’t have my direct e-mail address, do it via BFP contact page), and I will share with you a few other points, and pick your brain on those (aka I need your input;-).

        Again, good job and thank you!

  40. Sibel, When was the last actual case? what year?
    RM you quote Oregon doesn’t issue annual reports or details, but does it supply overall numbers for inclusion in the statement : “Most complaints filed with state judicial conduct commissions are dismissed, (generally more than 90 percent each year)” where does that come from? IF it applies to Oregon, It would suggest data.

    • Ribbit-Mark says:

      Well Oregon made a feeble (pathetic) attempt at an annual report back in 2009 (check their website ) and click on annual reports near the bottom.
      Yes that reads 2009. No other reports provided. It is totally sick! It’s a one-page document.

      Then hop over to Texas’ Commission website and browse through their annual reports for the past ten years. Very thorough I must say, with colored charts giving lots of stats on the cases.

      To answer your question remo, no Oregon doesn’t supply any numbers!
      The “90 percent each year” statement comes from a very informative document written by
      Cynthia Gray entitled “Judicial Conduct Commissions – How Judicial Conduct Commissions Work”.

      She was either privy to the numbers or used numbers from most other states.

    • Remo,

      Here is the link to the crap (aka report) they put out:

      That’s it. Nothing’ 100% secrecy. Zero information. There is nothing else. Zilch. I think NSA pales in comparison; seriously! See if you can make any sense of it- because this is all/everything they put out.

      • steven hobbs says:

        Hi All,
        Here are a couple more angles: one shallow, one deep:
        1) “But even when the laws have been retooled and seem airtight, lobbyists find ways around them. In Oregon, where the gift laws were reformed in 2007 and again in 2009, the language of the law has become so specific in noting exemptions that it’s easy to skirt: entertainment excursions can technically be billed as “fact-finding” missions, for example, which is acceptable under the law.

        2) Public members are outnumbered 2-1 by guild members, all appointed by the Governor and confirmed by the Senate.

        3) “The fundamental challenge of administrative law is in designing a system of checks that will minimize the risks of bureaucratic arbitrariness and overreaching, while preserving for the agencies the flexibility that they need in order to act effectively. Administrative law thus seeks to limit the powers and actions of agencies and to fix their place in our scheme of government and law. It contrasts with traditional notions that the three branches of the U.S. government must be kept separate, that they must not delegate their responsibilities to bureaucrats, and that the formalities of due process must be observed.” This, it seems, suggests separation of powers critical for just adjudication. How can there be separation of powers when guild members outnumber citizens 2-1, and the citizens are chosen by power holders of statehouse?

  41. Chris Jantzen says:

    I would like to pop in here and throw in something off topic. I noticed earlier the conversation hung on Alex Jones for a while. I have never been fond of his presentation style, but I think and wonder about the ‘Chemtrails’ on a daily basis. A man here in Northern CA. has a site called which I have followed closely for the last year. The scientific term ‘Geoengineering’ and “Solar Radiation Management” are better search terms for the subject if you are looking for the precedent and explanation for why people are questioning the operations that seem to be going on in the skies. Of course most people say
    “oh thats just condensation” and blow the whole thing off. My personal observations over the last year have proved to me that condensation cannot be the logical conclusion for what I observe going on in the skies of Northern California.
    I again want to apologize for changing subjects here, I think the Oregon secrecy project is a good start to working toward an action point. Still, this business of being poisoned from above seems to rise to the top every time I think about issues that truly need attention. With global warming and drought here in CA I keep coming back to this issue and am curious if any other BFP folks agree that this is an issue worth looking at.

    • Chris,
      I’ve seen what I believe to be compelling evidence supporting the geo engineering theory and I agree not only that it’s important, but that the absence of a discussion as to the role this plays in the scientific analysis around climate change is actually a legitimate criticism of what’s wrong with the way research is being conducted and the debate is being framed, which ironically doesn’t seem to be one of the central arguments among those who take on the view that the concept of global warming is entirely a fabrication. However, as it’s been touched on elsewhere, what I feel the general consensus among BFP members partaking in the discussion around the current action item in Oregon is the fact that, as a specific localized objective with relatively clear parameters, the prospect of success is quite tangible given a well thought out strategy/plan of action which is currently underway.

      • Chris Jantzen says:

        “I’ve seen what I believe to be compelling evidence supporting the geo engineering theory and I agree not only that it’s important, but that the absence of a discussion as to the role this plays in the scientific analysis around climate change is actually a legitimate criticism of what’s wrong with the way research is being conducted and the debate is being framed, which ironically doesn’t seem to be one of the central arguments among those who take on the view that the concept of global warming is entirely a fabrication. However, as it’s been touched on elsewhere, what I feel the general consensus among BFP members partaking in the discussion around the current action item in Oregon is the fact that, as a specific localized objective with relatively clear parameters, the prospect of success is quite tangible given a well thought out strategy/plan of action which is currently underway.”

        BennyB, your patient and well thought out answers are a great example. Thanks for your reply and honesty. I have much respect for the work being done here. Hopefully I can find a way to contribute.

    • As I have said before, I am convinced that if we don’t stop the poisoning, any other gains made will be futile because we, and everything else, will be doomed. Not to mention the fact that the metals (and now fluoride) that are being dumped on us is compromising our cognitive abilities. We have been conditioned to say, “I must be getting old,” but age is no excuse. The brain is plastic, it should be vital and healthy til the time of death in 99% of us (and we know who the 1% are, the demented ones 🙂 ). Alzheimer’s is definitively connected to aluminum poisoning. Autism, Parkinsons, a whole host of other nervous system disorders are exploding in incidence, not just increasing. How can we keep resisting once our brains are gone?
      I’ll admit I am a tree-hugger, just as moved to tears by an image of dead dolphins as by human suffering, but even those who care not a whit for their natural environment cannot survive if the planet is destroyed. Which is why I respectfully am moving on. The discussions here are stimulating and the concerns are certainly important; it’s just that little thing about the fact that we are faced with imminent cataclysm.

      • plt,

        Let me put it this way: Let’s say you organize activists and taken on an environmental issue. Probably, at some point, the groups is going to end up in court, before some judge, taking on an opponent. What if the judge assigned to your case holds hefty stocks in the opponent’s poisoning company? What if that judge is married to the chairwoman of that opponent company’s board.

        There is nothing wrong with going out there and hugging trees, and fight for the environment. But, at some point, you have to come down that tree and face the system. Unless of course, you want to build a treehouse and live up there and say ‘heck with it all.’

        • Not at all my intent, nor is it my approach. As I said before, I went so far as to try running for office. What I have been trying to get across is that I believe the scientific data pointing to a very near, likely unavoidable die-off of most life on the planet, including humans. All the judicial reforms in the world are not going to matter if the oceans go extinct (and as you live in Oregon, you must be aware of what is happening to the Pacific now).
          I am not talking about organizing a group, I am talking about reaching out to everyone. There are many scientists now who talk about 2040 as the end date. It is already too late to save society and the ecosystems we have now. We can only hope to avert total annihilation.

          • By the way, I am a scientist. I take seriously the data, because it comes from so many different sources. This is something I would rather not believe because I have 2 beautiful children for whom I want nothing more than a wonderful future, but turning one’s back to reality means one gets hit from behind. I’d rather see what is coming.

          • Not very clearly worded, these 2 posts, both because I feel that the response to my original post was quite disrespectful, even though I was trying my best to be diplomatic, and because I was in a hurry. But as I have stated all along, I am not trying to change the agenda here, just was offering some considerations that had so far been ignored. I won’t try clearing up my above statements. The previously mentioned website,, has all the information anyone could ever need to become well-informed about the condition of our planet and the outlook for the (dishearteningly near) future.

          • BennyB says:

            @plt: I hope you didn’t feel that my response was dismissive. The way I see the current action item in relationship to the macro issues you’re discussing in at least a semi-optimistic light is that tackling something and being successful and trying things in a different way, which takes into account the way other movements and platforms have failed is the best way to prove that there are different ways that things can be done. I worry about where everything’s going, but I want to try to do what I can do right now. If the ship’s going down I might not have a lot of control of that, but I’d just assume throw some of the rats overboard to make my current habitation more tolerable. =]

          • No, not at all. I was referring to the first of this particular string of emails. I don’t mind at all if people disagree with my suggestions – what a boring world if we were all on the same page all the time!

          • …and i know what you mean about wanting to throw the rats to the sharks. Alas, the sharks are dying off too quickly!

          • steven hobbs says:

            Hi Plt,
            We are in agreement about the cataclysmic scenarios staring us down our throats. And, yes we need to take action in many ways. To just roll over is not only unproductive, its unhealthy and uninteresting. There many issues to challenge and fight for or against. I wouldn’t say there is nothing we can do about the big picture. It is just so overwhelming.. but not a reason to go down for the count. If each of us does something each day, well, we are doing something rather than nothing, even if it’s whistling into the wind. I was surprised my comment on “Cowspiracy” got no traction here. But, I can’t point fingers as I’ve not committed to vegetarianism either.

  42. Maybe you should talk about how effing insidious gatekeepers are.

    Go on YouTube and watch the we are change vid entitled “Why You Should NOT Vote For Rand Paul In 2016”.

    It starts to get really bad around the 6 minute mark. He actually threatened a reporter, by proxy, for asking a question.

    I actually wanted to vote for that a$$ at one point. Confirms my anti voting view point.

  43. Please consolidate this with the previous post I just made. Edit out the crap.

    The first sentence should have ended with “for your next probable cause”.

    I think that’s one of the big reasons why stuff fails. If Rand and Ron are gates… I mean….

  44. Another I need to ask about. Syriangirl? Who is she affiliated with? I’ve seen the websites and stuff like the YouTube vids like the one from Tomo supposedly outing her but theyre all crap drivel type stuff. But then again just because the media is against someone, like they supposedly are with the pauls… Actually they do get mainstream air time, and I’m not really in a position to judge how they are portrayed as I don’t watch the mainstream stuff, at all… The waters are too easy to muddy.

    This is a big problem. We put up these sorry effing idols, in part because they are more able to speak about the problems whether it be because they can actually remember all the things they’ve read over the years or just because they have the right pizazz/style or whatever reason, because they are better at it and we all get stuck putting our weight behind a point of concentration of effort, such as Ron and Rand, and it all too easily can go down the crapper, the effort that is, because of shite like Rand.

    We need a way to

    1) form a zeitgeist, I think using that term right, or some sort of galvanised pervasive and ubiquitous movement, no, mentality that is I dependent from idols

    2) strip away this sorry effing facade of prestige and glamour and credibility that keeps these sorry effing idols in a position in which attracts people to so futily waste their efforts on them. Idolatry needs to become the lame stupid uncool thing to do.

    How can the delusion be shattered? Any of you psychology types?

  45. Please edit my previous post.

    I think I’m using that term right

    Independent from idols

    I’m typing this on a sorry little phone touch screen so that’s why I have so many typos.

  46. re:
    “This report provides high-level performance information which may not be sufficient to fully explain the complexities associated with some of the reported measurement results. ”
    They got that right.

    I can make absolutely NO sense of it. Can anyone enlighten ?

    • remo,

      Because they do not take on any ‘real’ cases, thus, no prosecutions/disciplinary action/removal. They basically do nothing other than protecting their circle (judges). This explanation pairs well with their Grade D-: There is no judiciary oversight in the State of Oregon- whatsoever. When you get a chance check out the commission members, and that explains ‘why.’ Thanks to the media in Oregon no one knows about this issue. The state is filled with corrupt/unfit judges with 100% immunity and 100% protection provided by the Commission.

    • Remo:
      It was not meant to be understood–a bureaucratic form of sophistry to be read by 6 people. Secrecy must be maintained. They should have used Chinese characters. 0x0=0. Page 1 of 1. Funny.

  47. What is kpm?

  48. Also, please make it so that the right 30% of the screen shows on my phone. It would make it sooooooooo much easier to type.

    1) they are targeting nothing and therefore they are prosecuting all cases they are targeting. So they are prosecuting 100% of cases since they are finding/making no cases. they are literally saying they are not even bothering to target problem judges and because of this they have made no cases and therefore they have met their target of prosecuting all cases. it literally says there are no targets.

    2)they made no recommendations so there were none to uphold.

    3) there were no stipulated agreements.

    4) there were no prosecutions because they didn’t make any.

    5) the commission realizes that it sucks ass and doesn’t give a fuck. (This language IS appropriate.)

    6) we dont don’t give a fuck so we ain’t sayin’ fuck.

    This is flat out a confession of guilt.

    • A Name,

      While the premise/core thesis of what you state is right on, your tone and choice of words diminishes everything. When commenters rant instead of making well-articulated argument, not only they lose respect for themselves, but also they diminish the respect for the forum and other members. Usually all it takes is one, and the entire work/dynamic is reduced to ridicule by ‘our enemies/opponents.’

      Again, your answers 1 to 4 are factual: true. But the next two nullifies all credibility.

      I am seeing/hearing/reading comments from a person who is very angry, has tons of bottled up rage/anger- probably rightfully so. Ranting and using foul language won’t make anything better-it will not cure the cause. Please learn to keep it in check, respect yourself and others, and let the dignity win; for all of us.

      PS- I will not repeat this warning again.

      • Sorry. Will change.

        • If you want you have permission to alter it to remove the cussing.

          • Also, all my interpretations are accuarate IMO and true to the source intent. Maybe not so acceptable thoguh with the wording.

          • A Name,

            I am not too rigid, and let go of occasional slips, especially when appropriate … I just want to make sure they stay rare and occasional. We are all good to go.

            As for the anger: I have had plenty- including the ‘severely bottled up’ kind. I had to learn to channel and re-channel the outrage. It was necessary- the only way to maintain relationship/people and things that truly matter to me: marriage, children, friendship, health … a tiny degree of sanity;-) So I am sure, occasionally, we will all have some outburst of our intense feelings/outrage. We’ll help each other during those periods. Our members here have helped me tremendously during my ‘ultra pessimistic’ periods/waves.

  49. The numbers I used represent each row in the report.

    • Katie Stewart says:

      Seems to me they haven’t needed to give a f### because no one (other than the little NPR blurb) seems to have called them out publicly. All the more reason to pursue this. Whether it succeeds in changing the commission, it can certainly succeed in making the people aware of the corruption, and it can certainly succeed in firing a warning shot at the establishment.

      • Katie,

        I like your attitude- the number one needed ingredient towards the needed ‘changes.’

        Once we complete our research-documentation process we’ll step out of this ‘comfort zone’ to inform and obtain more cases.

        We are going to get there: one step at a time.

        • @Katie: I also appreciate where you’re coming from. It’s valuable to have this sort of positive attitude that, regardless of whether or not this action item achieves the intended objectives or to what extent, highlighting an issue where the guilty parties have successfully managed evade scrutiny will be an accomplishment in and of itself. Good stuff =]

      • Katie:
        We really need to hear more from you! Your intuition is very good! And there will be a need for “what if” sessions as this project develops. Stay with this thread, please.

Speak Your Mind