October 31, 2026 10:00 PM
1. The word is that the Attorney General has now gone so far as to name you as a participant in a conspiracy.
Answer: Really? What conspiracy? I cannot provide the names of those who have represented me throughout my case. I have had no communication from anyone. No phone calls. No emails. No meetings.
And I have asked for communication repeatedly.
I traveled to Washington, D.C. for one week, asking to meet with the DOJ, and was ignored.
No dialogue whatsoever took place.
It's true that, since specifying the formation of a foundation in support of United States sovereignty, I have tried to be exceptionally careful about avoiding any possible conflict of interest.
And that means that when President Trump has allegedly texted me, I have refrained from answering.
2. How could President Trump have reached out to you in an impartial manner?
Answer: In a case such as this, the right step would be for the OIG Hotline to reach out to me with communication.
The challenge with outreach from President Trump is that there have been allegations of misappropriations on a massive scale, perhaps to the degree that the conduct is impeachable.
So, for me to respond would have been compromising.
Now, if I had been meeting with people to arrange some behind-the-scenes agreement -- which has never happened -- maybe someone could have used the word conspiracy.
3. You have no agreement with regard to your case?
Answer: None at all, except that I have unilaterally asked that awards extended to me due to the malfeasance of the FBI and its affiliates be deposited into the foundation for United States sovereignty.
4. Do you think there has been a conspiracy pertaining to your case?
Answer: I think one would have to ask who facilitated recent misappropriations regarding my case and the Foundation meant to support Americans' freedoms. I think the likelihood of a Executive Branch conspiracy of self-dealing regarding that conduct is exceptionally high.
5. Would the President say that he is immune from prosecution regarding any misappropriations on his part?
Answer: I don't think the Supreme Court approves of the President's alleged self-dealing and I don't think the Constitution provides for the self-dealing of a Commander in Chief to the extent of stealing trillions from the National Treasury. He may be immune from prosecution during his years in office, but after that, I think the legal issues connected to self-dealing become highly problematic for him.
Prior to that, of course, there is the specter of impeachment to deal with.
6. Have you benefited financially from your advocacy for the sovereignty of the United States?
Answer: Quite the opposite. I have been targeted financially and in every other imaginable way.
7. It is alleged that you, as well as those to whom you're close, are currently under heightened threat to your lives because the President does not want you to testify to your experiences.
Answer: I have definitely been under threat, that's true.
8. What are the current threats to your life?
Answer: Explosive device, "extraction," kidnapping, assault, flooding, fire, insurance cancellation, wrongful arrest, further financial harm, theft of a vehicle or other property, coerced job loss, public shooting or stabbing, wrongful law enforcement raid, wrongful imprisonment, wrongful death toward myself or those close to me. This list goes on.
9. Do you take the threats seriously?
Answer: I found a bomb placed on the gas tank of my rental vehicle on August 28, 2026. So, yes, I take them seriously.
10. The President apparently does not want to be held accountable for his conduct regarding your case.
Answer: Apparently not. I don't think further aggression will absolve past aggression, however.
11. What is the best way to respond to false accusations from the Attorney General of conspiracy?
Answer: Honestly, I think the Attorney General is probably guilty of conspiring to misappropriate funds regarding this matter. And he may be legally liable for his conduct in every regard.
But what is the best way to respond to Attorney General Todd Blanche's alleged false accusations?
Some combination of urgent appeals and requests for injunctive relief, both of which I am extending in this conversation.
12. You don't believe the Supreme Court would approve of the Attorney General's conduct regarding the latest false accusations?
Answer: I do not. The Supreme Court has a thorough grasp of this case, and the Honorable Justices know that I have been accused of almost every crime in existence, all the while I have been requesting honorable outreach from the DOJ.
Beyond this, I believe the Supreme Court would have ruled in my favor when I cited federal rules of civil procedure requiring outreach.
And even so, I never received communication.
13. What is at the heart of this case right now, because this adjudication has had many different chapters?
Answer: There are several people who allegedly engaged in a plan of first degree murder toward me by arranging for sabotage of a major government initiative. I think they may be worried about criminal and civil liability with regard to that issue, and as a result, they are extending yet further false accusations against me. They likely want to establish a quid pro quo -- amounting to an agreement to drop all false charges against me if I agree to drop all genuine charges against them.
14. What are your thoughts about that attempt?
Answer: It's an awkward way to apologize, isn't it?
15. Would Attorney General Todd Blanche have known about the conspiracy to commit first degree murder through the scheme of sabotage?
Answer: I have no basis for speculation on that point.
However, most Attorneys General would be reluctant to extend knowingly false charges unless they had a direct personal motivation to do so.
16. Do you have hope that you might receive impartial outreach of some kind following the election?
Answer: Of course I hope so. Yes. That would be the best possible development.
17. You happen to know the names of two men who have persecuted you over a period of years regarding this case. How did that come about?
Answer: I met them directly in public settings. One of them was a medical care professional, and the other was giving a speech -- both highly dangerous individuals.
18. And both of these men are now implicated in the plan of sabotage that was to have taken your life?
Answer: I would be shocked if they weren't. These two men have been involved in every plan of harm against my loved ones and myself since this case began. Others have characterized them as "obsessed" with causing me harm.
19. What are your impressions of that fact?
Answer: There appears to be mental illness involved on the part of both of them. Honestly, you just hope people will find better psychiatrists and try a new medication. I think sadistic disorders are dangerous to the entire society.
20. Would you meet these individuals in a court of law?
Answer: A court in which they were being tried for attempted murder?
21. Yes.
Answer: You know, as long as the setting could be rendered safe, I think it would be healthy to document for the record the profound effects that these individuals have had on the lives of the innocent.
22. One of them is an FBI official who reportedly falsifies DNA evidence routinely.
Answer: To work up these wrongful prosecutions of the innocent represents extraordinary malice on the part of corrupt law enforcement personnel. Most of us are not driven from that impetus of malevolence or ill will, so it's highly difficult to understand.
But we need to understand that they take delight in causing despair to good people.
23. Why is this important to grasp?
Answer: Because if we cannot understand their malevolence, we cannot defeat it.
24. Did they themselves come up with this latest accusation of conspiracy?
Answer: Again, this is not known to me, but I would not be surprised if they were projecting their own criminal acts in this way.
25. It would be understandable if you were deeply offended by yet more falsehoods coming from these two men.
Answer: Well, I am.
To accuse me of conspiracy!
This is akin to accusing Elie Wiesel of conspiring with his concentration camp guards regarding his stay at Buchenwald.
The truth is that the guards were playing a game of death with Elie Wiesel, but he wasn't playing a game at all.
The remarkable gift was the manner in which he transformed his harrowing experience into wisdom for millions of others.
26. But it would be insulting to suggest that Mr. Wiesel ever conspired with his captors, wouldn't it?
Answer: Yes, it would.
27. You still feel that there is a greater good that can emerge from this protracted stalking by the FBI. Is that fair to say?
Answer: No one can defend our freedoms as compellingly as the person whose freedoms have been wrongfully taken away.
So, yes, the potential for me to contribute directly to many is quite real.
28. Will you please keep us informed about your safety and security on a regular basis?
Answer: Of course, yes.
29. Thank you for speaking with us this evening.
Answer: You are most welcome.
Lane MacWilliams, aka Carol Elaine Von Herzen
