UPDATE: OIG Hotline, please note that the information below has been edited to incorporate my Request for Injunctive Relief, Part #26.
*********************************************************************************
OIG Hotline, given that my case is of import and given that certain aspects are still presumably being discussed in closed session in the Supreme Court, I would respectfully request that your Office provide AP investigative journalist Bernard Condon with the following post. For his contact information, please see his email to me within lanemacwilliams@gmail.com, sent at 11:33 AM today, November 13, 2024. Please note that I will not be opening this communication nor responding to Mr. Condon, as I feel it is inappropriate, for all the reasons discussed below.
Beyond this, I would respectfully request that the Supreme Court grant an Order for Injunctive Relief prohibiting Tom Lyons, and indeed all FBI personnel and affiliates, from outreach to journalists regarding my case prior to provision of FOIA reports, investigative reports, FRCP 23 notification and prior to broad-strokes identification of topics and/or documents considered sensitive by the FBI and affiliates agencies. The conflict of interest for the FBI is far too great for it to be initiating journalistic engagement at this time, and the potential for defamation of my family members and myself as credible testifiers to events is, given past conduct of agency staff, a near certainty.
Beyond this, due to as-yet-unaddressed considerations of confidentiality on the part of the government, I am prohibited from discussing this case at this time with journalists in my own defense.
As a result, without an Order of Injunctive Relief from the Supreme Court, the FBI and its affiliates are free to defame me with false information to journalists at will, while I am prevented from telling the truth about this matter.
Given the stark inequities in this circumstance, I respectfully request the support of the Supreme Court in ensuring that this case is not a matter for FBI forays into disinformation with the press corps at this time, and that all press outreach from the FBI and its affiliates regarding this case be prohibited until provision of FOIA reports, investigative reports, and FRCP 23 to me, alongside broad-strokes identification of topics and/or documents considered sensitive or confidential by the FBI and its affiliate agencies.
With appreciation for your engagement with this important issue.
For access to this content in email format, please see my communication within lanemacwilliams@gmail.com, sent to your Office's attention at 4:10 PM today, November 13, 2024.
Most sincerely,
Lane MacWilliams
*****************************************************************************
1. The FBI seemed to convey to you this morning that some group of Democrats had held a strategy meeting with a faction of the agency in order to discuss your case. Apparently they had emerged with a "Let's turn worry into action!" and a "We can win this!" perspective. What does that convey to you?
Answer: It conveys to me that the Party is determined to wage a disinformation campaign, either in the Supreme Court or in the press, in order to attempt to discredit my family members and myself as truthful witnesses to the Party's allegedly massive theft of public funds.
2. In truth, you turned on your computer a few moments ago to find that you have an email from an AP reporter named Bernard Condon sitting in your inbox. What is the subject heading of that communication, please?
Answer: It is "Associated Press Reporter: Harris Refunds to You." It was sent at 11:33 AM today, November 13, 2024.
3. Did you look up Mr. Condon's credentials, just for your own information?
Answer: I will not be responding to Mr. Condon at this time, but I did look up his background, yes.
4. And what did you find?
Answer: I found that he appears to be a legitimate investigative reporter for the Associated Press, although his background stories do not appear to cover financial malfeasance, campaign finance violations by political parties or fraud in any manner.
5. What's your takeaway?
Answer: My takeaway is that Mr. Condon was contacted by the FBI, likely Tom Lyons as a "confidential informant", with an attempt to project the Democratic Party's crimes of defrauding the U.S. government onto a relatively small collection of entirely innocent people who can be defamed and discredited in the press before the true story ever comes to light.
6. The Democratic Party would be attempting to get the story out first, before the Republicans could address their malfeasance when President Trump takes office in January?
Answer: This is highly likely.
7. And would Tom Lyons be providing Mr. Condon with falsified "evidence" of wrongdoing on the part of the innocent?
Answer: Falsified evidence appears to be Mr. Lyons' specialty. I would be shocked if he were not taking on the creation of AI-generated audio, AI-generated video, AI-generated still photos, and AI-generated written communications as a personal interest.
8. Why do you say that?
Answer: Because Mr. Lyons will go to prison if he does not do this particular job of deceiving journalists exceptionally well.
9. It's fair to say that he has motive, then.
Answer: Oh, yes. Powerful motive.
10. What is the problem in refuting Mr. Lyons' false claims, whatever they are?
Answer: The problem is that the White House is still withholding my Freedom of Information Act reports from me, in addition to investigative reports from the Office of the Inspector General Hotline and the ODNI. So, I simply am not in possession of the material that implicates Tom Lyons of falsified law enforcement reporting and myriad associated harms of my family members and myself, all the way up to and including an alleged text conversation among Mr. Lyons, President Biden and Bxxxxxx Pxxx, in which these three men are reported to discuss the attempted murder of my whole family for profit.
11. If you yourself wanted to prove to Mr. Condon that Mr. Lyons had been involved in extensively falsified law enforcement reporting about your family members and yourself for his personal profit, what evidence would you give him?
Answer: There are many people to whom I could refer him, but all of them have signed secrecy agreements with the FBI. Mr. Condon, as a journalist, is not going to be able to break through that barrier. What journalists would need would be access to investigative material with my permission. And again, I don't have that material, and so I cannot give my permission. I don't know if false testifiers lied to investigators and thus created a substantive liability for themselves, which I will pursue. I don't know how many instances of Mr. Lyons' knowingly falsified law enforcement reporting have been proven by investigators, although I am aware of quite a few instances of his law-breaking.
12. Do you think Tom Lyons is offering to pay Mr. Condon for a narrative that suits his purposes in this case?
Answer: I have no doubt about this. Mr. Lyons will present this as a "national security matter" and flatter Mr. Condon as the hero of the democracy if he can only publicly discredit a small family of five people within the next sixty-seven days, prior to President Trump's inauguration.
13. You yourself are a writer, and you certainly have an investigative bent. What questions should Mr. Condon be asking at this time?
Answer:
- Why is President Biden obstructing the fulfillment of my Freedom of Information Act requests and the provision of investigative reports from the OIG Hotline and the ODNI, along with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, all mandated to be upheld by Injunctive Orders of the Supreme Court?
- Why has President Biden awarded more than six trillion dollars under my name through the auspices of the OIG Hotline and the ODNI and allegedly, according to the FBI, repeatedly invaded those funds for campaign finance purposes and payoffs to family, friends, and Democratic Party officials?
- Why did President Biden obstruct all communication from OIG Hotline investigators to me at the conclusion of the original investigation of my case, which the FBI alleged was in September of 2023, when outreach at that time would have been in accordance with investigative standards that are well-known and adhered to within the DOJ?
- Why has President Biden's staff repeatedly instructed the OIG Hotline and the ODNI to conceal certain settlements and penalties awarded in my name, an unlawful attempt at fraud which the FBI alleges was revealed in its entirely before the Supreme Court's evaluation of my case?
- Why did President Biden engage in a reported text messaging conversation with Tom Lyons and Bxxxxxx Pxxx in which all three of them are alleged to have planned to take the lives of my entire family for their personal profit?
- Why does the FBI appear to allege that President Biden has authorized the ongoing attempt to take my family members' lives and my own prior to President Trump's inauguration on January 20, 2024?
- Why has President Biden continued to authorize knowingly falsified law enforcement reporting about my family members and myself through Tom Lyons, and continued to direct that false accusations be presented before the Supreme Court with the express intent of persuading the Court to authorize our harm, our arrest, and the confiscation of my documents regarding this case?
- Why did Tom Lyons appear to engage just this Monday, November 11, 2024, in an unlawful attempt to accuse me of a felony through a violation of the federal shipping rules on the part of a company from which I purchased an item last May?
14. So, it's entirely too early for a journalist to say anything about this case?
Answer: I think a journalist could appropriately be asking why the Orders for Injunctive Relief issued by the Supreme Court are being obstructed by the White House. But yes, otherwise, it is far too early.
15. And doesn't Tom Lyons' profound conflict of interest regarding this matter mean that any reputable journalist should steer well clear?
Answer: A reputable journalist could wreck his career in following the directives of Tom Lyons regarding this matter. Easily.
16. Yet Tom Lyons is quite convincing, isn't he?
Answer: You know, I met the man once. He presents quite well. There are only a few tells that he possesses a profound character disorder, and they are relatively subtle. But Tom Lyons is an inveterate liar who has caused untold harm to what I would conservatively guess to be tens of thousands of people. This is the reality.
Do I understand how people could be taken in by him? Fooled by him? Duped? Absolutely. I can see that his methods and stratagems have been highly successful for his advancement over time.
Do I also understand that he's likely to go to prison unless I agree to treat certain segments of the reports as confidential material? That would be an emphatic yes.
17. Would you recommend that Mr. Condon value his integrity as a journalist over and above the pay Mr. Lyons has likely offered him?
Answer: I think it is always advisable for everyone to value integrity over money. For journalists, of course, the responsibility to the public is even greater than that of the average citizen. It's always difficult for any of us to admit that we were lied to -- journalists included -- but the fact remains that Tom Lyons has almost certainly misled Mr. Condon, rendering him vulnerable to significant career harm down the road.
18. Are you averse to speaking to journalists about this matter in the future?
Answer: I am writing about this matter publicly, so clearly, I feel there is a public interest in what has happened in this case, and a significant one at that.
But as I said, the FOIA reports, investigative reports, and FRCP 23 notification must be fulfilled in accordance with the Injunctive Orders of the Supreme Court. And after that, the government must be thoroughly consulted regarding areas that constitute protected or sensitive information from the FBI's perspective and that of other government agencies. So these are priorities that must be fulfilled before journalistic engagement in my view. In the absence of this, the FBI is simply engaging in a disinformation campaign. I would hope Mr. Condon and other potential journalists would be intelligent and principled enough to exercise necessary restraint in recognizing that Mr. Lyons has an overwhelming motive to lie about this case, to lie publicly through journalists, and to lie quickly, in order to control a public opinion about which he is very much afraid.
19. If Mr. Lyons truly cared about the national interest, wouldn't he want the Supreme Court's Injunctive Orders to be fulfilled? Wouldn't he want the FBI to classify certain documents and ensure that sensitive information is properly handled?
Answer: Without question, he would.
20. Thank you for sharing this concern with us today.
Answer: You are quite welcome.
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