1. Attorney General Todd Blanche would apparently like to keep his job.
Answer: Apparently so.
2. What are your thoughts regarding this matter?
Answer: While I cannot comment on Attorney General Blanche's employment, I can say that all assets need to be returned to the Foundation on an immediate basis. I am on leave from the Foundation, but I am able to defend its mission.
Beyond this, I think it is wrong for an Attorney General to be attempting to withhold Foundation assets on the basis of known disinformation and false evidence extended in a defamatory way against an important advocate for our national sovereignty.
Further, it is wrong to cause the pet of the same advocate to be brought to the brink of death as a tool of coercion regarding withheld assets of the Foundation.
3. Is there an attempt on the part of the FBI to bribe an Arizona judge regarding a concealed adjudication, currently being heard, relating to your case?
Answer: I don't have that specific information, although the FBI appears to be bragging that it controls a particular lesser court judge involved in this matter.
4. Is the FBI effectively saying to you that the agency wants to keep a portion of the Foundation's assets in return for your acquittal in the state of Arizona?
Answer: I think that is the clear implication, yes. This is an extortion scheme, and it is entirely consistent with prior conduct we have seen from the FBI during this case.
5. Did the Supreme Court already hear these arguments?
Answer: I think they did, and I think they dismissed them.
6. Isn't it improper for the FBI to now take the same accusations to a lower court? Isn't that disallowed by the regulations of American jurisprudence?
Answer: I'm not an attorney, so I cannot conjecture, unfortunately.
7. Isn't double jeopardy unlawful within the United States?
Answer: I believe so.
8. Why is the FBI allowed to present false evidence to a lower court, when the Supreme Court has had a view to the larger case as a whole?
Answer: I think you're asking whether the FBI could be violating rules of jurisprudence, on the basis that a lesser court may not understand the significance, scope and history of the larger case.
And in general, I will simply say that the FBI appears willing to violate all laws, statutes, rules, regulations and requirements.
The only cardinal rule within the FBI is "Don't get caught."
9. Might your illumination of this issue require that a wrongful case in the state of Arizona be dismissed?
Answer: One would hope. There is just tremendous frustration with regard to concealed cases relating to the FBI's programs. For those who have read Solzhenitsyn's The Gulag Archipelago, they will recognize the erosions of judicial norms, though the FBI takes this much, much further than Stalin did. In Russia, in the post-war period, at least defendants knew what the wrongful charges were. At least unjust sentences were read aloud.
10. Should the FBI now be prohibited from taking a specific set of false accusations in your case to lower courts?
Answer: It may be possible to ask for an order of injunctive relief regarding this concern. But this may seem redundant, because there are probably already laws which prohibit this conduct.
If the FBI has knowingly violated standards of jurisprudence in this matter, then this documentation will serve as my complaint against the agency regarding this malfeasance.
11. You authorize the OIG Hotline to prosecute if the FBI has violated these judicial norms.
Answer: Yes, I do. And I would ask that any judgement against the FBI be deposited into the Foundation for United States sovereignty.
12. To be clear, this is not to be a replacement for other assets that are now unaccounted for?
Answer: Absolutely not. Foundation assets should be returned to the Foundation in their entirety.
13. Do you also request that the FBI restore the health of your animals together with your own?
Answer: Of course.
14. And do you require that all false accusations now be withdrawn regarding this matter?
Answer: I do. False accusations -- and any wrongful convictions resulting from them -- serve to threaten my life on a daily basis, so they are completely untenable.
15. Has the Supreme Court now required the return of Foundation assets to the auspices of the Foundation?
Answer: I think the Supreme Court has been dedicated to the future of the nation, so I feel confident that the Honorable Justices have done so.
16. What are your thoughts about the Supreme Court Ethics Act?
Answer: I am not permitted to comment on pending legislation, but I will simply say that I think Congress should ask our Supreme Court Justices to weigh in on the defenses they require to do their jobs without interference from the FBI and its affiliates. Our Supreme Court Justices should not find themselves under pressure to decide cases in accordance with FBI preferences, nor should they come under pressure to retire early. The FBI should not be able to threaten Supreme Court Justices or their family members, nor should the FBI be able to cause them harm.
I also think the new Congress should ask our Supreme Court to give closure to this particular case so that I can support United States sovereignty without obstruction in the future.
17. Will you please let us know how you and your dogs are progressing, given the current challenges?
Answer: Of course.
18. Thank you for speaking with us this morning.
Answer: You are most welcome.
Lane MacWilliams, aka Carol Elaine Von Herzen
No comments:
Post a Comment