I turned right to Psalm 88 tonight, which is about floods. I read the footnote for the title and it's "suffering of the afficted" and then it speaks so much about floods and flooding. I wouldn't know how to interpret the last part, about "darkness is my closest friend" but first I thought of it in a negative way, (of course, if I am taking out of context of you know, the psalmist and their own experience), because I saw this woman today and another person joked "Cameo saw her best friend today". I had responded with, "you know when I took this photo strip of me and Oliver at a photo booth in Wenatchee, the machine only had so many captions to choose from and it didn't allow you to leave it blank so 'best friends' was the closest one but I still felt it wasn't exactly what I wanted but I thought, well, I'm his mom and his best friend too."
So then the second time I thought about this psalm, and "darkness is my closest friend", I thought about my son, and today I am wearing pale green, a color he allegedly likes (which I can't confirm) and then black over it. Black shoes, black sweater and black jacket.
So I thought to myself, in my abstract I-know-it-has-nothing-to-do-with-me-but-still...way, "I am definitely my son's closest friend."
I guess you can read that passage different ways. It speaks of people leaving them, and horrible things and then how "darkness is my closest friend". It could be read as the closest friend not being a friend at all but darkness rather than light, or it could be read with the idea that God is in the darkness and at times, one only wants to shut out what is so horrific as to be seen in the light, to prefer the annonymity and comfort of the dark. I think it can be interpreted many ways. If darkness is the closest friend, I have no friends, or darkness is my closest friend, it is God alone (symbolic or actual).
I posted this and then stared straight ahead at this other book I have right in front of me on a shelf and it is "At Dawn We Slept: the untold story of pearl harbor". I haven't read it yet. I just thought about the title after reading this psalm and thinking about darkness as a closest friend. I haven't read the book yet so I don't know what this author intended with his title. Just noticed it.
The next section I turned to was Romans and I read Romans 9:26-33.
It was sort of random and sort of choice. I chose to open to something at random in the psalms section and then thought to do the same with Romans. So I chose the books and then the scriptures I got were random. The Romans one is talking about a remnant being saved in a multitude and how is it we approach righteousness, by faith or works.
I also think something bad happened to my Dad today maybe. I could tell because my Dad didn't come to the door when I knocked, when I got home after going to the library quickly and then I called my Mom and she sounded down or worried. Also, someone did something to my Dad or forced him to do something that changed the color of the inside of his mouth, and it looked like the inside of Chris Dabney's mouth, redder than usual or normal. I know Chris drank and who knows what else, but with my Dad there was no scent of liquor and instead it would more likely be from some form of torture. I thought possibly someone forced him to drink something but it wasn't that (liquor).
If I am tortured here, on their own property, do you think my Dad feels like he has power over anything, including the most basic forms of personal safety? I think my parents are forced to be guinea pigs for the government or they are tortured and/or forced to see their kids tortured.
So anyway, I noticed when we went out to look at the other house and it was flooded and then this woman drove by. Then we got home and were talking about it and that's when I mentioned why I chose best friend for the photo of me and my son.
Later I asked if my son was returned to me what did they think would have to be in place and they said my house had been disorganized the 2 times they saw it but I said others saw it most of the time and it was clean. It was messy before the hospital bc I was 9 mo. pregnant and then cluttered later but nothing has ever been unsanitary, ever. And I said judging me now, by conditions of how I keep my house has nothing to do with how I did when my son was with me. Of course I occasionally let things slide when he's not here. That is no evidence of how I kept my place with him, and I added I resented having people (like the FBI or anyone else) in my house without my consent, to do "home inspections" when there is no comparison. I said, "returning my son isn't on the condition of a house. When they took my son I didn't have a house."
And that's why I started thinking again about...oh yeah, subject matter jurisdiction.
If I had no house, which was true, because we left it, and had no presence in Oregon and my person was not in their jurisdiction, they illegally obtained a Protetive Order.
The Protective Order from the very start, was illegal. And they got that Protective Order and made their little shovels of paper into WA court, BEFORE I was arrested.
It's a deficiency you can't correct.
It proves kidnapping.
Even if you try to say there was later "reason", it doesn't really apply because there is already too much "motive" present which shows they knew they committed a crime and then bent over backwards to conceal it. I never even thought about the house thing before.
Bit by bit, I recognize they are guiltier and guiltier. It's bad. It is an outright kidnapping and now I realize it will not even be hard to prove. And where there is kidnapping, there are criminals that will do anything, pay any amount and hire anyone they can, to cover up for their crimes.
At first I thought, well they have this argument about later finding something, if they do, having cause. But they created their own cause to cover for their crimes.
It is one thing to make a Protective Order within the U.S. that is discovered to be weak, and then later claim there is something new to back it up, and it's something totally different to make a Protective Order to kidnap a kid out of another country with zero prior case or investigation.
It's kidnapping.
It is kidnapping in the first degree, and collusion as well, because they were working at it before they deliberately set me up on false arrest to try to cover for a kidnapping. The entire thing, on the basis of criminal activity, has to be thrown out.
It's like this: you could throw someone in jail and give them a sentence. It is one thing if it's discovered there was gross negligence or malice by a Prosecuting Attorney. It's another thing if they commit a capital crime while trying to claim the person they are prosecuting is guilty.
Here is what I found on kidnapping as a Capital Offense:
Q: Is kidnapping a capital offense?
4 years ago
A: Kidnapping by itself is not a capital offense, at least in the US. Like nearly EVERY crime, there are aggravating factors that could increase the charges. Kidnapping can BECOME a capital offense.
To the comment about being a Federal offense: It is only normally NOT a Federal offense. It becomes a Federal offense if the victim is transported across state lines, the crime happens on Federal land, or the victim is a Federal official. There may be additional triggers I am not aware of.
I am looking up aggravated kidnapping because I know this wasn't just a plain and normal kidnapping. Kidnapping is bad enough but there are other elements to what happened that made it capital crime.
This should have been corrected by the FBI. The only reason they might not, is if someone from FBI was involved. If it involves a federal official, it becomes an aggravated kidnapping I believe.
Which is why I was then tortured with no remedy, my family tortured and people trying to set me up or entrap me. It is also why they would torture my son in front of me and then use officials to back them up, and why I would be poisoned, assaulted, and deprived of housing for intimidation purposes. It is also why they would attempt to slander me as mentally ill because it is almost their only potential excuse and has been for some time. It is why I lost my singing voice.
I think it's bad enough, now that I have realized exactly how baseless it was, I think it's possible to both file for habeous corpus and also ask for a mandamus, if necessary, from the FBI to investigate...however, problem is if FBI is involved and federal officials involved in kidnapping, then it becomes a matter of not expecting they will investigate anything and that it requires extraordinary remedy by habeous corpus with the FBI as respondent as party to crime and unlawful detention and imprisonment of persons.
I was right there, in Washington D.C., right next door to their Headquarters, after they kidnapped me and my son and then allowed for our demise.
I found the federal law for simple kidnapping. (UPDATED at 1:58: and then I found the USC for hostage taking which also applies with regard to me and my son).
According to this law, my son was kidnapped and his kidnapping should have been prosecuted by an attorney for the Department of Justice.
It still applies, and a "parent" is defined as the natural parent whose parental rights have not been terminated by final order (which they have not been).
A final order is after all State appeals are exhausted and this has not been done.
From what I read of aggravated kidnapping, it applies more but I have to read about it more. I also read that it is common for kidnapping to be accompanied with other crimes and that it is sometimes concealing another crime or the reverse. There are companion crimes to kidnapping, such as conspiracy to facilitate a kidnapping.
(Black's Law on kidnapping). Some kind of reference to asportionate. Double Jeopardy is a different thing.
I wonder if a parent files for habeous corpus for kidnapping, if the U.S. tries to claim it is then "double jeopardy" to bring the same crime to federal court under RICO statutes.
Because we don't want that to happen, do we.
The FBI and Department of Justice are responsible for investigating and prosecuting kidnapping.
Since they haven't done anything about it, it is 99% probable they are involved as federal officials who were party to the conspiracy to kidnap.
All that a victim could do about the crime then, would be to file for RICO. For treble damages. So if they file for habeous corpus first, in order to just get the kid back and be free from unlawful restraint and imprisonment, then that's great.
But if a Judge works against you, what? If one loses habeous corpus and includes kidnapping and unlawful custody of parent and child, and they cause you to lose (big money there).
BIG MONEY Judgie.
If you lose, does that act as an estoppel to filing for kidnapping or such damages through a RICO lawsuit. Double jeopardy?
Let's imagine FBI officials are party to conspiracy to kidnap and kidnapping. Let's say the AG of a state and state officials are also involved.
That is pretty high risk stakes there. I mean, if you want to talk about a gamble and playing with the lottery, that's it right there. Kidnapping of a child and mother and conspiracy to falsely arrest to commit the crime?
Then if the mother makes a peep about it, the ones who know HOW bad it is, get extremely nervous, paranoid, and violent.
They don't want to be tried for kidnapping and conspiracy to kidnap. It's 20 years in the locker.
20 years at least, and potentially, life.
If you're a Judge that participated or friends of Judges or Judge-to-Judge, you can pretty much make bank siding with the criminal party that also happens to have the authority and security of being covered by the U.S. government.
HUGE AMOUNTS OF MONEY involved.
What makes it more complicated is the fact that if this conspiracy to kidnap, and the kidnapping, occured after torture of mother and child first, as an attempt to smoke them out of the country, then you have a torture mess on your hands as well.
May as well show up on t.v. with blood right there, on your hands.
Anyone would know that if someone ascertained conspiracy to kidnap or kidnapping, those responsible for the torture are either directly involved or are in the background.
Finding out who conspired to kidnap and committed the kidnapping is going to potentially lead someone to those who commit torture too.
Which then makes sense why torture that was occuring before kidnapping would pick up again once they feel better about not getting caught or discovered on the kidnapping and conspiracy to commit kidnapping.
I've already said this before, about kidnapping, but I didn't think about how we didn't have a house, or even an investigation pending when we left and how therefore, it is very true to kidnapping.
In the federal code, however, it looks more like kidnapping within the U.S, not international kidnapping. I guess it does mention foreign commerce. Okay, I just read it again so it states the act would take place in the U.S. It doesn't say it has to be kidnapping in the U.S. (location A) to another country (location B). It can include kidnapping from point B (Canada) to point A (U.S.). The act of kidnapping is before (premeditation and conspiracy), during (in transit), and after (place person is dropped).
I think aggravated kidnapping is the same as above, but with the element of conspiracy to commit, arrange for, or facilitate the kidnapping.
Aggravated kidnapping has other special features and must fall into certain categories. It increases the level of guilt and is related to taking bribes, for purposes of harming through physical injury, and that kind of thing and also applies to a form of obstruction of justice (interference with any governmental or political process, i.e., application for political asylum).
What happened to me and my son is aggravated kidnapping. I could imagine it was to create harm but can't prove that. It is true, though, that we were moved back into harm's way, where we were both tortured. The other context that would be easier to prove, if evidence of torture is unavailable, is interference with a governmental or political process. So that one fits.
It would be aggravated kidnapping rather than simple kidnapping. Aggravated kidnapping also shows more of the motive for collusion or conspiracy to fabricate conditions for the crime.
I looked up false imprisonment and kidnapping and I think it can be a double jeopardy thing but I also think it's possible they are separate sometimes.
I think they're very closely connected in most cases.
I did find something that says if you lose a case with kidnapping allegations, subsequent attempts are permitted and don't violate double jeopardy.
What I really want, is to have my son back and not be tortured. I would only think of filing RICO and go for money if someone persisted in the crime of holding us hostage or continued to torture us.
Hostage Taking. I just found the USC for this as well. This one also fits. Hostage taking is the same as kidnapping but continues to hold the persons kidnapped in order to extort something from them. It is kidnapping and then detaining someone and telling them in order to be released or reunited, you have to do ____ (THIS) for us. You have to pay us money, or you have to "forgive the Catholic church", or "if you want to be free from torture you have to marry ___", or you have to work for us, or, your parents have to work for us, or "you have to make a false confession and admit you are paranoid schitzophrenic or whatever we tell you to be to conceal our crimes of torture and kidnapping."
"Do you believe you have any mental problems Ms. Garrett? Ms. Garrett does not believe she is paranoid schitzophrenic as we slandered her to be and now need her be to sufficiently mask and cover for our crimes. Therefore, if Ms. Garrett is unwilling to 'cooperate' and lie along with us, she and her son will continue to be tortured and we will do it in her face."
If they had not first kidnapped us and conspired to do so, anyone would think doing what they say are not demands made on freeing hostages but just part of remedying a problem that interferes with parenting. However, since it can be proven they literally kidnapped us and conspired to do so in an aggravated kidnapping, it does not follow that they were only asking for completion of services or believed there was a parental problem. What follows is that then the State made demands on citizens and allowed torture and continued detention if these demands were not met. I would add, federal and state demands.
It's one thing to say there is a mental issue, and to start an investigation and offer services and file court documents before a parent leaves the country. It is a kidnapping to pursue and conspire to entrap a mother who left the country with her child to file for political asylum with no records of mental illness, proof that she had been found by mental professionals to not be ill, and no pending investigation or court documents filed and no residence to base jurisdiction upon.
It IS AGGRAVATED KIDNAPPING. What was the purpose of the kidnapping? Was it done without thinking? someone could make that claim until you realize these people anticipated my leaving for some time beforehand. They also knew that I was trying to get medical care for both of us and was applying for political asylum. The minute they understood we had applied for PA, they knew they were interfering with a governmental and political process, whether they were Canadian colluding to entrap me, or American.
While I wrote the first part of this post, I was not being tortured and then I got to aggravated kidnapping rather than simple kidnapping, and I was being tortured again. My guess is that the group torturing to begin with doesn't like the idea of being held accountable to aggravated kidnapping which alleges the kidnapping was done to interfere with political asylum or to return a mother and child into conditions were torture was allowed.
Just because the FBI IS government, doesn't mean they cannot be held responsible for interfering with government processes and rights a mother was trying to secure for herself and child.
Back to Patty Otterbach. I found out today she lives where my parents used to live, at their other house. I didn't know this. I brought it up because I commented as we were looking at the flooded house, "Patty Otterbach again. She just wants to be around wherever I am." My Dad said that wasn't true and I said, "Dad, whenever she knows I will be out somewhere, she happens to come along at that time." My Dad said, "Cameo! She LIVES out here. She's on her way home from work."
I said, "She does?"
Which is really comforting to know. Especially since I was told there were about SIX (6) sexual offenders on that road.
Given the fact not that many people even live along that road, and knowing now that Patty is one of the residents, I feel so much better. Uh, anyone want some "Shiitake Slices" from my 6 oz jug of mushrooms? I am still wondering who sliced my mother's face up.
I reviewed the hostage taking law again and I guess if it's done in the U.S. and all parties are U.S. nationals, supposedly it is only then hostage taking if the party compelled is the Government. So otherwise, it can be the exact same thing but it's called "aggravated kidnapping".
Saturday, March 31, 2012
No "Temple of Justice" & Habeus Corpus
I sent a request for correction of deadline to my granted motion to extend time but I'm still filing for habeus corpus.
There is no remedy possible at the Washington State Supreme Court.
According to case law, a person can file for habeus corpus at any time.
There is a standard of trying to "exhaust" state remedies first, but what isn't well known is that there is also a provision for proving that it is impossible to find any state remedy. If at any time, it is impossible to acquire a remedy of greivious violations of constitutional law or freedom from illegal restraint or imprisonment, one may file for habeus corpus relief.
There is no possible remedy through the Washington State Supreme Court when my son and I have been illegally detained since we tried to leave for political asylum in Canada. And since federal action preceded any state case, there is zero state subject matter with regard to jurisdiction. The only argument that could be made at State is by removing the case from Supreme Court to federal court.
I have no intention of fighting for anything at The Washington Supreme Court i.e., "Temple of Justice". It would be moot to try. So while I filed something regarding their calculation of time, which they will deny anyway if I do not put something in a Motion by the 5th, there is no intention of finding remedy there.
Which is why I am allowed to proceed with habeus corpus now.
Their plan is to acquire my request for their honoring calculation of time, deny it, and then celebrate.
What could be resolved through them? Do they have jurisdiction over torture of U.S. citizens, unlawful detainment, obstruction of freedom of movement, interference with an attorney's attempt to avoid default judgment, false arrest, a kidnapping of my son? What about the fact that I didn't get anything from the FBI until a day ago? They don't care about FBI records and will say it has nothing to do with my case.
I just got this mail from the FBI where they put 3 little pieces of tape across the back of the envelope and I have to send 3 notices to the WA court whenever I file (the AG, the court, and Seattle firm). It just made me think about how much these parties have all gotten away with, by help FROM the FBI.
How is it possible to obtain remedy through any state court when we are tortured to be obstructed from court and from proving torture and kidnapping and being held hostage?
I saw that package from the FBI and thought of one thing.
That I am naming them as respondents to my petition for habeus corpus.
Not once was I fooled into thinking it was something to use for State appeals. So yeah, I sent a request to correct the deadline calculated for extension of time, because that request and motion had already been made and granted.
Before they ever respond to this, or even receive it, I am filing habeus corpus, not just for me but for my son.
Imagine trying to appeal the termination of parental rights. So then once appealed, what? I am expected to get "services" in Wenatchee where they tortured me and still torture my son? Services for what? Their criminal allegations against me?
The only appropriate "services" would be counseling and remedy for PTSD. You know what's going to clear up my PTSD?
Justice.
And that justice is not at the Washington Supreme Court.
So for anyone who wants to know about filing for habeus corpus while not in jail, you can file for it if you are held hostage (in a sense) through probation, if you are a lawyer who is not able to win cases because of obstruction of freedom of movement by government officials, if you are a parent whose child was not taken first through normal CPS procedure but by illegal federal interference,...
And if there are already cases at state level pending, if you addressing or making a petition for habeus corpus from STATE officials, there is burden of proof that you have exhausted all appeals, unless you can prove there is immediate harm that is not prevented by immediate petition for habeus corpus which state cannot remedy. Also, if you can't prove this, you are typical required to go through discretionary review requests but not all the time. If you can prove it's pointless to try anything by discretionary review, you can proceed. Typically, people petition for habeus corpus and have a statute of limitations of 1 yr. from time discretionary review is either denied or fails.
If one can prove immediate harm there is no requirement to waste one's time with it.
I think my situation is unique and stronger in argument bc we left the country and were hauled back and held hostage. But for other parents who are interested in the idea and want to research options for custody of their children through habeus corpus, do not be fooled and think you have to exhaust all state remedies and appeals first. If you wait to exhaust all appeals, by then your parental rights are terminated.
You should try to petition for habeus corpus before anyone gives you an order for termination of your parental rights.
So that means, you do this before you ever have to go to court of appeals in your state. It means there are some circumstances where you do NOT trust the state to correct anything especially if they've already been so corrupt as to violate your fundamental rights and in some cases, substantial rights.
The case that went to the U.S. Supreme Court where a mother applied for habeus corpus, was lost on one technical idea that maybe she wasn't the proper party to apply for freedom for her child because she had no right to do so when her rights were terminated. She waited to go through all State appeals first.
She was arguing habeus corpus for her child, not herself. The idea was that she was not held hostage then, from rescuing herself and her son from a hostage situation. So if she wasn't a hostage, but her child was, and yet her child was no longer hers but rights to that child had been transfered to another party, then the other party was the one with a right to 'rescue' the child.
She applied as "next friend", which is a term you use, but there were fine points on why she didn't win. It wasn't because you "can't" file habeus corpus for unlawful government custody of a child.
Also, had someone known, there is other case law where a party with no parental rights petitions for a child and they have prevailed, with the idea that there isn't a "bond" or not a strong bond with the party that has the right to guardianship.
WA knew this and knew there was no bond between themselves, the "guardian" and my son and that I could argue this point so they then pushed for a hasty adoption of my son by the Avilas to protect themselves, not the child. That way they could claim my son was "bonded" to them, and avoid the sticky problem of a mother petitioning as "next friend" and winning.
For parents, I believe there is room for habeus if you can petition for your child before any movement for adoption or transfer of guardianship has been made because you can prove to the court that there is no essential "bond" between the State and the child that is stronger than a parent's right or even non-parent's right to petition for a child.
In my case, I still have room to win even though they tried to cover all their bases.
Even though they attempted to remove the bond loophole, my case is different and unique. So again, you are distinguishing on fine points when you look at precedent and analyze how it may or may not apply to you or to a new case. It is not one-size-fits-all.
My case is different because it is not just the child that is hostage but the mother as well.
I do have a question about double jeopardy. I had that question a couple of nights ago...if I lose on habeus corpus points may I relitigate these same points in federal court with removed case (no prob.) or civil case. Not sure about the full double jeopardy dilemna.
And I have another question. How much money do I need to pay if it's for both me and my son when I file? 5 dollars or 10.
The facts are such that whereas the other mother who filed for habeus corpus for her child had exhausted state appeal first, she was free. She was a free person and never alleged that her own freedom of movement was violated. She alleged her children's freedom of movement was violated but not her own. Therefore, if she was a free parent, free to communicate with lawyers, free to raise money, free to obtain records and evidence for her case, free to travel to find other assistance and resources, then she was also free to try to find a defense for state appeal. She said her kids prisoners, but not herself.
If a parent is alleging their own freedom of movement is violated, it is impossible to appeal through any state process, especially where the state has forced that parent to represent themself or has interfered with a parent's ability to secure dependable counsel. Not only that, the entire basis for removal of the child was by violating both the child and the mother's freedom of movement at the very start, before any protection order was filed.
So what about parents that are in jail?
I think it's harder for parents who are in jail because there is the assumption that they are in jail for good cause or that their case has proven them guilty. For a parent not in jail but held hostage or where freedom of movement is obstructed, there is weaker argument by the government that the imprisonment is legal.
Someone who is in jail for long periods of time has the need to file habeus corpus for themselves and their children as well but their argument about being held prisoner to keep them from their children is harder to prove.
However, you see, this is why I believe someone told Obama to sign the NDAA. This law supposedly allows the military or government to hold U.S. citizens hostage or in their custody and not tell them why.
I still think, this law cannot undermine habeus corpus because the NDAA is unconstitutional on its face.
You cannot have both habeus corpus and the NDAA. They cancel eachother out. It's impossible and was one of the dumbest laws anyone has signed in recent history.
I should add, you cannot have both habeus corpus and the newest "addition" to the NDAA which was signed in December 2011, to allow detention of U.S. citizens without any charges or rights.
This is an incredible violation of the right to be charged, and the right to attorney and to jury trial. It's questionable enough with regard to non-citizens, but it's not American for citizens. I am very suprised someone has not already filed a big lawsuit over it.
I also don't know why anyone is waiting for someone to first file a lawsuit and claim damages when it's obvious on the face of it, that it's illegal.
I was just thinking too, the entire state argument about "messy house" is a ruse. We had left the house and had no house. It wasn't our house anymore and we had left residence and country of residence.
No one should even be making any kind of argument about what living conditions do I have now when, at the time we left, we left all for application of political asylum and in political asylum, initially, you might not have a house (except for our habitual residence in Canada).
It's like when I was leaving Oregon to move to TN in 1995. The insurance lawyers gave me the money, partially on the basis of the idea that we had left the State and it was no longer our residence. There was an argument about where we had residence because we were driving at the time and inbetween places. My last residence had been Oregon but my intention (and having made contact with people in TN) was to live in TN. So even if we had the collision in NV, the presumption was that since we had left OR, even if we didn't arrive in TN, that's what the intent had been.
It wasn't my house. It wasn't Oliver's house either. We had already left the house, left the state, and left the country with no intention to return.
They lacked subject matter jurisdiction when they based their claims on a house that was no longer considered to be our residence, and person that were no longer within that state or country and in fact were attempting to divorce it, and location that no longer applied either. Paul Cassle said all they had was a "messy house" and that's not even true. They didn't have even a messy house for a residence. They had nothing. They had an abandoned messy house and a cat staring at them through the window. The cat was waiting to be adopted. They could have filed a Protective Order for the cat. Not for Oliver. I mean, if the cat had been a person, yeah, that was the residence for the cat and it was already assumed the cat would be found and had food so it wasn't even animal abuse. If they had a right to have any concern, they could have been concerned about the cat. My son, was none of their business.
CPS "inspected" a house that had nothing to do with me or my son and even if it had, when they inspected, it was weeks later and condition had changed, and aside from that, they made their order for protection on a house we had already left for good, and they knew this to be true upon hearing I'd applied for political asylum.
As for Canada, they can't claim I was legally imprisoned when I can prove they tried to conceal my political asylum claim in order to put me in jail so the U.S. could kidnap my son.
Since my son and I have been in the U.S. and even before (for me, on basis of obstruction of freedom of travel) we have been held hostage and we have the right to habeus corpus.
I can prove the federal government obstructed my freedom of movement before the state had anything to do with it. So where feds are before state, or got involved ahead of the state, the state lacks something.
CPS made a complaint about persons that they had no personal or territorial jurisdiction over, whom they lacked subject matter jurisdiction as well. The house they included for their complaint was not a house they could use. The location wasn't something they could use. The persons were no longer there.
They didn't have just "a messy house". They had nothing.
Which is why they knew they should drop the whole thing. The only reason they found to hold onto it was when I mentioned marijuana later, but still, I could have proven medical permit and I was held hostage and my federal mail obstructed to prevent me from proving this.
There is some idea that if CPS doesn't have any evidence at first but acquires it later, they can use this to keep a kid. However, I don't think that works retroactively to a different country and malicious interference with a claim for political asylum.
Then they tried to claim it had nothing to do with a couple times of trying marijuana (later) but that it was mental illness. So take mental illness. They had no evidence at the beginning but later tried to create evidence for themselves. So then they claimed that was their excuse.
It still does not forgive a kidnapping of a child and mother which was from the start. It then shows motive for holding mother hostage and obstructing freedom of movement, housing, unemployment monies, or refusal to investigate crimes.
They can make their "crazy" claim all they like. They can say it's "crazy" for me to file for habeus corpus. All I have to do is show they had no jurisdiction AT ALL for maliciously prosecuting me in Canada and colluding with officials to do this and then holding me hostage by various means to prevent me from proving motive.
If they had NO cause of action, i.e., no grounds for going after me, and if I PROVE this is true, and then show their subsequent malicious harassment and obstruction of justice, it first shows motive for what they had to cover for and then makes their claim that I am mentally ill, weak.
It makes people like Josh Gatov feel good about themselves. It helps them to feel secure and safe from prosecution. It helps criminals to feel they can get away with anything. It is a relief to organizations that have liability in some way and are worried about being sued. FBI for example. They knew, on the basis of my stated facts and not how they rewrote facts, that it was possible for me to sue them. The medical professionals knew I had grounds for a medical malpractice suit against them. Anyone who improperly went after me and my son, in the U.S. OR in Canada, had motive for torturing us and holding us hostage to prevent our ability to bring forth the truth.
Am I being illegally restrained now? or held hostage? or are my rights violated. Yes. I have been tortured and I am being tortured and no, I cannot leave this country and have been blocked from freedom of travel. If I tried to leave now, without my son, that is not possible.
My son goes with me.
If I decide to stay in the U.S. after getting my son back, if we are not tortured, that's my business. If I leave, or choose to leave, that's my business. It was my business to take my son out of this country and it continues to be my business if I want to move with my son, travel with him, or relocate. It is MY business, not the business of the federal or state government. Why ask how can I support him or what kind of house do I have when, when we left, we had no house?
I didn't have a house then, and it was my right to leave.
So don't squirm in questions about "houses". It is none of your business. That is what I would say to the government. It is illegal to take kids from parents just because they don't have a house or make a political asylum claim.
I read a case, or footnote to a case, about a licensed lawyer who filed a habeus corpus claim. He won. His argument was that he was being and had had his freedom of movement obstructed by government officials which resulted in another party winning against him by "default".
Holding someone hostage, blocking their freedom of travel, putting out false citations, false arrest, blocking reception of U.S. mail,...all of these things, if they are constantly accruing incidents, can be used to show a party has been or is being detained against their will. When I had a false citation put out on my car, and then an "alert" going out to officers to take my car from me, or false arrests, these things go to show need for habeus corpus. Preventing unemployment monies, refusal of work or forced labor, colluding to put someone out of housing to force them to live with others in a state of constant disarray, can be used to prove hostage status and need for habeus corpus. Throwing someone in a psych ward, and then in a detention center to be experimented on, refusal to process passport timely, can be used to prove need for habeus corpus. Interference with attempts to apply for college, improperly closing bank accounts without notice to client, can be used, with other things, like torture, to prove need for habeus corpus.
Perpetual slander in internal records and the refusal of FBI to release these records which would have allowed for correction and added to my safety as to how my son and I were treated, indicates further records will be found that show collusion to: put out the "alert" on my car and organize a false arrest with Canadian officials; and coercion to sign false statement between U.S. and Canadian border patrol. This can be used to show two state parties were involved in holding me and my son hostage to prevent our freedom of travel and right to apply for protection in another state. (they can countries "states" for UN purposes).
I had already acquired "habitual residence" in Canada. My son was too young to have a concept of residence and if I'd applied for Hague, it would have followed me, and not the child's perception. They would have construed a kidnapping had taken place. We were U.S. citizens but my son had no contractual nexus and we were not residents of Washington.
I was not free to even appeal a wrongful default judgment on custody because the AG restrained me from doing so by refusing to mail documents I needed. I was prevented from even returning to Washington state because the AG refused to provide tickets on a train, or for airfare, which cost as much as a bus, when they knew I needed accomodations for medical problems. I was unlawfully detained in Washington D.C. from the moment I attempted to leave and was restrained because of their refusal to abide by laws which state CPS and the AG are required to pay for any and all travel of a parent to visits, regardless of distance. They already knew I had medical problems from childbirth and had refused to accomodate for this, when I was still in WA and then they knew I was still bleeding from miscarriage on top of everything else and they illegally restrained me from travel and cut off my right to speak to my son over the phone at the same time. When I went to Washington D.C. CPS to try to coordinate psych eval and other services, they refused, restraining me from obeying any court order put forth by the Judge.
All they did, to me and my son, was hold us hostage after they committed a kidnapping.
They illegally restrained me from documenting torture of my son.
They cut off my right to speak to my son at the same time they unlawfully detained me in Washington D.C.
ithin a few weeks of being restrained in D.C. and prevented from returning to Washington State, and cutting off my communications to my son, I was fired from my place of employment as well, while I was pregnant. All of these things took place after I went to the Washington D.C. CPS offices for the first time.
I have had my freedom of travel obstructed and been held hostage in Oregon, Washington, Washington D.C., Maryland, Tennessee, and British Colombia.
I've been unlawfully restrained from additional things:
filing legal documents,
receiving mail,
receiving mail for appointment for permit of medical marijuana,
making and receiving psychological evaluations,
following court orders,
counseling of any kind,
making an SSI claim for temporary physical disability,
communications with my son,
filing FAFSA on government website,
work,
housing including federally funded housing,
medical care,
legally documenting evidence of crime,
keeping evidence of crime in my possession,
making reports of crime,
reviewing FBI FOIA to make any corrections to prevent harm,
accessing law library without being tortured,
accessing legal records and my own property,
freedom of speech,
driving with valid driver's license bc of some false citations,
banking
And I've been subjected to:
illegal administration of medications without my consent (assault),
torture by use of DOD technology (assault),
torture by use of black market technology (assault),
experimentation for mind control and government psi purposes (psychological torture),
use of my blood and other samples for research (violation of dignity),
sexual assault by government officials/employees (assault),
witnessing evidence of torture of family members incl. experimentation of my son (psychological torture)
as well as:
multiple false arrests,
forced to sign false statement of confession inbetween U.S. and Canada, by Canadian officials.
Um.
Uh.
Um, I don't think The Supreme Court of Washington is appropriate.
Okay, so back to writing about a few things that other parents might want to know about (should you feel so inclined as to examine whether or not you have a basis for asserting a habeus corpus claim):
One of the reasons, just reviewed it again, you probably do NOT want to wait until all state court appeals are "final" is because there is limited retroactivity (since 1989 and I'm wondering now when that woman filed...before or after?). It cannot be said there is none, but it is limited (see Teague v. Lane).
So it's confusing because on one hand they tell you to exhaust all state remedies and then on the other hand they say it's too late once an order becomes final. I might find out what the difference is in a while but that's something I thought I'd add.
Also, you can make more than one habeus corpus claim, as in you try once and then try again, but it's limited because if you lose the first time you typically have to apply for permission to proceed if you are going to file in federal U.S. district federal court again. However, you can always send your habeus straight to the U.S. Supreme Court, and there are pros and cons to that.
There is no remedy possible at the Washington State Supreme Court.
According to case law, a person can file for habeus corpus at any time.
There is a standard of trying to "exhaust" state remedies first, but what isn't well known is that there is also a provision for proving that it is impossible to find any state remedy. If at any time, it is impossible to acquire a remedy of greivious violations of constitutional law or freedom from illegal restraint or imprisonment, one may file for habeus corpus relief.
There is no possible remedy through the Washington State Supreme Court when my son and I have been illegally detained since we tried to leave for political asylum in Canada. And since federal action preceded any state case, there is zero state subject matter with regard to jurisdiction. The only argument that could be made at State is by removing the case from Supreme Court to federal court.
I have no intention of fighting for anything at The Washington Supreme Court i.e., "Temple of Justice". It would be moot to try. So while I filed something regarding their calculation of time, which they will deny anyway if I do not put something in a Motion by the 5th, there is no intention of finding remedy there.
Which is why I am allowed to proceed with habeus corpus now.
Their plan is to acquire my request for their honoring calculation of time, deny it, and then celebrate.
What could be resolved through them? Do they have jurisdiction over torture of U.S. citizens, unlawful detainment, obstruction of freedom of movement, interference with an attorney's attempt to avoid default judgment, false arrest, a kidnapping of my son? What about the fact that I didn't get anything from the FBI until a day ago? They don't care about FBI records and will say it has nothing to do with my case.
I just got this mail from the FBI where they put 3 little pieces of tape across the back of the envelope and I have to send 3 notices to the WA court whenever I file (the AG, the court, and Seattle firm). It just made me think about how much these parties have all gotten away with, by help FROM the FBI.
How is it possible to obtain remedy through any state court when we are tortured to be obstructed from court and from proving torture and kidnapping and being held hostage?
I saw that package from the FBI and thought of one thing.
That I am naming them as respondents to my petition for habeus corpus.
Not once was I fooled into thinking it was something to use for State appeals. So yeah, I sent a request to correct the deadline calculated for extension of time, because that request and motion had already been made and granted.
Before they ever respond to this, or even receive it, I am filing habeus corpus, not just for me but for my son.
Imagine trying to appeal the termination of parental rights. So then once appealed, what? I am expected to get "services" in Wenatchee where they tortured me and still torture my son? Services for what? Their criminal allegations against me?
The only appropriate "services" would be counseling and remedy for PTSD. You know what's going to clear up my PTSD?
Justice.
And that justice is not at the Washington Supreme Court.
So for anyone who wants to know about filing for habeus corpus while not in jail, you can file for it if you are held hostage (in a sense) through probation, if you are a lawyer who is not able to win cases because of obstruction of freedom of movement by government officials, if you are a parent whose child was not taken first through normal CPS procedure but by illegal federal interference,...
And if there are already cases at state level pending, if you addressing or making a petition for habeus corpus from STATE officials, there is burden of proof that you have exhausted all appeals, unless you can prove there is immediate harm that is not prevented by immediate petition for habeus corpus which state cannot remedy. Also, if you can't prove this, you are typical required to go through discretionary review requests but not all the time. If you can prove it's pointless to try anything by discretionary review, you can proceed. Typically, people petition for habeus corpus and have a statute of limitations of 1 yr. from time discretionary review is either denied or fails.
If one can prove immediate harm there is no requirement to waste one's time with it.
I think my situation is unique and stronger in argument bc we left the country and were hauled back and held hostage. But for other parents who are interested in the idea and want to research options for custody of their children through habeus corpus, do not be fooled and think you have to exhaust all state remedies and appeals first. If you wait to exhaust all appeals, by then your parental rights are terminated.
You should try to petition for habeus corpus before anyone gives you an order for termination of your parental rights.
So that means, you do this before you ever have to go to court of appeals in your state. It means there are some circumstances where you do NOT trust the state to correct anything especially if they've already been so corrupt as to violate your fundamental rights and in some cases, substantial rights.
The case that went to the U.S. Supreme Court where a mother applied for habeus corpus, was lost on one technical idea that maybe she wasn't the proper party to apply for freedom for her child because she had no right to do so when her rights were terminated. She waited to go through all State appeals first.
She was arguing habeus corpus for her child, not herself. The idea was that she was not held hostage then, from rescuing herself and her son from a hostage situation. So if she wasn't a hostage, but her child was, and yet her child was no longer hers but rights to that child had been transfered to another party, then the other party was the one with a right to 'rescue' the child.
She applied as "next friend", which is a term you use, but there were fine points on why she didn't win. It wasn't because you "can't" file habeus corpus for unlawful government custody of a child.
Also, had someone known, there is other case law where a party with no parental rights petitions for a child and they have prevailed, with the idea that there isn't a "bond" or not a strong bond with the party that has the right to guardianship.
WA knew this and knew there was no bond between themselves, the "guardian" and my son and that I could argue this point so they then pushed for a hasty adoption of my son by the Avilas to protect themselves, not the child. That way they could claim my son was "bonded" to them, and avoid the sticky problem of a mother petitioning as "next friend" and winning.
For parents, I believe there is room for habeus if you can petition for your child before any movement for adoption or transfer of guardianship has been made because you can prove to the court that there is no essential "bond" between the State and the child that is stronger than a parent's right or even non-parent's right to petition for a child.
In my case, I still have room to win even though they tried to cover all their bases.
Even though they attempted to remove the bond loophole, my case is different and unique. So again, you are distinguishing on fine points when you look at precedent and analyze how it may or may not apply to you or to a new case. It is not one-size-fits-all.
My case is different because it is not just the child that is hostage but the mother as well.
I do have a question about double jeopardy. I had that question a couple of nights ago...if I lose on habeus corpus points may I relitigate these same points in federal court with removed case (no prob.) or civil case. Not sure about the full double jeopardy dilemna.
And I have another question. How much money do I need to pay if it's for both me and my son when I file? 5 dollars or 10.
The facts are such that whereas the other mother who filed for habeus corpus for her child had exhausted state appeal first, she was free. She was a free person and never alleged that her own freedom of movement was violated. She alleged her children's freedom of movement was violated but not her own. Therefore, if she was a free parent, free to communicate with lawyers, free to raise money, free to obtain records and evidence for her case, free to travel to find other assistance and resources, then she was also free to try to find a defense for state appeal. She said her kids prisoners, but not herself.
If a parent is alleging their own freedom of movement is violated, it is impossible to appeal through any state process, especially where the state has forced that parent to represent themself or has interfered with a parent's ability to secure dependable counsel. Not only that, the entire basis for removal of the child was by violating both the child and the mother's freedom of movement at the very start, before any protection order was filed.
So what about parents that are in jail?
I think it's harder for parents who are in jail because there is the assumption that they are in jail for good cause or that their case has proven them guilty. For a parent not in jail but held hostage or where freedom of movement is obstructed, there is weaker argument by the government that the imprisonment is legal.
Someone who is in jail for long periods of time has the need to file habeus corpus for themselves and their children as well but their argument about being held prisoner to keep them from their children is harder to prove.
However, you see, this is why I believe someone told Obama to sign the NDAA. This law supposedly allows the military or government to hold U.S. citizens hostage or in their custody and not tell them why.
I still think, this law cannot undermine habeus corpus because the NDAA is unconstitutional on its face.
You cannot have both habeus corpus and the NDAA. They cancel eachother out. It's impossible and was one of the dumbest laws anyone has signed in recent history.
I should add, you cannot have both habeus corpus and the newest "addition" to the NDAA which was signed in December 2011, to allow detention of U.S. citizens without any charges or rights.
This is an incredible violation of the right to be charged, and the right to attorney and to jury trial. It's questionable enough with regard to non-citizens, but it's not American for citizens. I am very suprised someone has not already filed a big lawsuit over it.
I also don't know why anyone is waiting for someone to first file a lawsuit and claim damages when it's obvious on the face of it, that it's illegal.
I was just thinking too, the entire state argument about "messy house" is a ruse. We had left the house and had no house. It wasn't our house anymore and we had left residence and country of residence.
No one should even be making any kind of argument about what living conditions do I have now when, at the time we left, we left all for application of political asylum and in political asylum, initially, you might not have a house (except for our habitual residence in Canada).
It's like when I was leaving Oregon to move to TN in 1995. The insurance lawyers gave me the money, partially on the basis of the idea that we had left the State and it was no longer our residence. There was an argument about where we had residence because we were driving at the time and inbetween places. My last residence had been Oregon but my intention (and having made contact with people in TN) was to live in TN. So even if we had the collision in NV, the presumption was that since we had left OR, even if we didn't arrive in TN, that's what the intent had been.
It wasn't my house. It wasn't Oliver's house either. We had already left the house, left the state, and left the country with no intention to return.
They lacked subject matter jurisdiction when they based their claims on a house that was no longer considered to be our residence, and person that were no longer within that state or country and in fact were attempting to divorce it, and location that no longer applied either. Paul Cassle said all they had was a "messy house" and that's not even true. They didn't have even a messy house for a residence. They had nothing. They had an abandoned messy house and a cat staring at them through the window. The cat was waiting to be adopted. They could have filed a Protective Order for the cat. Not for Oliver. I mean, if the cat had been a person, yeah, that was the residence for the cat and it was already assumed the cat would be found and had food so it wasn't even animal abuse. If they had a right to have any concern, they could have been concerned about the cat. My son, was none of their business.
CPS "inspected" a house that had nothing to do with me or my son and even if it had, when they inspected, it was weeks later and condition had changed, and aside from that, they made their order for protection on a house we had already left for good, and they knew this to be true upon hearing I'd applied for political asylum.
As for Canada, they can't claim I was legally imprisoned when I can prove they tried to conceal my political asylum claim in order to put me in jail so the U.S. could kidnap my son.
Since my son and I have been in the U.S. and even before (for me, on basis of obstruction of freedom of travel) we have been held hostage and we have the right to habeus corpus.
I can prove the federal government obstructed my freedom of movement before the state had anything to do with it. So where feds are before state, or got involved ahead of the state, the state lacks something.
CPS made a complaint about persons that they had no personal or territorial jurisdiction over, whom they lacked subject matter jurisdiction as well. The house they included for their complaint was not a house they could use. The location wasn't something they could use. The persons were no longer there.
They didn't have just "a messy house". They had nothing.
Which is why they knew they should drop the whole thing. The only reason they found to hold onto it was when I mentioned marijuana later, but still, I could have proven medical permit and I was held hostage and my federal mail obstructed to prevent me from proving this.
There is some idea that if CPS doesn't have any evidence at first but acquires it later, they can use this to keep a kid. However, I don't think that works retroactively to a different country and malicious interference with a claim for political asylum.
Then they tried to claim it had nothing to do with a couple times of trying marijuana (later) but that it was mental illness. So take mental illness. They had no evidence at the beginning but later tried to create evidence for themselves. So then they claimed that was their excuse.
It still does not forgive a kidnapping of a child and mother which was from the start. It then shows motive for holding mother hostage and obstructing freedom of movement, housing, unemployment monies, or refusal to investigate crimes.
They can make their "crazy" claim all they like. They can say it's "crazy" for me to file for habeus corpus. All I have to do is show they had no jurisdiction AT ALL for maliciously prosecuting me in Canada and colluding with officials to do this and then holding me hostage by various means to prevent me from proving motive.
If they had NO cause of action, i.e., no grounds for going after me, and if I PROVE this is true, and then show their subsequent malicious harassment and obstruction of justice, it first shows motive for what they had to cover for and then makes their claim that I am mentally ill, weak.
It makes people like Josh Gatov feel good about themselves. It helps them to feel secure and safe from prosecution. It helps criminals to feel they can get away with anything. It is a relief to organizations that have liability in some way and are worried about being sued. FBI for example. They knew, on the basis of my stated facts and not how they rewrote facts, that it was possible for me to sue them. The medical professionals knew I had grounds for a medical malpractice suit against them. Anyone who improperly went after me and my son, in the U.S. OR in Canada, had motive for torturing us and holding us hostage to prevent our ability to bring forth the truth.
Am I being illegally restrained now? or held hostage? or are my rights violated. Yes. I have been tortured and I am being tortured and no, I cannot leave this country and have been blocked from freedom of travel. If I tried to leave now, without my son, that is not possible.
My son goes with me.
If I decide to stay in the U.S. after getting my son back, if we are not tortured, that's my business. If I leave, or choose to leave, that's my business. It was my business to take my son out of this country and it continues to be my business if I want to move with my son, travel with him, or relocate. It is MY business, not the business of the federal or state government. Why ask how can I support him or what kind of house do I have when, when we left, we had no house?
I didn't have a house then, and it was my right to leave.
So don't squirm in questions about "houses". It is none of your business. That is what I would say to the government. It is illegal to take kids from parents just because they don't have a house or make a political asylum claim.
I read a case, or footnote to a case, about a licensed lawyer who filed a habeus corpus claim. He won. His argument was that he was being and had had his freedom of movement obstructed by government officials which resulted in another party winning against him by "default".
Holding someone hostage, blocking their freedom of travel, putting out false citations, false arrest, blocking reception of U.S. mail,...all of these things, if they are constantly accruing incidents, can be used to show a party has been or is being detained against their will. When I had a false citation put out on my car, and then an "alert" going out to officers to take my car from me, or false arrests, these things go to show need for habeus corpus. Preventing unemployment monies, refusal of work or forced labor, colluding to put someone out of housing to force them to live with others in a state of constant disarray, can be used to prove hostage status and need for habeus corpus. Throwing someone in a psych ward, and then in a detention center to be experimented on, refusal to process passport timely, can be used to prove need for habeus corpus. Interference with attempts to apply for college, improperly closing bank accounts without notice to client, can be used, with other things, like torture, to prove need for habeus corpus.
Perpetual slander in internal records and the refusal of FBI to release these records which would have allowed for correction and added to my safety as to how my son and I were treated, indicates further records will be found that show collusion to: put out the "alert" on my car and organize a false arrest with Canadian officials; and coercion to sign false statement between U.S. and Canadian border patrol. This can be used to show two state parties were involved in holding me and my son hostage to prevent our freedom of travel and right to apply for protection in another state. (they can countries "states" for UN purposes).
I had already acquired "habitual residence" in Canada. My son was too young to have a concept of residence and if I'd applied for Hague, it would have followed me, and not the child's perception. They would have construed a kidnapping had taken place. We were U.S. citizens but my son had no contractual nexus and we were not residents of Washington.
I was not free to even appeal a wrongful default judgment on custody because the AG restrained me from doing so by refusing to mail documents I needed. I was prevented from even returning to Washington state because the AG refused to provide tickets on a train, or for airfare, which cost as much as a bus, when they knew I needed accomodations for medical problems. I was unlawfully detained in Washington D.C. from the moment I attempted to leave and was restrained because of their refusal to abide by laws which state CPS and the AG are required to pay for any and all travel of a parent to visits, regardless of distance. They already knew I had medical problems from childbirth and had refused to accomodate for this, when I was still in WA and then they knew I was still bleeding from miscarriage on top of everything else and they illegally restrained me from travel and cut off my right to speak to my son over the phone at the same time. When I went to Washington D.C. CPS to try to coordinate psych eval and other services, they refused, restraining me from obeying any court order put forth by the Judge.
All they did, to me and my son, was hold us hostage after they committed a kidnapping.
They illegally restrained me from documenting torture of my son.
They cut off my right to speak to my son at the same time they unlawfully detained me in Washington D.C.
ithin a few weeks of being restrained in D.C. and prevented from returning to Washington State, and cutting off my communications to my son, I was fired from my place of employment as well, while I was pregnant. All of these things took place after I went to the Washington D.C. CPS offices for the first time.
I have had my freedom of travel obstructed and been held hostage in Oregon, Washington, Washington D.C., Maryland, Tennessee, and British Colombia.
I've been unlawfully restrained from additional things:
filing legal documents,
receiving mail,
receiving mail for appointment for permit of medical marijuana,
making and receiving psychological evaluations,
following court orders,
counseling of any kind,
making an SSI claim for temporary physical disability,
communications with my son,
filing FAFSA on government website,
work,
housing including federally funded housing,
medical care,
legally documenting evidence of crime,
keeping evidence of crime in my possession,
making reports of crime,
reviewing FBI FOIA to make any corrections to prevent harm,
accessing law library without being tortured,
accessing legal records and my own property,
freedom of speech,
driving with valid driver's license bc of some false citations,
banking
And I've been subjected to:
illegal administration of medications without my consent (assault),
torture by use of DOD technology (assault),
torture by use of black market technology (assault),
experimentation for mind control and government psi purposes (psychological torture),
use of my blood and other samples for research (violation of dignity),
sexual assault by government officials/employees (assault),
witnessing evidence of torture of family members incl. experimentation of my son (psychological torture)
as well as:
multiple false arrests,
forced to sign false statement of confession inbetween U.S. and Canada, by Canadian officials.
Um.
Uh.
Um, I don't think The Supreme Court of Washington is appropriate.
Okay, so back to writing about a few things that other parents might want to know about (should you feel so inclined as to examine whether or not you have a basis for asserting a habeus corpus claim):
One of the reasons, just reviewed it again, you probably do NOT want to wait until all state court appeals are "final" is because there is limited retroactivity (since 1989 and I'm wondering now when that woman filed...before or after?). It cannot be said there is none, but it is limited (see Teague v. Lane).
So it's confusing because on one hand they tell you to exhaust all state remedies and then on the other hand they say it's too late once an order becomes final. I might find out what the difference is in a while but that's something I thought I'd add.
Also, you can make more than one habeus corpus claim, as in you try once and then try again, but it's limited because if you lose the first time you typically have to apply for permission to proceed if you are going to file in federal U.S. district federal court again. However, you can always send your habeus straight to the U.S. Supreme Court, and there are pros and cons to that.
Friday, March 30, 2012
Sample of FBI Report
Here is just one small example of what I read, and how it's wrong and affects how I am portrayed:
"In paragraph 15, Garrett stated it was SA __and SA __that walked her up the stairs. She also stated she expected they would both leave and did not expect "__would kiss her good night." She also stated that she was upset SA walked down the stairs when she was by her door with SA__."
This is one tiny part of the report, and they left out almost everything and added things too.
I told the FBI that one of the agents forced his way into my house. That never changed. I told "Thornton" (aka Laughlin) and I told the SSAs, I did not expect them to walk me to my door because when they asked I said, "No, that's okay" and I got out of the car on my own and was walking to my apartment. I did not invite them in. I said goodnight and got out. One of the agents got out of the car and then the other one did, after me, and then insisted on walking me up to my door. I said no, that's okay. He did anyway. Then I told these SSAs and Laughlin, I said goodnight at the door and he was not trying to kiss me at all. He put his hand over my hand and was turning the key in the lock when I said no several times.
It was technically a forced entry and I was intoxicated enough for them to know it was wrong. Besides being intoxicated and fully drunk, I said NO. Not once, not twice, I said it several times when he said he wanted to come in. The other agent was walking up the stairs to join the other one and then started walking back down the stairs. He saw the other agent had his hand over mine and kept trying to force me to put the key in the door lock to open up and the other agent didn't do anything about his partner. He just then started to walk away while the other one still tried to get in.
I finally let him in because he said, "PLEASE. I have to use the bathroom." I said, "You really have to use the bathroom?" So after he kept forcing my key into the lock and was turning it FOR ME, knowing I was drunk, with the other guy there, I was dumb enough to say okay fine, if you really have to use the bathroom.
I first said, "So go in the woods" as a response.
He kept insisting and said he couldn't go in the woods. So then I said okay, but that was it. So then the other guy turned around to go in with the other one.
If I am drunk and they know it, it's a forced entry. Period. None of the other things would have happened if they had not forced their way into my house and then searched around like they were looking for something.
So this SSA report is totally wrong and leaves out, in this section, the most important point or element. Forced entry and possible illegal search.
I SAID this to the SSA and not one mention of this.
I also NEVER said that "I expected they'd leave and didn't expect SA would kiss me good night" except for in the context of I didn't ask them to get out of their car and I did not intend to kiss anyone, period.
They combined the idea of my not thinking anyone would kiss me and then being "upset" when SA walked down the stairs when I was with the other SA. Read this way, it sounds like I am feeling needy or clinging and have low self esteem, expecting them to leave and thinking no one would kiss me and then feeling "upset" they walked away.
I mean, that idea is 100% different from:
I didn't ask them to get out of their cars but then I allowed them to walk me to the door. At the door they tried to force their way in and did.
I never wanted the FBI in my house that night, and I had not ever had any FBI in any of my houses before. Even when one of them wanted to stop over and see me a different time before this I said NO. I said I'll meet you in a public place. They GOT INTO MY HOUSE and subsequently ruined my and my son's life.
There was no reason for them to be there unless they were removing something from my apartment that someone else hadn't been successful in removing because of lack of access. I had the distinct feeling that they were either putting a bug in, of some kind, or removing one, and my feeling was that they were there to remove something before anyone else found it instead. I had a leak in my litigation and when I refused to let this Jewish guy I'd been sort of seeing back into my apartment when he kept trying, next it was the FBI. I had just lost my defamation lawsuit because of refusal by the Judge to allow medical abatement and my attempt to enter something into the record in bankruptcy court for the Archdiocese case had been thwarted.
When this Jewish guy wanted to get into my place, it wasn't to be with me. I knew it was over something else. He even pushed the door against my closing it and I saw from the look in his eyes that he was attempting to get into my apartment for a reason that had nothing to do with me. I said "NO" firmly and shut the door in his face as he was pleading to get in. I had a feeling he was getting paid by someone that wasn't a "friend". He ended up coming into some money from somewhere after I was with him.
Next thing I know, it's an FBI agent doing the exact same thing. And then they had no intention of going back or talking to me again or anything. Whatever they wanted, they got.
It is even possible the first agent was asking to come over pretending to be interested, just to gain access. When it didn't happen and I met the other SA, the other one tried by force.
Within a week of the Judge telling me I couldn't have medical abatement, 3 different men were trying to force their way into my residence and it had nothing to do with lust.
Then I was approached by FBI (I believe) under pretense of romantic interest when it was just an attempt to entrap me to go to jail or to keep an eye on me until the statute of limitations for Hague expired. I am going to make my UN complaint about Canada because it also involves some Canadian officials that colluded. My fiance first tried to keep me from reversing a restraining order that I needed to not have smearing my name, and I was approached with a marriage fraud offer with all signs of a sting involved. Then, I didn't take it and my fiance asks me why not, go ahead. Next, he tried to dump me while I was bleeding in the hospital. On a different occasion, he also put me in a hotel with nothing. Then he tells me at the pharmacy why don't we just separate and keeps asking me if it was a good experience.
Like, no harm done right? if I break up with you, you will think it's all been a good learning experience right? I'm asking because I'm the FBI and since I tried to set you up so many times, I need to make sure I don't look like the bad guy. So then he went to Wenatchee and never intended to stay. All he did was coordinate social services for me, and make a list of "resources" knowing he was going to dump me.
Why? It was the hump and dump, just like I said, but for specific purposes of stalling me on a Hague claim and keeping me from any legal work like trying to reverse a wrong restraining order. I even asked him, so what changed exactly? one minute you're so excited about everything and then you keep trying to dump me (get rid of me in an inconspicuous way). He had a phoney claim. After I was prevented from filing something to reverse things in court, and was approached to be set up, then I tried to go back and do it but he suddenly wouldn't let me use the car. If I had married him, he'd have likely made up a claim I was crazy about a year into the marriage and then put in a court order asking for custody of my son.
The FBI did and allowed so many horrific things, and I am being lasered still, as I even write this. It's not going to look so crazy if I have factual records to back up what I'm saying.
I want my son back. PERIOD.
And oh yeah, the FBI illegally had me on birth control too because I guess they don't like to set up women for entrapment with a risk of childbirth. It would make things "difficult". All they were doing was trying to distract me from filing anything that would reverse damages against me and my son.
He would definitely punch my son in the face. If he has no problem entrapping people or going along with lies about me and allowing torture, he would punch a child in the face.
Imagine getting married and then you're older and uglier and he tells you, while you are in the hospital for some reason, "I think it's over." My putting on maskara changed his mind?
If putting on maskara is the deciding point on whether or not to stay with someone, something is wrong.
I did not appreciate being thrown into a hotel with zero and trapped at a house with no car all of a sudden when I had legal things to file. Because of that, I couldn't reverse a wrongful legal matter and my time on other things was lost as well. For all anyone knew, after I contested one court matter, maybe I was going to file for Hague over there too. On top of this, he asked questions that were for purposes of getting dirt on me, to humiliate me with.
He examined me head to toe, like I was a piece of cattle. Not lust. I mean, I'm sitting the bathtub with my arms around my knees and up against my chest and he's looking all over like he's counting every mole and then asks if I have ever had any tatoos. I felt like I was being examined for some kind of identification purposes. It didn't strike me as lust or as concern (like was I hurt) or even jealousy (is she with anyone else). It was more like inventory. I remember thinking on that one specific night it was like an ID processing.
Then later, when I am in Wenatchee he's wanting me to talk dirty over the phone and no one that cares would ask this when anyone knows it would be taped by someone. I knew he wasn't even asking for himself but for someone else. And I refused. Then he's asking me separately how many boyfriends or people have I slept with and I said none of your business. And he kept asking about taxes and why didn't I have any for a timeframe and I told him why and it wasn't a problem. But he still kept asking. I recently talked to my mom about taxes and I was right, if it's under a certain amount, you don't have to file.
I don't know. All they have to do is give my son back and not allow torture. It's not too much. I am filing a writ of habeous.
I said it before, just some random idea in my head and never researched it at all. I also decided not to, without researching bc I thought how do I explain and not sound crazy. I was too worried about sounding crazy to file. I am not too worried anymore. I knew for sure last night. I had a good feeling about, thinking about it, earlier that day and then when I looked it up that night I felt even more convinced.
I looked up filing habeus for release from state and collateral attack but then I thought, what about habeus to federal for release from federal bondage? I decided this before I was given this mail from the FBI.
I am glad to have it though, because even the small amount I have confirms to me how things have gone wrong. What is most concerning is how dangerous the visitation reports about my son have been. It's one thing to sort of gloss over, taking one small section, a forced entry by making it sound like "this woman is needy and gets upset if she's left".
It's really horrific to have torture of a child glossed over, or to have someone making you sound crazy in the only documentation you have.
I think military is behind torture, not regular guys, but other, but I also think I can make an argument that my son and I were/have been held hostage by both state and federal officials.
I just looked at a couple of other things. Someone closed a file in January of 2007 and then my son and I were tortured and my son lost his ability to speak. It was New York that closed a case.
My son and I were subjected to TORTURE after the FBI offices in New York closed a file in January of 2007. My son was only 8 months old at the time they did this. After this, he lost his ability to talk.
"In paragraph 15, Garrett stated it was SA __and SA __that walked her up the stairs. She also stated she expected they would both leave and did not expect "__would kiss her good night." She also stated that she was upset SA walked down the stairs when she was by her door with SA__."
This is one tiny part of the report, and they left out almost everything and added things too.
I told the FBI that one of the agents forced his way into my house. That never changed. I told "Thornton" (aka Laughlin) and I told the SSAs, I did not expect them to walk me to my door because when they asked I said, "No, that's okay" and I got out of the car on my own and was walking to my apartment. I did not invite them in. I said goodnight and got out. One of the agents got out of the car and then the other one did, after me, and then insisted on walking me up to my door. I said no, that's okay. He did anyway. Then I told these SSAs and Laughlin, I said goodnight at the door and he was not trying to kiss me at all. He put his hand over my hand and was turning the key in the lock when I said no several times.
It was technically a forced entry and I was intoxicated enough for them to know it was wrong. Besides being intoxicated and fully drunk, I said NO. Not once, not twice, I said it several times when he said he wanted to come in. The other agent was walking up the stairs to join the other one and then started walking back down the stairs. He saw the other agent had his hand over mine and kept trying to force me to put the key in the door lock to open up and the other agent didn't do anything about his partner. He just then started to walk away while the other one still tried to get in.
I finally let him in because he said, "PLEASE. I have to use the bathroom." I said, "You really have to use the bathroom?" So after he kept forcing my key into the lock and was turning it FOR ME, knowing I was drunk, with the other guy there, I was dumb enough to say okay fine, if you really have to use the bathroom.
I first said, "So go in the woods" as a response.
He kept insisting and said he couldn't go in the woods. So then I said okay, but that was it. So then the other guy turned around to go in with the other one.
If I am drunk and they know it, it's a forced entry. Period. None of the other things would have happened if they had not forced their way into my house and then searched around like they were looking for something.
So this SSA report is totally wrong and leaves out, in this section, the most important point or element. Forced entry and possible illegal search.
I SAID this to the SSA and not one mention of this.
I also NEVER said that "I expected they'd leave and didn't expect SA would kiss me good night" except for in the context of I didn't ask them to get out of their car and I did not intend to kiss anyone, period.
They combined the idea of my not thinking anyone would kiss me and then being "upset" when SA walked down the stairs when I was with the other SA. Read this way, it sounds like I am feeling needy or clinging and have low self esteem, expecting them to leave and thinking no one would kiss me and then feeling "upset" they walked away.
I mean, that idea is 100% different from:
I didn't ask them to get out of their cars but then I allowed them to walk me to the door. At the door they tried to force their way in and did.
I never wanted the FBI in my house that night, and I had not ever had any FBI in any of my houses before. Even when one of them wanted to stop over and see me a different time before this I said NO. I said I'll meet you in a public place. They GOT INTO MY HOUSE and subsequently ruined my and my son's life.
There was no reason for them to be there unless they were removing something from my apartment that someone else hadn't been successful in removing because of lack of access. I had the distinct feeling that they were either putting a bug in, of some kind, or removing one, and my feeling was that they were there to remove something before anyone else found it instead. I had a leak in my litigation and when I refused to let this Jewish guy I'd been sort of seeing back into my apartment when he kept trying, next it was the FBI. I had just lost my defamation lawsuit because of refusal by the Judge to allow medical abatement and my attempt to enter something into the record in bankruptcy court for the Archdiocese case had been thwarted.
When this Jewish guy wanted to get into my place, it wasn't to be with me. I knew it was over something else. He even pushed the door against my closing it and I saw from the look in his eyes that he was attempting to get into my apartment for a reason that had nothing to do with me. I said "NO" firmly and shut the door in his face as he was pleading to get in. I had a feeling he was getting paid by someone that wasn't a "friend". He ended up coming into some money from somewhere after I was with him.
Next thing I know, it's an FBI agent doing the exact same thing. And then they had no intention of going back or talking to me again or anything. Whatever they wanted, they got.
It is even possible the first agent was asking to come over pretending to be interested, just to gain access. When it didn't happen and I met the other SA, the other one tried by force.
Within a week of the Judge telling me I couldn't have medical abatement, 3 different men were trying to force their way into my residence and it had nothing to do with lust.
Then I was approached by FBI (I believe) under pretense of romantic interest when it was just an attempt to entrap me to go to jail or to keep an eye on me until the statute of limitations for Hague expired. I am going to make my UN complaint about Canada because it also involves some Canadian officials that colluded. My fiance first tried to keep me from reversing a restraining order that I needed to not have smearing my name, and I was approached with a marriage fraud offer with all signs of a sting involved. Then, I didn't take it and my fiance asks me why not, go ahead. Next, he tried to dump me while I was bleeding in the hospital. On a different occasion, he also put me in a hotel with nothing. Then he tells me at the pharmacy why don't we just separate and keeps asking me if it was a good experience.
Like, no harm done right? if I break up with you, you will think it's all been a good learning experience right? I'm asking because I'm the FBI and since I tried to set you up so many times, I need to make sure I don't look like the bad guy. So then he went to Wenatchee and never intended to stay. All he did was coordinate social services for me, and make a list of "resources" knowing he was going to dump me.
Why? It was the hump and dump, just like I said, but for specific purposes of stalling me on a Hague claim and keeping me from any legal work like trying to reverse a wrong restraining order. I even asked him, so what changed exactly? one minute you're so excited about everything and then you keep trying to dump me (get rid of me in an inconspicuous way). He had a phoney claim. After I was prevented from filing something to reverse things in court, and was approached to be set up, then I tried to go back and do it but he suddenly wouldn't let me use the car. If I had married him, he'd have likely made up a claim I was crazy about a year into the marriage and then put in a court order asking for custody of my son.
The FBI did and allowed so many horrific things, and I am being lasered still, as I even write this. It's not going to look so crazy if I have factual records to back up what I'm saying.
I want my son back. PERIOD.
And oh yeah, the FBI illegally had me on birth control too because I guess they don't like to set up women for entrapment with a risk of childbirth. It would make things "difficult". All they were doing was trying to distract me from filing anything that would reverse damages against me and my son.
He would definitely punch my son in the face. If he has no problem entrapping people or going along with lies about me and allowing torture, he would punch a child in the face.
Imagine getting married and then you're older and uglier and he tells you, while you are in the hospital for some reason, "I think it's over." My putting on maskara changed his mind?
If putting on maskara is the deciding point on whether or not to stay with someone, something is wrong.
I did not appreciate being thrown into a hotel with zero and trapped at a house with no car all of a sudden when I had legal things to file. Because of that, I couldn't reverse a wrongful legal matter and my time on other things was lost as well. For all anyone knew, after I contested one court matter, maybe I was going to file for Hague over there too. On top of this, he asked questions that were for purposes of getting dirt on me, to humiliate me with.
He examined me head to toe, like I was a piece of cattle. Not lust. I mean, I'm sitting the bathtub with my arms around my knees and up against my chest and he's looking all over like he's counting every mole and then asks if I have ever had any tatoos. I felt like I was being examined for some kind of identification purposes. It didn't strike me as lust or as concern (like was I hurt) or even jealousy (is she with anyone else). It was more like inventory. I remember thinking on that one specific night it was like an ID processing.
Then later, when I am in Wenatchee he's wanting me to talk dirty over the phone and no one that cares would ask this when anyone knows it would be taped by someone. I knew he wasn't even asking for himself but for someone else. And I refused. Then he's asking me separately how many boyfriends or people have I slept with and I said none of your business. And he kept asking about taxes and why didn't I have any for a timeframe and I told him why and it wasn't a problem. But he still kept asking. I recently talked to my mom about taxes and I was right, if it's under a certain amount, you don't have to file.
I don't know. All they have to do is give my son back and not allow torture. It's not too much. I am filing a writ of habeous.
I said it before, just some random idea in my head and never researched it at all. I also decided not to, without researching bc I thought how do I explain and not sound crazy. I was too worried about sounding crazy to file. I am not too worried anymore. I knew for sure last night. I had a good feeling about, thinking about it, earlier that day and then when I looked it up that night I felt even more convinced.
I looked up filing habeus for release from state and collateral attack but then I thought, what about habeus to federal for release from federal bondage? I decided this before I was given this mail from the FBI.
I am glad to have it though, because even the small amount I have confirms to me how things have gone wrong. What is most concerning is how dangerous the visitation reports about my son have been. It's one thing to sort of gloss over, taking one small section, a forced entry by making it sound like "this woman is needy and gets upset if she's left".
It's really horrific to have torture of a child glossed over, or to have someone making you sound crazy in the only documentation you have.
I think military is behind torture, not regular guys, but other, but I also think I can make an argument that my son and I were/have been held hostage by both state and federal officials.
I just looked at a couple of other things. Someone closed a file in January of 2007 and then my son and I were tortured and my son lost his ability to speak. It was New York that closed a case.
My son and I were subjected to TORTURE after the FBI offices in New York closed a file in January of 2007. My son was only 8 months old at the time they did this. After this, he lost his ability to talk.
Alexander (Sandy) Fetter: British Killer
Here's how I found this man.
I looked up the D.C. National Security council. I was going down a list, of those who attend meetings and the third one down or so was Steve Chu. Steve Chu is the head of the Department of Energy and, as Obama said, "people keep passing on your name to me so you must be good." I found that in an interview with Obama, who stated he appointed Chu because a lot of people told him to.
It would be nice to know who those people were.
When I found out Chu is Chinese-American, it made me wonder about the Chinese in SUVs I saw parked outside of my mother's workplace which I went into where we found this dragonfly someone had left to fly around. They probably have nothing to do with Chu, but they did have California plates and they were watching me and mocking me.
Steve Chu is from California. He was at Stanford before he went to D.C. as the head for DOE. Since I saw he is a physicist, and read he was involved in lasers, and all kinds of weaponry technology, I noted he had gone to Rochester, which is a University with the country's largest and most prestiged laser and laser experimentation department. I didn't see anything about his being Catholic but wondered about his wives or other contacts.
I found out he married the ex-wife of another prominent physicist, who is also from Stanford, who has British contacts and is British or his first wife was. Her name is Jean.
I need to double check on the college of Chu because I just grabbed my notes and I have "went to Rochester" next to Alexander Fetter too. Alexander Fetter, known as "Sandy", definitely went to Oxford, in England. That's information that's easy to find. Fetter has "Fetterfests" and conferences on quantum physics and "Quantum Hall Effects" magnetoplasms, you name it. If it has to do with less than lethal or even lethal torture--things relating to weapons. His research and work is immediately tied to the military industry.
Since he is British, or has a strong Oxford connection to England, he knows scientists from England or connected to journalists based in Switzerland for the BBC who would write articles about scientific results of torturing U.S. citizens.
So Steve Chu, with the U.S. DOE, is married to "Sandy's" ex-wife, Jean.
Jean is a British American physicist who went to Oxford. She was first married to Alexander Fetter, who also went to Oxford.
Jean married Steve Chu in 1997, which is the same year I began having odd migraines.
Chu, for his part, had divorced his first wife to marry Jean. His first wife was Elizabeth (Lisa) Chu-Thielbar. In an interview, Lisa describes her ex, Steve Chu as being determined enough to make such an impact as to "leave bloody corpses behind him..." Lisa works a science writer.
Chu has two children from his marriage with Lisa: Geoffrey and Michael.
Chu's father and mother met at Cambridge, MA.
Alexander L. (Sandy) Fetter married Lynn Bunim Fetter after he and Jean divorced and Jean married Chu. Sandy has two children, Anne Fetter and Andrew (Andy) J. Fetter.
They all lived in Palo Alto, California, which is where Stanford is located.
When I made my complaint to the FBI, one S.A. was from D.C. and the other one was from Palo Alto, California, which is where all of these physicists were, from whose group Obama had a lot of people telling him to hire Chu.
When my son and I were tortured in E. Wenatchee, I contacted the DOE and then I blogged about contacting them. I didn't know who else might have an idea of what was happening. Just a year or later after I contacted the DOE, Chu from Palo Alto with his British and Catholic FBI connections, was being recommended to the President.
In looking up Sandy Fetter, I went to wiki and went to the hidden or background history. There I found a series of photos had been entered and then removed but there was still a link so I looked them up. They are from the "Fetterfest" of November 2007, which is when my son and I were tortured full-time. I don't think anyone else would notice but I noticed several of the photos featured someone putting their hand against their lower back, or hunching over and holding their lower stomach or looking as if they were retarded with a raised limp hand or expression.
This festival was taking time at the precise moment my son and I were being fried and had our internal organs and brains, damaged. The back pain was so severe I could not function and the outcome of this lower abdominal pain and back pain, was burning and passage of tissue from my body in Canada. I was following the South Wales stickered car remember? all the way to Canada, with a car that came up in front of me with a country sticker that said South Wales. My fingernails and my son's toenails and fingernails were warped and curled up from damage. Our cat was deformed after this torture as well.
The torture began full time after I was trying to get ahold of the Dept. of Justice OIG (Office of the Inspector General) regarding the investigation done by Palo Alto and D.C. and my subsequent treatment and defamation of being a criminal, mentally ill, and a drug user.
Dick Whittemore also had offices in Palo Alto and Eliza Bechtold lived in Palo Alto at the time as well. As did Amy Roe once, who defamed me in the Willamette Week and graduated from the same Stanford that Sandy, Jean, Chu, and Thielbar were at.
If Amy Roe's grandfather or Dad was so involved with the steel industry and military, there isn't much room for doubt that physicists who specialize in laser technology and are connected to military, who went to the same college as Roe, know eachother.
After I reported the FBI agents in Oregon and accused them of colluding with Catholic litigants in lawsuits I had (which were only filed to clear my name), I had a photo taken of me, my mother, and my son. My mother is wearing a flat gold chain around her neck that Patty Otterbach and Kathy Hathaway told her to buy in Mexico, in 2006 or 2007. The Fetterfest photos of November 2007 show Jean Fetter-Chu wearing a necklace identical to the one Otterbach and Hathaway told my mom to buy.
"Do you like your chains?"
I remember writing that on my blog in 2007 and being severely tortured after I did. My mom was then forced to work for Debbie Sweetwater-Burt (I think she was also on the Mexico trip)starting in 2006 when Debbie opened up her "Coppertree Realty" offices featuring a swirly sagitarious type design on the top and bottom of the cards.
What's even more fascinating is that whereas my Dad had this video for decades earlier, since the Oklahoma Bombing, that featured an FBI man talking about terrorism and loss of rights in the U.S., with a blue and fushia screen, At the Fetter Symposium of Nov. 2007, Alexander Fetter had a lecture discussing the physics as applied to weapons on a screen slide show with the same blue and fushia chosen to highlight his material and then they photographed this. One of the Fetter photos shows a woman imitating a posture my mother had in a photo that was being held in safekeeping with my parents in Coquille at the time. It's the exact same expression and posture and I caught onto it instantly.
So how was this female physicist able to reference and imitate this photo which was then held by my mother in Coquille? And my mother is being told to buy a necklace that matches the one Jean Fetter-Chu is wearing in another photo from the same event?
Steven Chu became head of the DOE in 2009 but other things were going on before that date. His brother is head of a law firm and got accolades and rewards beginning in 2007. This is according to the wiki for Morgan Chu and then there is another brother, Gil Chu. Morgan Chu's specialty was intellectual property and he worked at Irell and Manella in Los Angeles. One of the awards he received was through a Jewish foundation, called "learned hand", which praised him for "building bridges". He won his medal from UCLA the same year his brother Steve Chu worked at UC-Berkeley as a professor, in 2007.
First Steve Chu worked at Stanford, then UC-Berkeley, and then at The Radiation Center in Los Angeles, which was renamed the "Lawrence Berekely National Labratory" and is owned by the Department of Energy. From this position he was nominated to D.C. in 2009. The Radiation Center does business with Oak Ridge, TN, which is next door to Knoxvill, TN (about 30 minutes away).
The history here is more complete on Chu's parents and states they went to Brooklyn Polytech University, MIT, and Washington University to study chemical engineering. Steve Chu's brothers also worked at Stanford and in the area, in biochemistry and chemical engineering.
Brother Ansgar's father was a chemical engineer from the same area and worked in California.
A bunch of Asian people were in town one day when my Dad's hands were broken and they swelled up and it was the same day I made a report for my mother and called 911 because of Debbie Sweetwater-Burt. The police officer showing up to intimidate my mom was Sean and he said his last name was "Gil" or something but it wasn't. Then he was also around after another incident with the same thing happening to my Dad's hands.
Today a woman asked me what kind of computer and printer I wanted and to send her information and I found out the Panasonic toughbooks have come out with a new line-up of laptops carrying "Intel's new Sandy Bridge processors."
I wonder if the Sandy Bridge is a reference to Alexander (Sandy) Who Tortures Babies to Build Bridges wit' Chu.
When I first starting writing this post, by the way, the use of torture stopped and then it started again, about the time I was writing about his British connections.
Around this time, the head over the entire Intelligence community was from Oxford and was also English. The Director of Intelligence.
I was suddenly wondering about the Del Balzos and whether they know the Fetters or Chu since they worked for Intel so long and it's sort of connected to the same thing in California. Probably not. Mary had a degree in engineering and was a lawyer for "Intellectual Property" though, just like Morgan Chu is. I just wondered because of the Sandy Bridge naming of Intel's processors. You know, computer people don't just name products without thinking symbolically.
The military and federal government use the Panasonic Toughbook, which is featuring the Sandy Bridge processors and when I read this, it just brought this to mind.
I looked up the D.C. National Security council. I was going down a list, of those who attend meetings and the third one down or so was Steve Chu. Steve Chu is the head of the Department of Energy and, as Obama said, "people keep passing on your name to me so you must be good." I found that in an interview with Obama, who stated he appointed Chu because a lot of people told him to.
It would be nice to know who those people were.
When I found out Chu is Chinese-American, it made me wonder about the Chinese in SUVs I saw parked outside of my mother's workplace which I went into where we found this dragonfly someone had left to fly around. They probably have nothing to do with Chu, but they did have California plates and they were watching me and mocking me.
Steve Chu is from California. He was at Stanford before he went to D.C. as the head for DOE. Since I saw he is a physicist, and read he was involved in lasers, and all kinds of weaponry technology, I noted he had gone to Rochester, which is a University with the country's largest and most prestiged laser and laser experimentation department. I didn't see anything about his being Catholic but wondered about his wives or other contacts.
I found out he married the ex-wife of another prominent physicist, who is also from Stanford, who has British contacts and is British or his first wife was. Her name is Jean.
I need to double check on the college of Chu because I just grabbed my notes and I have "went to Rochester" next to Alexander Fetter too. Alexander Fetter, known as "Sandy", definitely went to Oxford, in England. That's information that's easy to find. Fetter has "Fetterfests" and conferences on quantum physics and "Quantum Hall Effects" magnetoplasms, you name it. If it has to do with less than lethal or even lethal torture--things relating to weapons. His research and work is immediately tied to the military industry.
Since he is British, or has a strong Oxford connection to England, he knows scientists from England or connected to journalists based in Switzerland for the BBC who would write articles about scientific results of torturing U.S. citizens.
So Steve Chu, with the U.S. DOE, is married to "Sandy's" ex-wife, Jean.
Jean is a British American physicist who went to Oxford. She was first married to Alexander Fetter, who also went to Oxford.
Jean married Steve Chu in 1997, which is the same year I began having odd migraines.
Chu, for his part, had divorced his first wife to marry Jean. His first wife was Elizabeth (Lisa) Chu-Thielbar. In an interview, Lisa describes her ex, Steve Chu as being determined enough to make such an impact as to "leave bloody corpses behind him..." Lisa works a science writer.
Chu has two children from his marriage with Lisa: Geoffrey and Michael.
Chu's father and mother met at Cambridge, MA.
Alexander L. (Sandy) Fetter married Lynn Bunim Fetter after he and Jean divorced and Jean married Chu. Sandy has two children, Anne Fetter and Andrew (Andy) J. Fetter.
They all lived in Palo Alto, California, which is where Stanford is located.
When I made my complaint to the FBI, one S.A. was from D.C. and the other one was from Palo Alto, California, which is where all of these physicists were, from whose group Obama had a lot of people telling him to hire Chu.
When my son and I were tortured in E. Wenatchee, I contacted the DOE and then I blogged about contacting them. I didn't know who else might have an idea of what was happening. Just a year or later after I contacted the DOE, Chu from Palo Alto with his British and Catholic FBI connections, was being recommended to the President.
In looking up Sandy Fetter, I went to wiki and went to the hidden or background history. There I found a series of photos had been entered and then removed but there was still a link so I looked them up. They are from the "Fetterfest" of November 2007, which is when my son and I were tortured full-time. I don't think anyone else would notice but I noticed several of the photos featured someone putting their hand against their lower back, or hunching over and holding their lower stomach or looking as if they were retarded with a raised limp hand or expression.
This festival was taking time at the precise moment my son and I were being fried and had our internal organs and brains, damaged. The back pain was so severe I could not function and the outcome of this lower abdominal pain and back pain, was burning and passage of tissue from my body in Canada. I was following the South Wales stickered car remember? all the way to Canada, with a car that came up in front of me with a country sticker that said South Wales. My fingernails and my son's toenails and fingernails were warped and curled up from damage. Our cat was deformed after this torture as well.
The torture began full time after I was trying to get ahold of the Dept. of Justice OIG (Office of the Inspector General) regarding the investigation done by Palo Alto and D.C. and my subsequent treatment and defamation of being a criminal, mentally ill, and a drug user.
Dick Whittemore also had offices in Palo Alto and Eliza Bechtold lived in Palo Alto at the time as well. As did Amy Roe once, who defamed me in the Willamette Week and graduated from the same Stanford that Sandy, Jean, Chu, and Thielbar were at.
If Amy Roe's grandfather or Dad was so involved with the steel industry and military, there isn't much room for doubt that physicists who specialize in laser technology and are connected to military, who went to the same college as Roe, know eachother.
After I reported the FBI agents in Oregon and accused them of colluding with Catholic litigants in lawsuits I had (which were only filed to clear my name), I had a photo taken of me, my mother, and my son. My mother is wearing a flat gold chain around her neck that Patty Otterbach and Kathy Hathaway told her to buy in Mexico, in 2006 or 2007. The Fetterfest photos of November 2007 show Jean Fetter-Chu wearing a necklace identical to the one Otterbach and Hathaway told my mom to buy.
"Do you like your chains?"
I remember writing that on my blog in 2007 and being severely tortured after I did. My mom was then forced to work for Debbie Sweetwater-Burt (I think she was also on the Mexico trip)starting in 2006 when Debbie opened up her "Coppertree Realty" offices featuring a swirly sagitarious type design on the top and bottom of the cards.
What's even more fascinating is that whereas my Dad had this video for decades earlier, since the Oklahoma Bombing, that featured an FBI man talking about terrorism and loss of rights in the U.S., with a blue and fushia screen, At the Fetter Symposium of Nov. 2007, Alexander Fetter had a lecture discussing the physics as applied to weapons on a screen slide show with the same blue and fushia chosen to highlight his material and then they photographed this. One of the Fetter photos shows a woman imitating a posture my mother had in a photo that was being held in safekeeping with my parents in Coquille at the time. It's the exact same expression and posture and I caught onto it instantly.
So how was this female physicist able to reference and imitate this photo which was then held by my mother in Coquille? And my mother is being told to buy a necklace that matches the one Jean Fetter-Chu is wearing in another photo from the same event?
Steven Chu became head of the DOE in 2009 but other things were going on before that date. His brother is head of a law firm and got accolades and rewards beginning in 2007. This is according to the wiki for Morgan Chu and then there is another brother, Gil Chu. Morgan Chu's specialty was intellectual property and he worked at Irell and Manella in Los Angeles. One of the awards he received was through a Jewish foundation, called "learned hand", which praised him for "building bridges". He won his medal from UCLA the same year his brother Steve Chu worked at UC-Berkeley as a professor, in 2007.
First Steve Chu worked at Stanford, then UC-Berkeley, and then at The Radiation Center in Los Angeles, which was renamed the "Lawrence Berekely National Labratory" and is owned by the Department of Energy. From this position he was nominated to D.C. in 2009. The Radiation Center does business with Oak Ridge, TN, which is next door to Knoxvill, TN (about 30 minutes away).
The history here is more complete on Chu's parents and states they went to Brooklyn Polytech University, MIT, and Washington University to study chemical engineering. Steve Chu's brothers also worked at Stanford and in the area, in biochemistry and chemical engineering.
Brother Ansgar's father was a chemical engineer from the same area and worked in California.
A bunch of Asian people were in town one day when my Dad's hands were broken and they swelled up and it was the same day I made a report for my mother and called 911 because of Debbie Sweetwater-Burt. The police officer showing up to intimidate my mom was Sean and he said his last name was "Gil" or something but it wasn't. Then he was also around after another incident with the same thing happening to my Dad's hands.
Today a woman asked me what kind of computer and printer I wanted and to send her information and I found out the Panasonic toughbooks have come out with a new line-up of laptops carrying "Intel's new Sandy Bridge processors."
I wonder if the Sandy Bridge is a reference to Alexander (Sandy) Who Tortures Babies to Build Bridges wit' Chu.
When I first starting writing this post, by the way, the use of torture stopped and then it started again, about the time I was writing about his British connections.
Around this time, the head over the entire Intelligence community was from Oxford and was also English. The Director of Intelligence.
I was suddenly wondering about the Del Balzos and whether they know the Fetters or Chu since they worked for Intel so long and it's sort of connected to the same thing in California. Probably not. Mary had a degree in engineering and was a lawyer for "Intellectual Property" though, just like Morgan Chu is. I just wondered because of the Sandy Bridge naming of Intel's processors. You know, computer people don't just name products without thinking symbolically.
The military and federal government use the Panasonic Toughbook, which is featuring the Sandy Bridge processors and when I read this, it just brought this to mind.
Got Records Today--FBI Lied (It is definitely the FBI)
I got some reports, only a few from the FBI. I just got them today, and they were sent from Winchester, VA (so it says) with a postmark date of March 27th (so it says).
I write "so it says" because I don't even trust them with using correct postage dates.
It was just handed to me and I got to my house, opened it and went to middle section randomly and ended up on a report from the words of an SSA agent. I didn't look at anything else. I only skimmed 1 1/2 pages which is what this report amounted to and after the first page, it was clear to me why my son and I have been tortured and why people have thought they could do whatever they want to us.
The report is full of lies and miscategorizations. It puts words in my mouth that I never used, and mixes truth with a cover for themselves. They made me sound crazy. He even took out the whole point of my complaint and any facts I alleged that made a reasonable case.
I couldn't even keep reading. I just opened it up, and randomly picked a section and read and that's what it was. The FBI investigation which was written to make me sound like a teenage nutcase with mental problems.
I don't want to blame every person who is in the FBI, but that's where it started, and when criminals knew they were covered, they tortured me and my son. It is extremely likely that some of those criminals are actually FBI agents themselves.
There is motive.
The motive is that after refusing to take my report of religious hate crimes, and writing a report to defend FBI misconduct which made me sound crazy, someone in the FBI felt they needed to reinforce this idea and claim by doing things to us that looked like it proved their point.
Someone should have been tape recording the interview, because I remember exactly what I did say and what I didn't say and it does not match up with this report.
This report is almost identical to reports then generated about visitation with my son. Anne Crane is definitely connected to the FBI.
What I am confused about, is why they sent some of the records now. Why did they wait this long, while my life was ruined.
Not only that, they refused any and all requests until March 27th? I know I've been under surveillance and there is no possible way they haven't known that I've done nothing that is good enough to win my son back at Washington Supreme Court. They sent everything too late, right up to the line, and it's almost mean, like they give me the smallest amount right before they know I am about to lose all rights to my son. They know that even if I get any discovery from them now, which was my right in 2004 and 2005 and would have protected me then, that it's too late now.
The timing is strange. I have not been looking up any case law, or writing anything, because I've been tortured and have medical problems. So even though I had the use of the law library on Monday, the 26th, I didn't go. And then I didn't go on Tuesday the 27th. By that time, it was too late to file for a Continuance again with the State Supreme Court. So I looked all washed out. Then on Wednesday I went to the law library and scanned material about jurisdiction relating to family law. That was the 28th. Then late on the 29th, Thursday, I stayed home all day and later that night, last night, I looked up habeus corpus. Today is the 30th and I've been home working on other things all day.
I didn't call anyone about college or automatic disbursement of monies or anything so I was even going to be behind on any college funds which would have allowed me to pay the fee required for immediate removal to federal court from State proceedings, or allowed me to stay the process. There is no possible way the U.S. Supreme Court would ever grant writ of ceritori when these lawyers kept all of the evidence out of the record. They've screwed me over for almost a decade. So basically, my case would have gone to State Supreme Court with a Catholic majority and people like Judge Owens who made fun of me with Judge Chambers, at a time when I had not given any information myself to the public, family, or friends about the nature of my complaint. I sent FBI emails and that was it.
Someone with the FBI knew I had no money to file to remove the case and I didn't have any research done to file for Continuation either. All I had were grounds for a civil suit and no way to get my son back that way either.
The college was first saying I would have money by Monday possibly and then they neglected to tell me their people that process things were leaving early that day. So now I am told I will have nothing until the end of next week when the deadline for State Supreme Court is April 5, 2012, the Wednesday of next week.
I am supposed to file with nothing. And lose.
Either someone thought I would not be able to prevail in time for this court, and decided to rub it in my face by sending me a few records that proved it really was their fault, at least partially, or, like I said, I don't trust the postage date and zip even, because the feds can do whatever they want.
How do I know someone didn't observe my looking up habeus corpus last night? and then said, "Hey FBI, send something that Garrett thinks is all about your department, so the Department of Defense doesn't get into trouble."
If it's that big of deal, as I've said, where they've tortured us for years, it's worth making a hasty mailing over with a fake date and it's not like the CIA can't do that. They can do whatever they want, and have. The Post Office is a federal office. They can fake labels and dates however they want.
That's how much I trust them.
The reason no one wanted me to talk to the D.C. Inspector General, in 2005, was because the FBI already knew what they'd done and how I would react to finding out they changed my story.
By the way, it came to mind again that Bill O'Reilly is somehow connected to Judge Gerald Warren in Wenatchee, WA. I don't know how, I just have a feeling. They're both Irish Catholic and look alike, but I don't know why I would think they know eachother. I guess, because the Irish Catholic circle, when you come down to it, is not large. Laura Laughlin has been in charge awhile.
I looked something else up last night and it the National Security Defense council. I looked up the DOE man, the physicist that has been part of the Department of Energy. Most all of the people with that council are Catholic. As for Steve Chu, I don't know. He was sworn in a day after Obama was sworn into office. However, our torture preceded this, but it's still important. It's important because physicists and scientists are the ones who create the modern weapon--the military just use it. Snoop Doggy-dog is not putting together lasers. Mueller is not tinkering around in his basement with biological weapons and testing laser or ultrasound out on his own dog or a caged variety of specimen. Panetta is involved, definitely, but he's not the one making the weapons, he just gives orders as to their use. The people who could have saved me and my son are those in the scientific community. I mean, it's the FBI's fault, but those who knew how my descriptions lined up or who create these weapons are scientists. Since they create them, they know who they're being sold to. Who is buying and who is doing research. They know who is authorizing use and who is not. And they even know about the black market.
So the Geeks are the terrorists. It's their revenge of the nerds thing. It doesn't matter if I enjoy science or write for it, if they are getting paid, or are tied to a religious church or hate someone for any reason, they are the ones who know what is unfolding ultimately.
So read my next post, about more British connections and how BBC got their information for making inside jokes in articles by correspondents living in Switzerland.
I write "so it says" because I don't even trust them with using correct postage dates.
It was just handed to me and I got to my house, opened it and went to middle section randomly and ended up on a report from the words of an SSA agent. I didn't look at anything else. I only skimmed 1 1/2 pages which is what this report amounted to and after the first page, it was clear to me why my son and I have been tortured and why people have thought they could do whatever they want to us.
The report is full of lies and miscategorizations. It puts words in my mouth that I never used, and mixes truth with a cover for themselves. They made me sound crazy. He even took out the whole point of my complaint and any facts I alleged that made a reasonable case.
I couldn't even keep reading. I just opened it up, and randomly picked a section and read and that's what it was. The FBI investigation which was written to make me sound like a teenage nutcase with mental problems.
I don't want to blame every person who is in the FBI, but that's where it started, and when criminals knew they were covered, they tortured me and my son. It is extremely likely that some of those criminals are actually FBI agents themselves.
There is motive.
The motive is that after refusing to take my report of religious hate crimes, and writing a report to defend FBI misconduct which made me sound crazy, someone in the FBI felt they needed to reinforce this idea and claim by doing things to us that looked like it proved their point.
Someone should have been tape recording the interview, because I remember exactly what I did say and what I didn't say and it does not match up with this report.
This report is almost identical to reports then generated about visitation with my son. Anne Crane is definitely connected to the FBI.
What I am confused about, is why they sent some of the records now. Why did they wait this long, while my life was ruined.
Not only that, they refused any and all requests until March 27th? I know I've been under surveillance and there is no possible way they haven't known that I've done nothing that is good enough to win my son back at Washington Supreme Court. They sent everything too late, right up to the line, and it's almost mean, like they give me the smallest amount right before they know I am about to lose all rights to my son. They know that even if I get any discovery from them now, which was my right in 2004 and 2005 and would have protected me then, that it's too late now.
The timing is strange. I have not been looking up any case law, or writing anything, because I've been tortured and have medical problems. So even though I had the use of the law library on Monday, the 26th, I didn't go. And then I didn't go on Tuesday the 27th. By that time, it was too late to file for a Continuance again with the State Supreme Court. So I looked all washed out. Then on Wednesday I went to the law library and scanned material about jurisdiction relating to family law. That was the 28th. Then late on the 29th, Thursday, I stayed home all day and later that night, last night, I looked up habeus corpus. Today is the 30th and I've been home working on other things all day.
I didn't call anyone about college or automatic disbursement of monies or anything so I was even going to be behind on any college funds which would have allowed me to pay the fee required for immediate removal to federal court from State proceedings, or allowed me to stay the process. There is no possible way the U.S. Supreme Court would ever grant writ of ceritori when these lawyers kept all of the evidence out of the record. They've screwed me over for almost a decade. So basically, my case would have gone to State Supreme Court with a Catholic majority and people like Judge Owens who made fun of me with Judge Chambers, at a time when I had not given any information myself to the public, family, or friends about the nature of my complaint. I sent FBI emails and that was it.
Someone with the FBI knew I had no money to file to remove the case and I didn't have any research done to file for Continuation either. All I had were grounds for a civil suit and no way to get my son back that way either.
The college was first saying I would have money by Monday possibly and then they neglected to tell me their people that process things were leaving early that day. So now I am told I will have nothing until the end of next week when the deadline for State Supreme Court is April 5, 2012, the Wednesday of next week.
I am supposed to file with nothing. And lose.
Either someone thought I would not be able to prevail in time for this court, and decided to rub it in my face by sending me a few records that proved it really was their fault, at least partially, or, like I said, I don't trust the postage date and zip even, because the feds can do whatever they want.
How do I know someone didn't observe my looking up habeus corpus last night? and then said, "Hey FBI, send something that Garrett thinks is all about your department, so the Department of Defense doesn't get into trouble."
If it's that big of deal, as I've said, where they've tortured us for years, it's worth making a hasty mailing over with a fake date and it's not like the CIA can't do that. They can do whatever they want, and have. The Post Office is a federal office. They can fake labels and dates however they want.
That's how much I trust them.
The reason no one wanted me to talk to the D.C. Inspector General, in 2005, was because the FBI already knew what they'd done and how I would react to finding out they changed my story.
By the way, it came to mind again that Bill O'Reilly is somehow connected to Judge Gerald Warren in Wenatchee, WA. I don't know how, I just have a feeling. They're both Irish Catholic and look alike, but I don't know why I would think they know eachother. I guess, because the Irish Catholic circle, when you come down to it, is not large. Laura Laughlin has been in charge awhile.
I looked something else up last night and it the National Security Defense council. I looked up the DOE man, the physicist that has been part of the Department of Energy. Most all of the people with that council are Catholic. As for Steve Chu, I don't know. He was sworn in a day after Obama was sworn into office. However, our torture preceded this, but it's still important. It's important because physicists and scientists are the ones who create the modern weapon--the military just use it. Snoop Doggy-dog is not putting together lasers. Mueller is not tinkering around in his basement with biological weapons and testing laser or ultrasound out on his own dog or a caged variety of specimen. Panetta is involved, definitely, but he's not the one making the weapons, he just gives orders as to their use. The people who could have saved me and my son are those in the scientific community. I mean, it's the FBI's fault, but those who knew how my descriptions lined up or who create these weapons are scientists. Since they create them, they know who they're being sold to. Who is buying and who is doing research. They know who is authorizing use and who is not. And they even know about the black market.
So the Geeks are the terrorists. It's their revenge of the nerds thing. It doesn't matter if I enjoy science or write for it, if they are getting paid, or are tied to a religious church or hate someone for any reason, they are the ones who know what is unfolding ultimately.
So read my next post, about more British connections and how BBC got their information for making inside jokes in articles by correspondents living in Switzerland.
Christine Mino with EOU Financial Aid
I have had so many problems with this woman.
She lied about important emails she was supposed to send, and lied to me while I was still on the phone trying to confirm they were sent. I was asking her, while still on the phone, "So you sent it?" and she said and hadn't. I never got one thing from her and she said she'd sent not just one but 2 emails and I had to ask her to confirm both to me.
Then she's called me names over the phone or made inuendos.
Today she transfered me to VM without even speaking to me first. I had to call back and ask.
She lied about important emails she was supposed to send, and lied to me while I was still on the phone trying to confirm they were sent. I was asking her, while still on the phone, "So you sent it?" and she said and hadn't. I never got one thing from her and she said she'd sent not just one but 2 emails and I had to ask her to confirm both to me.
Then she's called me names over the phone or made inuendos.
Today she transfered me to VM without even speaking to me first. I had to call back and ask.
My Wells Fargo Business Account Illegally Closed
I just found out the only banking account I've had with Wells Fargo, which was opened as a business account in 1997 or 1998, was closed without notice or authorization on, allegedly, September 18, 2011. First they said the 18th and then they said it was the 13th.
My bank card says I have been a customer since 2003, but I believe it was earlier than that, because I opened up the account with approximately $40,000.
I sold my house in 1997, and then put the money into a business account. I also moved at that same time from St. John's to Lake Oswego and that was part of the reason for using a new bank. Previously I had been with U.S. Bank. It was a business account because of the amount of money involved and because it had better privileges and benefits. Possibly, a better interest rate for checking & savings. They didn't require a tax ID number (which is what someone asked me today). So maybe at some point, someone at Wells was giving me a lower interest rate on my accounts when it should have been higher because it was the same original business account (and now they want me to start over with a new crap account). So this is what they're telling me to do now. To start over with a crappier account under "personal" checking & savings, and that's besides the point of how much interest I was given under the wrong designation when my original account was business not personal.
Yesterday I talked to Wells Fargo and they found my banking information online, with my accounts and bank card number. They were pulling up all of my information through my ID and bank card and then after I talked to "Tamesha" and then to Matthew Sexton in Nashville, TN, they were telling me through the 800 number, they no longer showed my existence in any Wells Fargo computer systems.
Yesterday they confirmed it was started as a business account, not as a personal account. I had 3 or 4 different representatives confirm this. Then as of this morning, they claimed there was no indication of a business account and it was only personal. After this I talked to TN and then when I called back they claimed my bank card pulled up no account (when it did yesterday) and that I wasn't in the system.
Not only that, I have an active safety deposit box through the same business account. So I said yesterday, if I still have a safety deposit box through my original account, you shouldn't have a problem reopening that same account.
And yesterday they said yes this was possible. Melinda of Coos Bay, Oregon Wells Fargo said this was possible last night and a rep through the business 800 number for Wells said this was possible and confirmed my active safety deposit box.
Overnight, they changed the entire story. I called Nashville and they said that (all of a sudden) my safety deposit box was no longer linked to my original account and I said that was a change. I said then how are you billing me? and they said they had no way to bill me.
Yesteday, Wells told me all of my statement history, back to 1997-1998, was taken off the online system and could only be accessed by "ordering" statements. And then they said they were going to "purge" my savings records too. By taking my information off of the system, they have made it impossible for me to reference the history of my own account.
I asked how my account was "closed" with ZERO notice to me and they claimed they sent statements. I said I had specifically asked to receive all bank notices by email and never got even one notice that way.
So just now I was talking to someone who was polite and helpful and she was out of a San Francisco office (which I called because last time I called San Fran they were helpful too, regarding discussing safety deposit box procedure). She said, after the 800 people said I wasn't in the system and my bank card didn't pull anything up, that yes I was there in the system. She asked for my address and I said I could give her my email address because I had actually used that with Wells and indicated it was my primary means of communication. So she asked what it was and I told her and she said she didn't have that address on file at all. I gave her the same email address I provided to Matthew Sexton in Nashville, TN when I introduced myself at their offices.
Actually, that branch had good people there and then they moved people out and moved new people in after I was already banking there. Sexton was the horrific replacement to a banker who was actually good. Then the branch manager was transfered out and a new one came in who wasn't good either.
When I went into that branch, not with the first banker I talked to, but with Sexton, I told him I needed to have email as my primary notice and told him I wanted to use an alternate email address which was the regular one I used (because I did not use online banking). He said this was fine, and entered information into the system and told me it was done. Then there was a problem with a stop-payment for gym auto withdrawal for the YMCA. I had put in a stop payment to the Y and they didn't honor it and I did it with the bank too but $100 went into the red when I had nothing in my account (I had withdrawn some of my money). They said they could fix this and I said, at that time, that I was leaving the state and needed to keep my email as primary means of sending me notices. I said I was moving around and this was the best form of contact still (because he asked about my address again).
He said yes, it was still there and he'd do that. But he had a guilty look on his face which tipped me off so I knew he was lying about something or not wanting me to confirm something about my email address with him. So I said, "You do? and which email address do you have for me?" and he repeated back: "Cameocares@live.com".
Over the phone to this woman in San Fran or through 800, I told them he said he didn't have it but I was mistaken and remember, he read back to me the email address he had which I'd already given him. So I guess, since I said Sexton told me he didn't have it, the San Fran argument was to say my actual email address was one through online checking, not cameocares@live.com. But it has always been cameocares@live.com.
When he read back the email address I had, I said, "And you have this for my primary contact right? because I need to be contacted by email for any notices" and he said yes, and typed something into the system and still had a guilty look on his face. I thought it was the "not-happy" look, not from guilty then, but from being displeased that I had thought to check and confirm notices were to be sent this way.
He'd already done some things that concerned me so I had tried working with another banker there. So when I saw his face fall and that he was unhappy or looking defeated when I confirmed notices were to go through the email address I provided, I figured it was because he had hatched another plan in mind (who knows, maybe bc he knew I was moving and the $100 was unresolved so he figured they could do something without telling me and claim they didn't have my address).
By the time I walked out of that office, I had confirmed, clarified, and confirmed again, any important banking notices would go to me at that email address which I specifically had provided, instead of any online eaccount associated with my name.
I never got notices from them so I figured since there was no activity on my part, there was nothing going on that I needed to attend to immediately. I contacted them about my safety deposit box though, by email, because I couldn't remember when I was due to pay my next annual fee.
So I had correspondence with Sexton by email about this but he said he couldn't give exact dates over email until they confirmed it was me by phone. But they knew it was me enough to discuss several issues by email and I said, "why are you saying you can't use email when I set it up with you to use email as my primary form of contact and address?" and I had that email address set up for receiving any kind of formal bank notice.
Now they're telling me to set up a new account, at least that's what Matthew Sexton wants. They want me to set up a crap account, and then also, they know if I do, it will likely be confused with my other account and give them an excuse to muddle things.
Yesterday they said I could reopen checking and savings through the same original account that my safety deposit box was under if I "went in-person to Coos Bay" and then overnight that story changed and now they are claiming there is no debit card connected to my name, or safety deposit box either (I guess bc they know having a box with the acoount means the account is still live).
They basically wanted me to start a new account and discard my original business account and then hoped when I closed out my box, it would give finality to closing the original business account.
Now, they've found out I want to restart my checking and savings and all of a sudden the argument is that I have a floater box with no account and no way to even bill me.
I'm not starting a new account with them.
They closed down my original account without following the procedure they are required to follow and by dishonesty on the part of Sexton and that branch manager, both who I did not get along with. I had tried to take my banking to another rep when I was still in TN and then later I was forced to still communicate with him by email from Oregon. They closed my account in retaliation.
I asked Sexton how they were going to bill me for my box and he said he didn't know. I said so how am I supposed to pay for it? and he said I couldn't pay for it by direct deposit and that I couldn't pay to my account. He said I would have to "make other arrangments".
This is so similiar to my being thrown into a psych ward after I filled my FAFSA for college.
My bank card says I have been a customer since 2003, but I believe it was earlier than that, because I opened up the account with approximately $40,000.
I sold my house in 1997, and then put the money into a business account. I also moved at that same time from St. John's to Lake Oswego and that was part of the reason for using a new bank. Previously I had been with U.S. Bank. It was a business account because of the amount of money involved and because it had better privileges and benefits. Possibly, a better interest rate for checking & savings. They didn't require a tax ID number (which is what someone asked me today). So maybe at some point, someone at Wells was giving me a lower interest rate on my accounts when it should have been higher because it was the same original business account (and now they want me to start over with a new crap account). So this is what they're telling me to do now. To start over with a crappier account under "personal" checking & savings, and that's besides the point of how much interest I was given under the wrong designation when my original account was business not personal.
Yesterday I talked to Wells Fargo and they found my banking information online, with my accounts and bank card number. They were pulling up all of my information through my ID and bank card and then after I talked to "Tamesha" and then to Matthew Sexton in Nashville, TN, they were telling me through the 800 number, they no longer showed my existence in any Wells Fargo computer systems.
Yesterday they confirmed it was started as a business account, not as a personal account. I had 3 or 4 different representatives confirm this. Then as of this morning, they claimed there was no indication of a business account and it was only personal. After this I talked to TN and then when I called back they claimed my bank card pulled up no account (when it did yesterday) and that I wasn't in the system.
Not only that, I have an active safety deposit box through the same business account. So I said yesterday, if I still have a safety deposit box through my original account, you shouldn't have a problem reopening that same account.
And yesterday they said yes this was possible. Melinda of Coos Bay, Oregon Wells Fargo said this was possible last night and a rep through the business 800 number for Wells said this was possible and confirmed my active safety deposit box.
Overnight, they changed the entire story. I called Nashville and they said that (all of a sudden) my safety deposit box was no longer linked to my original account and I said that was a change. I said then how are you billing me? and they said they had no way to bill me.
Yesteday, Wells told me all of my statement history, back to 1997-1998, was taken off the online system and could only be accessed by "ordering" statements. And then they said they were going to "purge" my savings records too. By taking my information off of the system, they have made it impossible for me to reference the history of my own account.
I asked how my account was "closed" with ZERO notice to me and they claimed they sent statements. I said I had specifically asked to receive all bank notices by email and never got even one notice that way.
So just now I was talking to someone who was polite and helpful and she was out of a San Francisco office (which I called because last time I called San Fran they were helpful too, regarding discussing safety deposit box procedure). She said, after the 800 people said I wasn't in the system and my bank card didn't pull anything up, that yes I was there in the system. She asked for my address and I said I could give her my email address because I had actually used that with Wells and indicated it was my primary means of communication. So she asked what it was and I told her and she said she didn't have that address on file at all. I gave her the same email address I provided to Matthew Sexton in Nashville, TN when I introduced myself at their offices.
Actually, that branch had good people there and then they moved people out and moved new people in after I was already banking there. Sexton was the horrific replacement to a banker who was actually good. Then the branch manager was transfered out and a new one came in who wasn't good either.
When I went into that branch, not with the first banker I talked to, but with Sexton, I told him I needed to have email as my primary notice and told him I wanted to use an alternate email address which was the regular one I used (because I did not use online banking). He said this was fine, and entered information into the system and told me it was done. Then there was a problem with a stop-payment for gym auto withdrawal for the YMCA. I had put in a stop payment to the Y and they didn't honor it and I did it with the bank too but $100 went into the red when I had nothing in my account (I had withdrawn some of my money). They said they could fix this and I said, at that time, that I was leaving the state and needed to keep my email as primary means of sending me notices. I said I was moving around and this was the best form of contact still (because he asked about my address again).
He said yes, it was still there and he'd do that. But he had a guilty look on his face which tipped me off so I knew he was lying about something or not wanting me to confirm something about my email address with him. So I said, "You do? and which email address do you have for me?" and he repeated back: "Cameocares@live.com".
Over the phone to this woman in San Fran or through 800, I told them he said he didn't have it but I was mistaken and remember, he read back to me the email address he had which I'd already given him. So I guess, since I said Sexton told me he didn't have it, the San Fran argument was to say my actual email address was one through online checking, not cameocares@live.com. But it has always been cameocares@live.com.
When he read back the email address I had, I said, "And you have this for my primary contact right? because I need to be contacted by email for any notices" and he said yes, and typed something into the system and still had a guilty look on his face. I thought it was the "not-happy" look, not from guilty then, but from being displeased that I had thought to check and confirm notices were to be sent this way.
He'd already done some things that concerned me so I had tried working with another banker there. So when I saw his face fall and that he was unhappy or looking defeated when I confirmed notices were to go through the email address I provided, I figured it was because he had hatched another plan in mind (who knows, maybe bc he knew I was moving and the $100 was unresolved so he figured they could do something without telling me and claim they didn't have my address).
By the time I walked out of that office, I had confirmed, clarified, and confirmed again, any important banking notices would go to me at that email address which I specifically had provided, instead of any online eaccount associated with my name.
I never got notices from them so I figured since there was no activity on my part, there was nothing going on that I needed to attend to immediately. I contacted them about my safety deposit box though, by email, because I couldn't remember when I was due to pay my next annual fee.
So I had correspondence with Sexton by email about this but he said he couldn't give exact dates over email until they confirmed it was me by phone. But they knew it was me enough to discuss several issues by email and I said, "why are you saying you can't use email when I set it up with you to use email as my primary form of contact and address?" and I had that email address set up for receiving any kind of formal bank notice.
Now they're telling me to set up a new account, at least that's what Matthew Sexton wants. They want me to set up a crap account, and then also, they know if I do, it will likely be confused with my other account and give them an excuse to muddle things.
Yesterday they said I could reopen checking and savings through the same original account that my safety deposit box was under if I "went in-person to Coos Bay" and then overnight that story changed and now they are claiming there is no debit card connected to my name, or safety deposit box either (I guess bc they know having a box with the acoount means the account is still live).
They basically wanted me to start a new account and discard my original business account and then hoped when I closed out my box, it would give finality to closing the original business account.
Now, they've found out I want to restart my checking and savings and all of a sudden the argument is that I have a floater box with no account and no way to even bill me.
I'm not starting a new account with them.
They closed down my original account without following the procedure they are required to follow and by dishonesty on the part of Sexton and that branch manager, both who I did not get along with. I had tried to take my banking to another rep when I was still in TN and then later I was forced to still communicate with him by email from Oregon. They closed my account in retaliation.
I asked Sexton how they were going to bill me for my box and he said he didn't know. I said so how am I supposed to pay for it? and he said I couldn't pay for it by direct deposit and that I couldn't pay to my account. He said I would have to "make other arrangments".
This is so similiar to my being thrown into a psych ward after I filled my FAFSA for college.
Thursday, March 29, 2012
EUO's Artist Tagg Wood
I looked up some artists through EOU today and found one I was interested in clicking on, by Tagg Wood. I usually don't like the fantasy-gore drawings but this one was lighter and fairytale-like. I thought it wasn't so bad.
He has these white spaces for figures of beasts and creatures against a colorful backdrop and I thought, "It's just like this bag for Toblerone!"
I went over to visit my parents and gave them something and then my mother gave me a couple of things, one including a bag of individual pieces of Toblerone. I noticed, when I got to my house, while eating all of them, that there was a white space figure in the mountain design above the letters for Toblerone and it's of a bear. It's a bear standing on his back legs and looking up and right.
After eating these and noticing the bear design and trying to adjust my eyes to see if there was a design in the black part of the white-black mountain (positive and negative space I think they call it), I got online and went to the art section and in looking up professors, I found a gallery for EOU art with this drawing by Tagg Wood.
He even uses the same pale yellow background and everything.
It's a 5.29 oz bag with a red arrow top in a design of diamonds and then a mountain with the bear, a pyramid of chocolate, and...
I found his art just minutes after eating my last chocolate and studying the bag. And right now, if I look at it, I had stuffed the wrappers back into the bag and one is sort of poking out and it's the O that is, in a red circle like the apple he has in his artwork.
He designs his fragments of shapes or edges like the mountain has too, in it's design.
The style make me think of old fashioned fairytale books I used to look at as a kid. Sort of 1920s or earlier, something about it.
I should analyse it further but just wanted to mention this for now. I was thinking I still need to look up art so I looked up classes and then wanted to find out what the professors did and that's when, through a google search, I found the EOU gallery and clicked on this specific drawing.
So weird huh? I mean, within minutes of my receipt of this bag of chocolates, I'm seeing a possible creation from inspiration.
I had put it in this bag where I'm saving all my paper scraps to recycle or incorporate into art in some way and then after seeing the creatures, I pulled it back out to stare.
If I look at the wrapper a different way, it's a crinkled up head of a creature, with a red eye, O, open mouth from the N and has a nose and ear. And these creatures have red eyes. At the bottom I thought it looked like mitochondria from DNA. I think it's mito...there is a biological cell or design of something like that, in an oval and with a zigzag pattern across it. I'd have to study more. But I can see the inspiration.
He's in high school it says, or got a scholarship as a freshman to EOU.
I liked the colors of this painting I saw too and I'm fond of modern and the balance was pretty good. It's sort of what I do, but I noticed the general talent of the ink and pencil as well. I liked something I saw from a Reed catalog as well, thought the art at least made me stop to look instead of flipping through all the pages.
I have something I drew awhile ago and no plan, and it ended up with white space of bars, 4 of them, next to camellias I sketched fast, and then I found this image from the ACLU and it matches what is featured for the National Defense thing, the NDAA where they can hold U.S. citizens hostage now. I haven't looked at ACLU for a long time, but when I did, the "blog of rights" has a wreath above 4 bars and a prisoner's hands around those bars and I drew the same thing (without the hands and instead of a wreath at top, camellias at the base), in red and white. And then I wrote, "weave trvth with trvst".
I also noticed a correlation with a bottle of conditioner and the clay models featured. They are very similiar to something I outlined for a modern, very simplified and streamlined design for a vase or something, of mother and son, heads touching at forehead, in arms, stretched back but then head meeting and it's only a few lines. circle heads, small lines for expression, and I thought of it as me and my son with a game we played called "bonk". I was suprised at how it turned out bc the line for mouth and eyes only was small (one line each) and it still brought out the right feeling. Mine is with the two enjoined together, representing bond.
I want my son back.
My parents were totally tortured today, both of them separately and they look horrible and then they have to say they think there is something wrong with me when yeah, I might have PTSD, but I am not crazy which is only what criminals want to say, or those who exploit others in human trafficking through the U.S. Department of Defense and CIA. The FBI has done wrong, but someone there should be investigating and laying down the law.
I believe I am supposed to file for habeus corpus.
I was going to take only a few credits because of health problems but I called the disability offices and will sign with them and see how it goes and have more time if needed. I was also going to take fewer credits to allow for more time to try to appeal for my son and/or file for habeus corpus.
I think it's more realistic to have fewer credits but if someone tries to call me crazy, it's better maybe to have more. I don't know. I am not crazy.
My son and I, and my family, are being detained unlawfully and tortured. How is it possible to even leave if we have to leave eachother behind to endure worse torture alone?
Am I schitzophrenic for noticing how Wood's art matches the Toblerone package? Or do I just recognize correlations? How about torture. It sounds crazy, but can anyone prove I am NOT being tortured? My mother gets worked up into tears repeating what some horrible people tell her to say to me, when she knows and she is a victim herself.
It's a full-on MK-Ultra style set-up.
We were being tortured just sitting in the house trying to watch t.v. and I said to my Dad, if this was just for research, they would be wanting feedback from all of us on how we feel and how different forms affect us. But they don't do that, they just allow torture for the sake of torture. When I was first tortured with my son, I wasn't giving any feedback to anyone and didn't even blog about it until it was unbearable.
This ACLU site is sort of ironic. I asked them several times for help on serious things before I was tortured and got no help. My son and I are examples of abuses of the NDAA which were not even in place when torture was first allowed. It was just hate crime.
He has these white spaces for figures of beasts and creatures against a colorful backdrop and I thought, "It's just like this bag for Toblerone!"
I went over to visit my parents and gave them something and then my mother gave me a couple of things, one including a bag of individual pieces of Toblerone. I noticed, when I got to my house, while eating all of them, that there was a white space figure in the mountain design above the letters for Toblerone and it's of a bear. It's a bear standing on his back legs and looking up and right.
After eating these and noticing the bear design and trying to adjust my eyes to see if there was a design in the black part of the white-black mountain (positive and negative space I think they call it), I got online and went to the art section and in looking up professors, I found a gallery for EOU art with this drawing by Tagg Wood.
He even uses the same pale yellow background and everything.
It's a 5.29 oz bag with a red arrow top in a design of diamonds and then a mountain with the bear, a pyramid of chocolate, and...
I found his art just minutes after eating my last chocolate and studying the bag. And right now, if I look at it, I had stuffed the wrappers back into the bag and one is sort of poking out and it's the O that is, in a red circle like the apple he has in his artwork.
He designs his fragments of shapes or edges like the mountain has too, in it's design.
The style make me think of old fashioned fairytale books I used to look at as a kid. Sort of 1920s or earlier, something about it.
I should analyse it further but just wanted to mention this for now. I was thinking I still need to look up art so I looked up classes and then wanted to find out what the professors did and that's when, through a google search, I found the EOU gallery and clicked on this specific drawing.
So weird huh? I mean, within minutes of my receipt of this bag of chocolates, I'm seeing a possible creation from inspiration.
I had put it in this bag where I'm saving all my paper scraps to recycle or incorporate into art in some way and then after seeing the creatures, I pulled it back out to stare.
If I look at the wrapper a different way, it's a crinkled up head of a creature, with a red eye, O, open mouth from the N and has a nose and ear. And these creatures have red eyes. At the bottom I thought it looked like mitochondria from DNA. I think it's mito...there is a biological cell or design of something like that, in an oval and with a zigzag pattern across it. I'd have to study more. But I can see the inspiration.
He's in high school it says, or got a scholarship as a freshman to EOU.
I liked the colors of this painting I saw too and I'm fond of modern and the balance was pretty good. It's sort of what I do, but I noticed the general talent of the ink and pencil as well. I liked something I saw from a Reed catalog as well, thought the art at least made me stop to look instead of flipping through all the pages.
I have something I drew awhile ago and no plan, and it ended up with white space of bars, 4 of them, next to camellias I sketched fast, and then I found this image from the ACLU and it matches what is featured for the National Defense thing, the NDAA where they can hold U.S. citizens hostage now. I haven't looked at ACLU for a long time, but when I did, the "blog of rights" has a wreath above 4 bars and a prisoner's hands around those bars and I drew the same thing (without the hands and instead of a wreath at top, camellias at the base), in red and white. And then I wrote, "weave trvth with trvst".
I also noticed a correlation with a bottle of conditioner and the clay models featured. They are very similiar to something I outlined for a modern, very simplified and streamlined design for a vase or something, of mother and son, heads touching at forehead, in arms, stretched back but then head meeting and it's only a few lines. circle heads, small lines for expression, and I thought of it as me and my son with a game we played called "bonk". I was suprised at how it turned out bc the line for mouth and eyes only was small (one line each) and it still brought out the right feeling. Mine is with the two enjoined together, representing bond.
I want my son back.
My parents were totally tortured today, both of them separately and they look horrible and then they have to say they think there is something wrong with me when yeah, I might have PTSD, but I am not crazy which is only what criminals want to say, or those who exploit others in human trafficking through the U.S. Department of Defense and CIA. The FBI has done wrong, but someone there should be investigating and laying down the law.
I believe I am supposed to file for habeus corpus.
I was going to take only a few credits because of health problems but I called the disability offices and will sign with them and see how it goes and have more time if needed. I was also going to take fewer credits to allow for more time to try to appeal for my son and/or file for habeus corpus.
I think it's more realistic to have fewer credits but if someone tries to call me crazy, it's better maybe to have more. I don't know. I am not crazy.
My son and I, and my family, are being detained unlawfully and tortured. How is it possible to even leave if we have to leave eachother behind to endure worse torture alone?
Am I schitzophrenic for noticing how Wood's art matches the Toblerone package? Or do I just recognize correlations? How about torture. It sounds crazy, but can anyone prove I am NOT being tortured? My mother gets worked up into tears repeating what some horrible people tell her to say to me, when she knows and she is a victim herself.
It's a full-on MK-Ultra style set-up.
We were being tortured just sitting in the house trying to watch t.v. and I said to my Dad, if this was just for research, they would be wanting feedback from all of us on how we feel and how different forms affect us. But they don't do that, they just allow torture for the sake of torture. When I was first tortured with my son, I wasn't giving any feedback to anyone and didn't even blog about it until it was unbearable.
This ACLU site is sort of ironic. I asked them several times for help on serious things before I was tortured and got no help. My son and I are examples of abuses of the NDAA which were not even in place when torture was first allowed. It was just hate crime.
Obama's NDAA to Hold U.S. Citizens & Panetta The Mafia Boss
No wonder my parents were depressed in December of 2011.
They were already depressed by November 1, 2011, because my Uncle Howard was killed after I filed for injunction with federal court in Spokane and then realized, and blogged, about habeus corpus.
In December of 2011, President Obama signed a law that allows for indefinite detention of American citizens for any reason.
https://www.aclu.org/blog/national-security/senate-rejects-amendment-banning-indefinite-detention
So basically, before it was possible to torture the U.S. children of U.S. parents the U.S. decided to torture for "interrogation" reasons, or to get something, and now, it's not just torture, but supposedly, a citizen so-tortured is not allowed to flee. It went from torture to allowing hostage-taking of United States citizens, either in this country, or outside of this country.
I am sure they might think it's a way to circumvent habeus corpus of children and parents stolen and kidnapped by the U.S. to work for them and be tortured as well. It's supposed to be about actual prison or detention but I am sure they left it vague to allow for "house arrest" and imprisonment of persons through restriction of travel.
So how does that work with the consitutional right to freedom of movement, right to trial, right to be charged and fundamental rights to property. If the U.S. allowed for torture of kids of U.S. citizens, they will make the same argument about detaining children of U.S. citizen parents to hold and use them in their own custody under any kind of auspice or cover. So before, they were allowing torture of U.S. children but I guess the guardians still had a right to try to leave and now they allow for imprisonment of children.
Are we given protections and rights as citizens, and recourse through habeus corpus, or are we slaves.
Basically, the same illegal provisions to hold "suspects of terrorism" who are NOT U.S. citizens, is now being applied to U.S. citizens.
Now WE don't get a trial or the right to know why we're charged or detained.
This bill is 100% unconstitutional. For how extremely dangerous and serious this bill is, I have not seen any ongoing coverage from the general media about it.
So when Fox News puts an article on their front page that belittles the idea of being retrained or custody of the state or unlawful detention or captivity, by making fun of the idea of arrest for holding a "captive audience", they're trying to play the other side of the coin. They are minimizing the seriousness of what captivity is and how it is not just being in jail. For whatever reason they chose to select a story that makes fun of the idea of extention of interpretation of custody or captivity, and try to appeal to religious freedom sentiment (in my opinion) rather than focus on the very bad law that is being requested by the Catholic Leon Panetta who is the one who would asked for this provision.
The person who heads the Department of Defense is the Secretary of Defense and that man is Leon Panetta.
Now his mobsters can not only torture people for the Vatican and themselves, they can hold them hostage too. International people with no U.S. rights, and now U.S. citizens.
My parents were then forced to go to a bunch of military sites and stayed at some hotel run by Eastern Indians, the same group Panetta bribed in a trade deal, to keep their mouths shut at the UN level. I know they were tortured and then they got home and I happened to overhear my mother sounding distressed and fearful after some people with Eastern Indian accents called our house to talk to her.
The advisory board is the U.S. National Security Council and here is the list of members (including the President). The members are almost entirely Roman Catholic:
Structure of the United States National Security Council (Current)[3]
Chair
Barack Obama (President of the United States)
Statutory Attendees
Joe Biden (Vice President of the United States)
Hillary Clinton (Secretary of State)
Leon Panetta (Secretary of Defense)
Steven Chu (Secretary of Energy)
Military Advisor
Gen. Martin Dempsey (Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff)
Intelligence Advisor
Lt. Gen. James R. Clapper (Ret.) (Director of National Intelligence)
Drug Policy Advisor
Gil Kerlikowske (Director of National Drug Control Policy)
Regular Attendees
Tom Donilon (National Security Advisor)
Jacob Lew (White House Chief of Staff)
Denis McDonough (Deputy National Security Advisor)
Additional Participants
Tim Geithner (Secretary of the Treasury)
Eric Holder (Attorney General)
Janet Napolitano (Secretary of Homeland Security)
Pete Rouse (Counselor to the President)
Gene Sperling (Assistant to the President for Economic Policy)
Susan Rice (Ambassador to the United Nations)
Jacob Lew (Director of Office of Management and Budget)
David Petraeus (Director of the Central Intelligence Agency)
John O. Brennan (Homeland Security Advisor)
They were already depressed by November 1, 2011, because my Uncle Howard was killed after I filed for injunction with federal court in Spokane and then realized, and blogged, about habeus corpus.
In December of 2011, President Obama signed a law that allows for indefinite detention of American citizens for any reason.
https://www.aclu.org/blog/national-security/senate-rejects-amendment-banning-indefinite-detention
So basically, before it was possible to torture the U.S. children of U.S. parents the U.S. decided to torture for "interrogation" reasons, or to get something, and now, it's not just torture, but supposedly, a citizen so-tortured is not allowed to flee. It went from torture to allowing hostage-taking of United States citizens, either in this country, or outside of this country.
I am sure they might think it's a way to circumvent habeus corpus of children and parents stolen and kidnapped by the U.S. to work for them and be tortured as well. It's supposed to be about actual prison or detention but I am sure they left it vague to allow for "house arrest" and imprisonment of persons through restriction of travel.
So how does that work with the consitutional right to freedom of movement, right to trial, right to be charged and fundamental rights to property. If the U.S. allowed for torture of kids of U.S. citizens, they will make the same argument about detaining children of U.S. citizen parents to hold and use them in their own custody under any kind of auspice or cover. So before, they were allowing torture of U.S. children but I guess the guardians still had a right to try to leave and now they allow for imprisonment of children.
Are we given protections and rights as citizens, and recourse through habeus corpus, or are we slaves.
Basically, the same illegal provisions to hold "suspects of terrorism" who are NOT U.S. citizens, is now being applied to U.S. citizens.
Now WE don't get a trial or the right to know why we're charged or detained.
This bill is 100% unconstitutional. For how extremely dangerous and serious this bill is, I have not seen any ongoing coverage from the general media about it.
So when Fox News puts an article on their front page that belittles the idea of being retrained or custody of the state or unlawful detention or captivity, by making fun of the idea of arrest for holding a "captive audience", they're trying to play the other side of the coin. They are minimizing the seriousness of what captivity is and how it is not just being in jail. For whatever reason they chose to select a story that makes fun of the idea of extention of interpretation of custody or captivity, and try to appeal to religious freedom sentiment (in my opinion) rather than focus on the very bad law that is being requested by the Catholic Leon Panetta who is the one who would asked for this provision.
The person who heads the Department of Defense is the Secretary of Defense and that man is Leon Panetta.
Now his mobsters can not only torture people for the Vatican and themselves, they can hold them hostage too. International people with no U.S. rights, and now U.S. citizens.
My parents were then forced to go to a bunch of military sites and stayed at some hotel run by Eastern Indians, the same group Panetta bribed in a trade deal, to keep their mouths shut at the UN level. I know they were tortured and then they got home and I happened to overhear my mother sounding distressed and fearful after some people with Eastern Indian accents called our house to talk to her.
The advisory board is the U.S. National Security Council and here is the list of members (including the President). The members are almost entirely Roman Catholic:
Structure of the United States National Security Council (Current)[3]
Chair
Barack Obama (President of the United States)
Statutory Attendees
Joe Biden (Vice President of the United States)
Hillary Clinton (Secretary of State)
Leon Panetta (Secretary of Defense)
Steven Chu (Secretary of Energy)
Military Advisor
Gen. Martin Dempsey (Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff)
Intelligence Advisor
Lt. Gen. James R. Clapper (Ret.) (Director of National Intelligence)
Drug Policy Advisor
Gil Kerlikowske (Director of National Drug Control Policy)
Regular Attendees
Tom Donilon (National Security Advisor)
Jacob Lew (White House Chief of Staff)
Denis McDonough (Deputy National Security Advisor)
Additional Participants
Tim Geithner (Secretary of the Treasury)
Eric Holder (Attorney General)
Janet Napolitano (Secretary of Homeland Security)
Pete Rouse (Counselor to the President)
Gene Sperling (Assistant to the President for Economic Policy)
Susan Rice (Ambassador to the United Nations)
Jacob Lew (Director of Office of Management and Budget)
David Petraeus (Director of the Central Intelligence Agency)
John O. Brennan (Homeland Security Advisor)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)