1. You and your dogs were attacked by a man at a dog park in Tehachapi, California on October 15th, two days ago. Is that correct?
Answer: Yes, it is, unfortunately. A man staged a public meltdown with no cause or precipitating event. He simply started screaming, threatening violence, and causing physical harm to my dogs. I gathered my dogs and left the enclosure as rapidly as possible, but the circumstance was gratuitous, unnecessary, and frightening.
A bystander intervened on my behalf, but then he was threatened as well.
It seemed as though the assailant was rageful enough to kill someone -- or multiple people. If he had had a weapon, it seemed as though he might have started shooting.
A woman who had witnessed the events expressed her opinion that he was a veteran who had PTSD and that his Doberman was an emotional support animal.
2. You didn't think that was the case, however.
Answer: No, I did not.
3. May I ask why?
Answer: Whenever the assailant approached me physically, he dialed his anger down to impressive degree. Most people who are severely mentally ill cannot modulate their emotions in that manner. It became clear to me that he was performing rage, not actually experiencing it.
After the incident, I spoke to the bystanders and they both acknowledged that I had handled the situation with calm, peaceful, rational, courteous, respectful and professional conduct and further, that the entire fault lay with the perpetrator.
The woman, who identified herself as "CJ," made me a little uncomfortable when she alleged that the assailant had disability rights to cause us harm.
I responded that being a danger to the public had nothing whatsoever to do with disability rights.
But she was of the opinion that the individual was experiencing PTSD as a veteran and that the dog was present due to the disability.
4. You did not believe that the animal was an emotional support animal, did you?
Answer: No, I've never seen a Doberman that is an emotional support animal. The breed is intended to perceive and guard against external threats, and that's a very different set of abilities from a dog that is emotionally responsive to its owner.
Further, if the dog had been an emotional support animal, he or she would have tried to calm down his raging owner -- and no such interaction occurred.
In fact, the assailant did not seem to be able to handle the dog particularly well. I was not convinced he actually owned the dog at all.
5. The other bystander, who introduced himself as "Bob," appeared to be a kind person.
Answer: Yes, he was appearing to travel with his wife, and he seemed shocked by the perpetrator's behavior. He expressed disapproval of the assailant in all the right ways. He seemed perfectly reasonable, and so did his spouse.
6. Yesterday, however, you found out who all these people were, didn't you?
Answer: Yes, I did.
7. How did that come about, please?
Answer: I decided to file a California Public Records Act request with the local police department in Tehachapi to see whether anyone had filed a complaint about the perpetrator.
And when I navigated online to the Tehachapi Police Department website, I immediately recognized "CJ" and the assailant himself as active duty police officers pictured with their colleagues.
8. So, the perpetrator and one of the witnesses are police officers?
Answer: Yes, they are. And I think it's highly likely that "Bob" is a retired police officer from the same department. These people all know each other, apparently.
Not only that, the entire incident was rehearsed and staged in detail, and afterwards, an AI-generated video was allegedly produced depicting different events with which the police officers' false witness statements corresponded.
9. What does the AI-generated video show?
Answer: I have no idea. Once, the FBI created AI-generated video of someone bearing my likeness in Flagstaff, Arizona in which I was allegedly screaming, crying and crawling through a laundromat. So, anything is possible.
10. You did proceed with filing your California Public Records Act/FOIA request, didn't you?
Answer: I most certainly did.
11. Did you also communicate with the Police Chief in Tehachapi?
Answer: Richard Standbridge. Yes, I sent him an email delineating the misconduct of his officers and requesting an explanation. Lying by law enforcement is a crime in the state of California, so these people have a lot of explaining to do. Their lack of integrity risked my life, certainly, so apologies are due in this matter and so are reparations.
Beyond this, I recently revealed an apparent plan by the Department of Justice to wrongfully demand audits of voter rolls in multiple states with an intent to corrupt the upcoming midterm elections.
So the attempt to discredit me at this moment in time places the integrity of the midterm elections at risk.
12. In light of the U.S. Attorney General's misconduct, did he have anything to do with the crimes of the lying police officers in Tehachapi? Did Todd Blanche's office direct the U.S. Attorney in the district to have direct communication with the police department in planning this attack ahead of time?
Answer: Did Todd Blanche's office have communication with U.S. District Attorney Eric Grant? Did his office also have communication with Kern County District Attorney Cynthia Zimmer? There are allegations that both of these communications occurred, yes, though I do not yet have independent verification of those calls.
13. Could you have lost your life through this attack?
Answer: Anytime you have a corrupt U.S. Attorney General directing communication with a District Attorney, yes, it's highly possible. The intent of that line of communication is to ensure that any loss of life is explained away by a District Attorney's false reporting about a violent event. In this way, a planned and public first degree murder by compromised law enforcement officials can be depicted in the official record as an "accident."
So, yes, it's a highly dangerous circumstance whenever that top-down communication is initiated.
14. Would the President have directed that communication?
Answer: Todd Blanche is serving at the pleasure of the President. I think the desire to exculpate the President in the context of any illegal planning that may have transpired to subvert the midterm elections is likely acute. We don't know what took place in terms of directives to the Attorney General other than the fact that the state of California was wrongfully directed to conduct an audit of its voter rolls within 48 hours through a demand from the Department of Justice, with threats of a federal investigation to follow. And the intent in that case appears to have been to disqualify a large number of lawful California voters.
15. On what basis would a large number of California voters have been disqualified?
Answer: On the basis of knowingly falsified law enforcement reporting by the FBI and its affiliates.
16. Would there have been arrests of innocent Americans?
Answer: This is entirely possible. Broad scale falsified law enforcement reporting is always intended to result in mass arrests at some point. We just need to review our history to understand that much.
17. What would have happened to those people if those arrests had occurred?
Answer: Fascism always involves mass detention, torture, and large-scale atrocities toward the peaceable public. In other words, people are taken from their homes, arrested, and never return.
It's a quick way to take complete control of a nation.
And the FBI has probably worked out exactly what percentage of people need to be targeted in order for the public at large to be terrorized into submission.
The numbers are not that high with purges of this nature. Likely one percent or less at the outset.
In this case, there would be allegations of extensive voter fraud.
Meanwhile, the FBI would be extorting the public for every ounce of wealth it could misappropriate from them.
18. Speaking of misappropriation, what has President Trump done with Foundation assets at this time? Where are the Foundation's assets and who has control of them? Have they been wrongfully disseminated? And to whom?
Answer: These are all highly appropriate questions. We need to understand whether the President is privatizing public wealth from the National Treasury through this case, and we need to understand where those assets are disappearing. Further, the records of this case that the President has directed to be destroyed need to be resurrected and accessed for a full accounting of the crimes he has committed in this matter.
19. What about Presidential immunity?
Answer: Presidential immunity is not Presidential impunity. Let's see what the American people have to say when the facts of this matter are revealed in their entirety.
20. Can all of the Foundation's assets be returned to Foundation auspices?
Answer: Clearly, this is what needs to occur on an immediate basis.
The Supreme Court does not approve of this theft of public assets, and neither does the Congress.
This level of crime dooms the chances for United States sovereignty, and no one who genuinely loves this country wants to see that loss.
21. Has the Supreme Court supported the Foundation's mission to ensure that United States sovereignty endures?
Answer: I believe the Supreme Court wants to see the United States retain its long term freedoms, so I believe they are supporting the Foundation's initiative, yes.
22. What needs to happen next with regard to your situation in Tehachapi, California?
Answer: Well, the President and Todd Blanche need to allow the Tehachapi Police Department to apologize to me for their misconduct. All of the false information needs to be acknowledged as invalid and then withdrawn entirely. Any and all wrongful charges against me need to be dropped immediately.
Any lasting harm to my animals needs to be reversed. Any tampering with my vehicle needs to be removed. Any plans for a staged car accident need to be withdrawn.
Certainly damages need to be paid, and these should be deposited into the Foundation, even though I am on leave from the Foundation at this time.
23. What type of lasting harm did your animals suffer?
Answer: It seems that the perpetrator of the public tantrum on Thursday may have dosed one of my dogs with a toxin that is alleged to cause "continuous cancer." She is currently quite ill, so the assertion seems plausible.
24. Were your dogs falsely characterized as vicious due to the compromised reports of the police officers involved?
Answer: Allegedly so. The intent seems to have been to justify their killing and my own.
25. Yet, your dogs are extremely friendly to others, aren't they?
Answer: Without question. They are the most loving dogs I have ever owned. Beautiful animals in every regard.
26. What are the most significant threats you are facing at this time?
Answer: Kidnapping, car bomb, staged car accident, car sabotage, staged accident with an e-bike or electric scooter, electro-magnetic targeting within my hotel room, staged evidence within my hotel room, staged evidence with items taken from my hotel room, staged evidence within my vehicle, physical assault including ambush when I take out recycling and trash at the hotel, compromised food and water, false witness statements of cognitive incapacity or mental illness, false witness statements of human trafficking activity, heart attack, stroke or aneurysm, lethal harm perpetrated during an ambulance transport. This list goes on.
27. What is your best defense?
Answer: The truth. Always the truth.
And I think it's important to state that not all truths have to be told at all times. But in this instance, corruption at the highest levels of the federal government has placed my life at risk through intentional attack.
So, in that case, I am going to be shining a bright light on these wrongful actions by those who are wielding the public trust and the power the public has vested in them in good faith.
28. What about the U.S. military in all of this? What is the military's role?
Answer: The U.S. military is answerable to the President as Commander in Chief. So we rely on the President not to be ordering an ambush of a highly honorable writer and human rights advocate in order to avoid public scrutiny for his own criminal acts.
If I were the U.S. military, I would want me on their side.
You don't target those who have the most to contribute to the nation.
29. The President allegedly fears impeachment regarding his criminal acts during these last two years. Do you have any thoughts about that matter?
Answer: I think that is a matter for the new Congress. And assuming our midterm elections will now be free and fair, I'm sure members of Congress will address any concerns they have about the President's treatment of his oath of office.
30. Thank you for speaking with us this morning.
Answer: You are most welcome.
Lane MacWilliams, aka Carol Elaine Von Herzen
