Body My House

 OIG Hotline, I am including herewith a portion of an affidavit for your Office, yet to be notarized.

The full text of this affidavit is available within an email to lanemacwilliams@gmail.com, with copies forwarded to lmacwilliams77419@gmail.com and lmacwilliams7417@gmail.com, sent today, August 22, 2023 at 5:59 PM Pacific time, with the subject heading "Affidavit for OIG Hotline Re: A Family Home on Cape Code:  Testament to the FBI's Attempts to Forcibly Divest "Targets of Interest" of their Property."

This material covers myriad instances of FBI predation toward my family home on Cape Cod, with a clear intent on the part of the FBI to divest me of this property.

What are the stratagems the agency employs to separate "targets of interest" from their homes and related savings?

1. Legal, Accounting, Insurance, and Billing "Errors"
2. Lawsuits
3. Contractor Malfeasance and Falsified Reporting
4. Tenant Malfeasance and Falsified Reporting
5. Utilities Predation
6. Placement of DEWs/Surveillance Devices Within the Residence
7. Slander/Defamation Involving Neighbors
8. Active Sabotage (Flooding, Arson, Vandalism)

What does it mean when a federal law enforcement agency deems that private property may only be held by some law-abiding citizens, not all?

If the history of Europe during World War II teaches us anything, it teaches us that those whose property is forcibly taken from them, that those who are separated from their careers, that those who must abandon their businesses, their pots and pans, the paintings on their walls, are also those who will soon be expected to forfeit their lives.

So the right to own private property quickly emerges as the right of the citizenry to life and liberty.

I am put in mind of a wonderful poem by May Swenson, in which the writer imagines her body itself as a house that has sheltered her.  https://poets.or/poem/question 

Body my house

my horse my hound

what will I do

when you are fallen

The author quickly equates her house with her physical self, as both are elemental in protecting her soul from the weather.

How would most of us fare "without roof or door"?

If our private shelters slip from our grasp, mightn't our bodies escape us as well?

Touchingly, the poet ends with the question, "With cloud for shift, how will I hide?"

May Swenson craves the sanctuary of her private spaces.

So do I.

And a necessary part of our humanity is affording other people the right to their private spaces, not merely claiming our own.

Recently, FBI affiliates have repeatedly suggested to me that I should sell my home rather than ascertain the full extent of the damage the FBI has caused to it.

But I would say this in reply.

That house is the house in which my father taught me to waltz by having me balance on the tips of his toes.

That house is the house in which my mother played "Clair de Lune" on summer nights with a soulfulness I can still hear.

That house is the house in which my friends and I retreated after an all-day sledding party when it snowed.

That house is the house in which my brother and I were, in advance of all the complexities and alliances wrought by a wider world, simply friends.

That house is the house in which I first knew I would be a writer, and a fierce one.

So, it's not just a house, just as my body is not just a body.

The house of my childhood and my physical form may have been gratuitously preyed upon by far right factions of the FBI.

But we can recover.

This I know.

So, I insist on the sanctity of this house, as I insist on the sanctity of myself.

Willfully.  Tirelessly.  Faithfully.  And with good reason.

There may come a day when I will freely sell this house to someone else.

But it is not this day.

Why do I feel this way?

I would like for the OIG Hotline to have the full opportunity to characterize the crimes of the FBI pertaining to this property before any further steps are taken.

If the OIG Hotline is able to fully investigate the manner in which the FBI has attempted to forcibly divest me of this property, then my childhood home might help other Americans to shelter from the weather, too.

*************************************************************************************

How does the FBI transform the forcible divestment of the property of a "target of interest" into a privatized profit for certain participants?

In the case of real estate, I am informed that the agency skims several percent off the realtor's commission in the event of a property sale,  However, if the FBI brings the buyer to the transaction, FBI personnel can depress the sale price and demand an under-the-table cash "consideration" directly from he purchaser, which nets them considerably more.

Who receives those "profit-sharing" monies after the fact?

I am told that the illicit "profit-sharing" of the FBI and other three-letter agencies (CIA, NSA, DHS) works in a manner similar to a law firm, in which the top "partners" -- who are sometimes those who have contributed to "profits" most abundantly over a prolonged period of time -- share in the divided gains.

Almost certainly, these gains are hidden through cryptocurrency accounts which, though difficult, are not impossible to trace.

This quickly becomes a matter for forensic accountancy, to be sure.

Although I was never a fan of cryptocurrency (I feel it undermines the fiat currencies and lawful transactions necessary for a nation to conduct business.), my position on this matter has evolved.

Cryptocurrency accounts allow for the transfer of hidden bribes to such a degree that I believe those holding public office, and particularly those within local and federal law enforcement, the judiciary, members of Congress and Congressional aides, the intelligence and security agencies, the DoD and the military, should be strictly prohibited from possessing them.  Given the importance of an independent press, I do not believe that journalists at a professional level should possess cryptocurrency accounts either.

Anyone who has read substantive history on the overthrow of democracies throughout history can quickly ascertain that certainly numbers of payoffs are required within all of these branches -- police, military, judges, legislators, journalists.  But that number is not a majority.  The cooperation of key individuals is bought and paid for, not the cooperation of everyone.

All of which is to say that cryptocurrency, because of its concealed fundamentals, represents unique risks to a democracy -- and ones which have not been adequately understood in a public context.

While it is not realistic to say that every member of a government can be rendered incorruptible, cryptocurrency renders dramatic ethical declines in governance not just possible but inevitable.

I would go further to stay that anyone affiliated with due process of law -- from court clerks to process servers to attorneys -- should not possess cryptocurrency accounts.  Beyond this, anyone involved in the larger financial health of a nation -- bankers, accountants, realtors, bookkeepers, auditors, IRS officials -- should not possess cryptocurrency accounts.  Those who possess responsibility for the physical health of the citizenry -- including physicians, nurses, utilities personnel and utilities contractors -- should not possess cryptocurrency accounts.

Obviously this propagates outward to nearly everyone.

I can think of ten good reasons why I would not like my plumber to own a cryptocurrency account.  My local fireman.  The town priest.

A democracy requires that citizens choose to relate to one another honestly, eschewing payoffs in favor of transparency and accountability.

Realizing that not everyone will make wise choices, we need to ensure that the architecture of payments provides for that transparency and accountability in every respect.

It must be observed that the twin perils of human trafficking and drug trafficking are reported to be heavily dependent on cryptocurrencies.  As much as possible, democracies should seek to marginalize the means by which these systems become entrenched.

The main congress of society should be lawful, honest, transparent, and accountable, and those who have fallen prey to unlawful exploitation deserve our attempt to reclaim them as valuable and worthy citizens by compassionate and insistent means.

In the absence of this engagement, corruption expands, standards erode, and society risks losing its purpose.

Most essentially, democracy requires that we care about one's another's fate, and more than this, that we assist one another in bettering that fate if we can.

This humanitarian mandate, so necessary to a healthy democracy, is also necessary in defining the soul of a nation.

Are Americans fair-minded and magnanimous and big-hearted and hard working and ethical and spiritual and brave and benevolent?

They are.

But a few people in the FBI have abandoned those qualities in favor of the avarice, predation, and contempt that define success as a short-term profit at someone else's expense.

We need to insist that we're not living in their America.  They're living in ours.

Lane MacWilliams

************************************************************************************

The FBI is a deeply divided agency.  There are many FBI employees who view their vows to the Constitution with the utmost seriousness and honor, and who strive to defend the fundamentals of our democracy with courage, fortitude and commitment.  The fact that some segments of the FBI appear to have embraced a lawless course is not a justification to assail the FBI in general.  As President Joseph R. Biden has so rightly expressed, violence is never justified in any circumstance.  The rule of law must always be honored and upheld.  It is our shared determination to preserve the civil liberties and human rights of all Americans that renders the United States a democracy.  We must never abandon this promise.  All of our most cherished freedoms depend upon it.