1. You have been informed this morning that the Vice President approved of a "wild robot" being tasked within your home or near your home. What does that mean, exactly?
Answer: In this case, it would seem to be a reference to an autonomous sniper device, and the tasking appears to relate to an unjustified sniping assault.
2. On you yourself?
Answer: This is what the FBI appears to allege, yes.
3. And such an assault is being justified on the basis of knowingly false witness statements coerced by the DoD at the order of the President?
Answer: Allegedly so.
4. You have reason to believe that allegations of recent sniping contracts authorized by President Biden have a basis in fact, don't you?
Answer: I do.
5. Would you care to elaborate?
Answer: No, I respectfully decline.
6. The FBI has conveyed to you that President Biden is wielding substantive control over the wellbeing of both of your sons and MX at this time. Is that the case?
Answer: These assertions appear to have been made, although I would emphasize that I have not yet been able to verify them.
7. Do you believe them to be true?
Answer: Given that past is often prologue, I do.
8. Why would this administration wish to exert so much control over your family at this time?
Answer: I really think that's a question best directed to them. From my own perspective, it is extremely concerning anytime the family of an honorable whistleblower suffers from knowingly falsified law enforcement reporting, given that anyone can be arrested, targeted, defamed and harmed on that basis.
9. Did you receive FOIA reports or investigative reports in advance of voting day yesterday?
Answer: I did not.
10. Did you receive notification of class action, upholding Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23?
Answer: No.
11. Would you describe your trip to your polling place yesterday evening shortly after 7:00 PM as life threatening?
Answer: I would, yes.
12. You needed to take evasive action with your car in order to prevent a major threat, didn't you?
Answer: I did.
13. Last night, the Democrats lost the White House, the Senate, and possibly the House of Representatives -- all three.
Answer: The House tally will take a little time, but for now, it appears that the polls were out of touch with the decisiveness of the early outcomes.
14. What were the Democrats lacking?
Answer: I have expressed previously that I believe the American people can sense that their freedoms are at risk, but they are having difficulty determining the source of that threat.
15. You believe the Democrats could have done something to illuminate that threat.
Answer: You know, I believe it is incumbent upon leadership to highlight for the public any major systemic threat to their freedoms.
16. If they had done so, would it have made a difference in the election?
Answer: Almost certainly.
17. Why didn't it happen?
Answer: The FBI recounts that the President's advisors saw it as a "big risk." No one wanted to rock the boat by illuminating the problem of falsified law enforcement reporting. It would have called into question our entire relationship to local and federal law enforcement, and it would have necessitated close examination of the FBI's unconstitutional "target of interest" program.
18. Later, after that decision to maintain silence was made, the administration appeared to wield falsified law enforcement reporting for their own purposes against you and your family members as well. Is there an irony in that choice?
Answer: A tragedy. An irony. A loss. All of these.
19. And it is on the basis of AI-generated audio and AI-generated photos and AI-generated video, alongside coerced false witness statements, that the administration has now targeted you, is it not?
Answer: This is the FBI's assertion, yes. And I can only say that I am the most honorable person in the territory, so somebody is telling some momentous lies about me if these allegations of sniping assignments are to be believed -- and I now think they are, in fact, credible.
20. Hasn't President Biden spoken publicly about the dangers of AI?
Answer: He has, so I believe he is fully apprised of how convincing AI-generated audio, video and still photos can be.
21. But you don't think the President and Vice President believe you are a criminal of any kind whatsoever.
Answer: I'm certain they know I am not.
22. Do they realize that your husband is not a criminal in any way, shape or form either?
Answer: Given the tactics of the DoD in coercing false statements, yes, they do know that he is innocent of all wrongdoing.
23. Are your sons and MX still at risk in this circumstance?
Answer: Extreme risk. They are tremendously imperiled.
24. Why?
Answer: They are witnesses, capable of speaking to the truth of their experience as unwilling recruits into a program I have previously described for the OIG Hotline.
25. What can be done for them?
Answer: I can attempt to highlight their circumstances, as we're doing now, and I can continue to ask that their health, their safety, and their sovereignty be returned to them in their entirety.
26. Your younger son may need residential treatment again because of the crimes committed against him in this case. Is that true?
Answer: I believe it is.
27. Will this be the third time?
Answer: At least.
28. How long should he be in treatment this time, do you believe?
Answer: Two to three months.
29. So your younger son will never be safe as long as he has a handler directing him to perform unlawful acts.
Answer: My sons and MX will never be safe with any handler for any reason ever again.
30. Can they survive what has been done to them? Can they decline new attempts to direct them in unlawful ways?
Answer: If this administration determines to save their lives, then, yes, they can survive. But that means the President and the Vice President both need to adopt an ethical stance regarding this matter, and right away. And in answer to your second question, neither my sons nor MX possess individual sovereignty right now because of the harms that have been perpetrated against them. So right now, they are not able to decline their handlers' directives, and that weakness is well understood by the handlers involved, and by those directing the handlers.
31. That's the reason you asked that the Supreme Court grant injunctive relief pertaining to both of your sons and MX, isn't it?
Answer: Exactly so.
32. Your husband also allegedly has been targeted in frightening ways, also allegedly based on false reporting.
Answer: Yes, so he, too, needs a disqualification of falsified witness statements and false evidence, together with the Supreme Court's reversal of any decision to cause our family yet further harm.
32. What is the path forward?
Answer: The ethical path forward has always been the provision of FOIA reports and investigative reports, followed by lawful and honorable outreach facilitating dialogue about this case.
33. Can that happen now?
Answer: If President Biden and Vice President Harris decide that it can happen, then it can happen.
34. Will you please keep us apprised of new development as you are able?
Answer: Most certainly.
Lane MacWilliams
P.S. -- Please allow me to once again extend the disclaimer that some threats received by me and extended by the FBI are unsubstantiated by me at this time. I regret that I am unable to assess the credibility of every threat extended by this agency or its affiliates, and also that I am not in a position to judge the likelihood of manifestation. Having said that, many of the FBI's threats toward my family in the past have manifested in real-world harms. As a result, I believe that FBI threats extended to me must be viewed as potentially substantive.
No comments:
Post a Comment