UPDATE; An update appears at the conclusion of this post. The original answer to question #4 has been expanded.
*************************************************************************************
1. You have not been able to access the internet for an uninterrupted period sufficient to post on this blog since Thursday. Is that correct?
Answer: Yes, it is, unfortunately. I was informed by FBI affiliates that someone in Washington, D.C. attempted to reach out to me on Thursday morning. Since that time, my Wifi access has been repeatedly obstructed.
2. Did you receive a voicemail or an email from anyone in Washington, D.C.?
Answer: No, I did not. But the FBI routinely deletes voicemails and emails from my cell phone and gmail account. If an important communication came in, I have no doubt that far right segments of the FBI would attempt to erase and disrupt that outreach.
3. Are you receptive to communication from Washington, D.C.?
Answer: Very much so.
4. You have been informed that FBI affiliates have recently impersonated your identity online, is that right?
Answer: I have, yes. And I have seen objective evidence of this, because I have taken recent screenshots of "AI-THINKER," "Tattooine," and "Truckee1" monikers whenever I have been able to access the internet.
5. And what are these impersonators doing online while utilizing your name?
Answer: While I don't have proof of their actions, it's highly likely that these individuals are trying to falsely implicate me of wrongdoing. If these people are engaged in unlawful activity while appropriating my identity online, that becomes a dangerous situation for my physical security and that of my family members.
6. How could FBI affiliates falsely implicate you of wrongdoing?
Answer: There are a thousand different approaches they could take.
7. Have you been given any indication whatsoever of what those false allegations could be?
Answer: Only one indication.
8. May I know the information you received?
Answer: Though it seems a far reach, I was informed that there is a plan on the part of the FBI for FBI affiliates to extend a threat to my church, St. Mark's in Palo Alto.
9. Using your name?
Answer: Unfortunately, yes. The capacity is there for the FBI to use AI technology to co-opt my voice if they elect to create a phone-in threat.
10. The FBI can use AI technology to create your voice saying something you never said?
Answer: Yes, it can, sadly. Of course, the related AI technology, allowing the FBI to create AI-generated films co-opting a "target's" likeness is quite advanced as well.
11. Why would the FBI create an AI-generated phone call using your voice -- or simply impersonate you through an email -- to call in a threat to your church, St. Mark's, which you fully support?
Answer: I will simply observe that this would be a quick justification for law enforcement to forcibly invade somebody's home.
12. Is it possible that a home invasion based on knowingly false information about an FBI whistleblower could have a violent intention?
Answer: It is possible, yes.
13. Did you happen to notice the article in Thursday's New York Times regarding the fact that synagogues in twelve separate states were targeted with hoax calls alleging attacks on these houses of worship? (https://www.nytimes.com/2023/08/16/nyregion/synagogues-swatting-antisemitism.html#:~:text=The%20Anti%2DDefamation%20League%20has,California%20over%20the%20last%20month)
Answer: I did see it, yes.
14. What is your view on this article?
Answer: My analysis is that the development of the FBI's longterm program to infiltrate synagogues, churches and mosques within the United States through the extension of CVE (countering violent extremism) funds has not yet been fully implemented. The furtherance of this plan is dependent upon the public's perception that people of faith are under threat within the United States, and that they could benefit from the protection of the FBI.
Txx Lxxxx' threats toward, and beyond this, his defamation of Reverend Matt McDermott of St. Mark's Episcopal Church may have been serving as one of a number of early initiatives to compel the cooperation of clergy through informant and secrecy agreements with the agency.
15. But you have been informed that the FBI's plan is to infiltrate all houses of worship within the United States within a comparatively short period of time.
Answer: I cannot speak to the time frame with specificity. I had been under the impression that the FBI was further along in this plan than it is. If the FBI's plan has ten stages, the agency may be at stage two or three. But I would guess the FBI's plan would extend over a period of the next 2-5 years.
On the positive side, the opportunity exists for us to intervene with houses of worship so as to adequately warn them of this gambit.
16. Do you believe it is possible for the United States to prevent this infiltration from occurring?
Answer: I do, yes. The fact that this plan is not further along gives us the opportunity to forewarn faith communities about this approach.
17. With this new information regarding the FBI's timeframe, are you going to be amending or adding to your affidavit concerning the FBI's actions to date to infiltrate houses of worship within the United States?
Answer: I will attempt to update it for the OIG Hotline, yes.
18. Out of curiosity, do you have any idea when FBI affiliates plan to extend a false threat to your church using your voice or your online identity?
Answer: I opened my phone yesterday to a Google calendar reminder to attend church at St. Mark's on Sunday, August 27, 2023. If this is any indication, I would guess the FBI is planning to extend a false threat to my church close to August 27, 2023 or on that date itself.
19. Will you write and notarize an affidavit for the OIG Hotline concerning this matters so that this issue can be illuminated fully?
Answer: Yes, I will.
20. To be clear, will you be phoning St. Mark's for any reason over the next month?
Answer: No, I will not.
21. Will you be phoning St. Mark's staff or congregants for any reason over the next month?
Answer: No, I will not.
22. Will you be phoning the Reverend Matt McDermott for any reason over the next month?
Answer: No, I will not.
23. Will you be emailing St. Mark's clergy, staff or parishioners for any reason over the next month?
Answer: No, I will not. If I were to attend St. Mark's or any other church at this point, I would need to announce it on my blog in advance. The FBI has extended knowingly false accusations concerning my words, my actions, my communications and my intentions surrounding my church, so the agency has effectively cut me off from the opportunity to observe my faith in public, unfortunately.
24. Does this strike you as an unconstitutional limit? The fact that the FBI has prevented you from attending church, because the agency is engaged in this degree of knowingly falsified law enforcement reporting?
Answer: It is clearly unconstitutional.
25. What relationship should the FBI have with the clergy, staff, and congregants of America's churches, mosques and synagogues?
Answer: Programmatically? Absolutely none. The idea that communities of faith within our country would be assimilated by the FBI into a totalitarian network of spies and informants represents an unthinkable distortion of the spiritual and ethical sanctuary these houses of worship should represent.
26. Is there still time in which to prevent this assimilation from happening?
Answer: The FBI's scheme is much easier to prevent than to undo. Yes, I believe there is still time. And I think also that Reverend Matt McDermott might assist greatly by speaking publicly about his experience, should the national Episcopal Church leadership give him permission to do so.
27. Once again, are all of your intentions toward St. Mark's and other houses of worship, whether within the United States or elsewhere, peaceable, honorable and law-abiding?
Answer: Yes, in every way, shape and form, all of my intentions toward St. Mark's and other houses of worship, whether within the United States or elsewhere, are peaceable, honorable and law-abiding.
28. Do you hereby certify that the foregoing is true and correct?
Answer: I do.
Lane MacWilliams
***********************************************************************************
UPDATE: Since the appearance of this post online, my attempts to access Wifi have been consistently accompanied by an individual who appears to be appropriating my online identity under the moniker 'Truckee1." Accordingly, the answer to question #4 has been expanded to include this information.
No comments:
Post a Comment