The Robert Paisola Foundation Project Headline Animator
Holidays - no matter what religion or beliefs you have - are typically a time to sit back, enjoy family and friends and just have a good time. Not this year or even the year before and probably not next year either. A very sad commentary on the state of the state of America.
As the new year approaches, I see it as a new beginning. An opportunity for Americans everywhere to stand up, speak out and take back control of "our" country. The message to our politicians, our administration and to our controlling "too big to fail" should be and is - we have had enough. We are the people of this nation. We are your bosses. You all work for us. We want justice and we want our freedom back. We want jobs and we want homes. We want food to feed ourselves and our children. We want our American way of life back. Not with the excesses that were allowed us by our government and financial institutions in recent years but the way of life we enjoyed prior. Sure, it did not work for all, even then, but that should have been our mission - to help those less fortunate then the majority. Instead, we walked many millions of people into a candy store and said, "you can have all you want...just take it". We were constantly reminded of this by television commercials from JPMorgan/Chase in their "I want it all and I want it now" campaigns.
Instead of helping those "less fortunate" we increased the numbers of "less fortunate" and increased the incomes and lifestyles of those already on the top tier of income and lifestyle.
So as this holiday and New Year season is fast approaching, let us all resolve to take action and let our rulers know just how we feel. You see, we still have one thing going for us here in America - we can still vote someone out of office. We can let them know our intentions. We're going to fire them and allow them their pensions and health benefits. A gift far larger then any they have given us in quite some time.
With a resolution of taking action and correcting the many wrongs that exist, perhaps, resolution by itself, can help us take the time out during this holiday season to enjoy our family and friends without the stress that exists.
To your success and NEVER GIVE UP
The Robert Paisola Foundation
By Robert Paisola for
The Associated Press and
Western Capital Multimedia
Story updated at 12:22 PM Monday, Dec. 14, 2009
Five-year old Nyla Nelson was beside herself.
A student at a local elementary school, she was in awe as Don Darling, pulled up with his sled full of childrens bicycles.
Right in front of her sat a brand new bicycle that she had been wanting for so long, made possible by a donation to her elementary school by local Philanthropist and businessman Don Darling, of Crystal Clear Painting and Decorating of Utah.
Yes, she's all girl. Just about as much as her brother, Kaleb Howard, 7, is all boy.
Kaleb also received one of the prestigious bikes, delivered to his school by an Army of Construction Workers.
"It is all about Giving" said Darling. "Especially in critical times like these, these kids deserve to have a great christmas" he said
It was the beginning of a great Christmas holiday for the Howard family, which will be growing by one any day now as mom is expecting another baby. But that means unpaid maternity leave, and not a lot of money for Christmas presents.
Daylina Lee, 5, wanted a princess bike. Keely White, a volunteer who works at Darling's Company, walked Daylina around to look for a bike. Daylina ended up with a purple bike with training wheels - perfect for any princess.
Daylina was shy, and not very talkative. So from just outside the school her aunt, Valerie James, expressed the family's gratitude for the party.
"Thank you, thank you, thank you all so much," James said. "We couldn't make it through this Christmas without it."
Western Capital Multimedia
63 East 11400 South Suite 407
Sandy, Utah 84070
Don Darling can be reached at 801-558-8179 or email@example.com
Robert Paisola is Working with eight banks — across four time zones, with representatives speaking at least three languages — to immediately (as in Please Wire NOW) risk $1.8 billion US Dollars to finish the City Center Project in Las Vegas, Nevada. Possible.... Yep! Ever heard of Dubai World? The project was estimated in the beginning to cost 4 BILLION DOLLARS. Now the ante is up to 11 BILLION Dollars! And many of you wonder what we do! We Just have fun and try to create a win win with EGO DRIVEN hot headed executives who are surrounded by YES MEN! Welcome to our world!
Here is the article!
LAS VEGAS — Some of the world's top architects and designers have taken a fresh deck of cards and created a Xanadu on the Las Vegas Strip.
CityCenter's half-dozen glass-and-steel towers – including two condo high-rises that lean 5 degrees instead of standing upright – add a futuristic look to this desert destination.
Inside, it resembles a modern art gallery and mind-boggling design showcase more than themed Vegas resorts. Pieces include an 84-foot silver serpentine sculpture depicting the course of the Colorado River, designed by Maya Lin of Vietnam Veterans Memorial fame. That hangs above the front desk of the Aria Resort & Casino.
The $8.5 billion hotel/living/dining/entertainment/shopping destination is billed as the largest privately funded construction project in the USA and is considered Vegas' big gamble. Its lack of emphasis on gaming (only Aria has a casino), edgy style and city-within-a-city layout are "the next step in the evolution of Vegas," says CityCenter CEO Bobby Baldwin– unlike anything yet seen in the USA's adult Disneyland.
PHOTO GALLERY: First look at Las Vegas CityCenter
CityCenter is due to open in stages on 67 acres, starting Dec. 1 with the Vdara resort/condo, Dec. 3with the Crystals retail/dining/entertainment complex, and Dec. 4 with the Mandarin Oriental, Las Vegas hotel and residences. This joint venture between the MGM Mirage casino-resort giant and Dubai World – a United Arab Emirates firm that invests in various properties – is premiering during one of the less-stellar years in Vegas history. It's $1.2 billion over budget, causing analysts to speculate whether the big bet will pay off.
"Clearly, the timing couldn't be much worse, though it's slightly better than a year ago," says Robert LaFleur, gaming analyst at Susquehanna Financial Group. (The Group owns a less-than-5% share of MGM Mirage, LaFleur says; the exact share is not disclosed.) "The Las Vegas market is a tough place" at the moment, he says.
Visitor numbers were down 4.7% January through September vs. 2008, the Las Vegas Convention and Visitors Authority reports. Convention attendance dropped 27.1% during that period. Hotel discounting is the norm now, leaving luxe Aria and Vdara little choice but to open at official rates under $200 – from $179 on slow days for Aria; $149 for Vdara. That's at least 20% off what they originally expected, guesses Anthony Curtis, publisher of the Las Vegas Advisor and an expert on local deals. He found a $129 offer at Vdara in December
Mandarin Oriental is banking on high rollers, with 392 rooms and suites that start at $545, with a second night free.
READ MORE: Vegas tempts travelers with jaw-dropping deals
Baldwin, a poker-faced former World Series of Poker champ, is used to taking risks. He sees CityCenter, designed for the high-end visitor, as bringing more culture to Vegas and serving as "a huge economic spark plug" for the struggling destination. It will provide 12,000 jobs, he says.
However, MGM Mirage had to seek outside financing from various banks to complete CityCenter. What will happen to the 10,000 construction workers who have been toiling around the clock remains to be seen.
What isn't a matter of speculation is that an early tour of CityCenter reveals that renowned architects and designers including Argentina-born César Pelli and New York's Rockwell Group have created a new look for Vegas between MGM Mirage's Bellagio and Monte Carlo resorts. A tram is due to connect the three starting Dec. 1.
Flashy neon signs and glitter are out. Natural materials such as recycled wood, stone and concrete are in. Six buildings in the complex already have gold status in the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) Green Building Rating System. That's based on a third-party rating for eco-correctness; CityCenter's status is a record in energy-squandering Vegas. (The 400-room Harmon boutique hotel, not due till late next year, isn't LEED-certified yet.)
Yes, there is a lavish Cirque du Soleil Elvis tribute in Aria's showroom, but there are no lava-spewing volcanoes or pirate-ship battles on manmade lagoons – just art installations by the likes of Frank Stella and Claes Oldenburg and multihued arcs of water that will collide and explode in a pool outside Aria. They're from designers of the dancing-to-music Bellagio fountains but are on a micro scale.
"The idea was to be different and leading-edge," says Baldwin, sitting in his office next to the construction site off Frank Sinatra Drive, which still is swarming with workers. The CityCenter team traveled the world seeking design inspiration. "If I had seen it (in Vegas), I didn't want it," Baldwin says. He chose multiple architects to avoid a single look.
CityCenter, with its intricate details, can take days to take in.
Its centerpiece resort is 61-story Aria (so named because arias are focal points in operas), due to open Dec. 16. It has 4,004 rooms and suites accessed via smart keycards – wave them in front of doors to open. A cutting-edge system lets guests set everything from lighting levels to temperature to drapes, alarms and "do not disturb" signs via the TV or bedside panel. A downside: Standard rooms are small, so spring for larger quarters if you can.
Aria's casino looks like no other in Vegas, incorporating earthy colors and a forest theme. You'd never guess the faux tree trunks in an adjacent bar are carved out of foam. Gamers who hate the smell of cigarettes will find a system new to Vegas that sucks smoke up and away, says Aria and Vdara President Bill McBeath, giving a tour as hard-hats hammer and rush to finish.
As at other casino resorts, there's a separate entrance, check-in and quarters for VIPs, plus private gaming areas. One has $2,000-a-pull slot machines.
Some walls in Aria's upscale Chinese restaurant are made of jade-colored silk, ripped out and redone when McBeath didn't like the original craftsmanship.
The masses can sip and chew at Aria's coffee shop, shaped like a Mayan pyramid and made of reclaimed river rocks. (No Starbucks here or elsewhere in CityCenter. "Everyone has a Starbucks," McBeath sniffs.) Aria's spa with 62 treatment rooms has something new for been-there-done-that hedonists: a sauna-like salt-block room from Japan and a relaxation area with heated-stone chaise longues.
With big-spending and superstitious Chinese gamblers in mind, Aria lacks floors 40-49. "The number four in Chinese when said sounds like the word for death," MGM Mirage spokeswoman Jenn Michaels explains. "The superstition is strongest in a gaming environment."
Next tour stop is Vdara, the hotel/condo that's the first to open and that Michaels calls the "sleeper" of CityCenter. Just steps from Aria, it should play well with visitors who seek serenity as well as access to the action, and it's the best value in CityCenter. All accommodations are non-smoking suites with kitchens and floor-to-ceiling glass windows (request one with views of the Bellagio fountains). A rooftop pool and spa with Champagne bar add to its appeal.
The Mandarin Oriental is all muted elegance, including an Asian-style welcome in the intimate 23rd-floor lobby with polished black-granite reception desk, adjoining a tea lounge and bar. The bar offers amazing views of the Strip through 20-foot picture windows.
The three-story Crystals retail/entertainment center aims to entice with ice-crystal sculptures, a carpet of flowers that changes seasonally and the most futuristic-looking shops in Vegas. The 750,000-square-foot complex has the largest Louis Vuitton and Prada stores in the USA. Not one luxury retailer pulled out, even in these tough times, says Crystals general manager Farid Matraki.
The shopping/dining/partying district looks like a design showplace. It also offers Vegas' most velvet-rope shopping experience, with a separate entrance accessible only to those bearing invitation-only cards. "God only knows Las Vegas doesn't need another mall," says Matraki. "We're trying to create an experience. Everyone is using their best and newest concepts here."
CityCenter's 2,400 condos, at every lodging property but Aria and Harmon and in the two leaning Veer Towers, are downplayed on the tour, perhaps because that market in Vegas – as elsewhere – is dismal. MGM Mirage announced a 30% price reduction in October after some buyers threatened lawsuits because of the drop in value. Lower-end studios that once were $500,000 now are about $350,000, Michaels says, adding that about half the condos are sold.
CityCenter's opening comes on the heels of MGM's reported third-quarter net loss of $750.4 million, in part because of falling room revenue at its nine other Vegas casino resorts and because it wrote down the value of CityCenter. Until Dubai World came aboard, there was doubt CityCenter would be finished.
Now that it's about to open, MGM Mirage is offering the under-$200 come-ons and wooing guests who've visited its other Vegas properties with free-night offers with a paid stay. Another way to get deals is to sign the guest books on CityCenter hotel websites, Michaels says.
MGM also is encouraging everyone to take a gander at CityCenter. "Hopefully, they'll see this as the next evolution of Vegas," says CityCenter chief Baldwin, who doesn't blink when asked whether the project is too ambitious for the times or suited to the Vegas crowd. "We believe we know what the customer wants. ... If I'm accused of anything, it's of being different."
Even those going after the same deep-pocketed guests, such as Strip kingpin Steve Wynn, wish CityCenter well – at least publicly.
"We've got our fingers crossed that it's a success and that it grows the market," says Wynn, whose nearly year-old Encore has started discounting rooms as low as $109. He adds, enigmatically, "It's certainly different than anything we've seen before, and the fellows who run it are almost as mystified as we are."
Vegas does have a track record of "new hotels creating new demand," analyst LaFleur notes. CityCenter hopes to attract sophisticates who wouldn't normally consider a Vegas vacation.
A just-released report by CB Richard Ellis, which analyzes real estate and Vegas, says that "10% to 30% of CityCenter's revenue will be incremental revenue for the market," but the "balance is expected to come at the expense of existing Strip casinos."
Says Las Vegas Advisor's Curtis, "Short term, there's lots of skepticism and even worry that it may hurt a little more than it helps. I think it will have its glow time early, then tread water waiting for the economy to return. But if things get back to normal, it will be a big winner."
If it's a visitor magnet, "It could be a turnaround point for the city," says Brent Pirosch, a CB Richard Ellis analyst.
Still, CityCenter creators "are clearly opening with a 2007 business mode – high-end rooms and restaurants, less emphasis on gaming," LaFleur says. "The question is, in a post-prosperity society, has something changed in people's spending habits?
"Are there enough people to support four high-end (hotels) and go out and spend (on celebrity chefs and luxury goods)? In my opinion, the jury is still out."
Back to the Harry Blausey Newark Ohio Real Estate Case: A man is now in
prison for what he did as he followed "The Masters" on Late Night
Television. The Attorney's STOLE his money and There is an ACTIVE FBI
Investigation going forward with this matter. This is why I created the
Robert Paisola Innocence Project, that has ...been endorsed by renounced attorneys Barry Scheck and Peter Neufeld.
The State of Ohio is going to be liable for MILLIONS of dollars for
their conduct in this matter, and no Public Official will be exempt
from prosecution, elected or appointed. In America, you do not have the
right to strip a man of his constitutional rights and simply send him
to jail because he is victimized by those that are paid to serve the
citizens. We thank the foundation and the Governor of the State of Ohio, Ted Strickland, The Attorney General Of the State of Ohio, Nancy Hardin Rogers
as well as Warden Edward Banks as we navigate this serious matter. We
will never go away. We can not be paid off. There must be a universal
law that is followed, no matter where you are in the country.
In the end, you will see the massive power that one single man in Newark, Ohio
has amassed across the globe, and Harry W. Blausey will be given his
day in court AGAINST those who wronged him. We challenge the
administration of the Hocking County Correctional Center to do the
right thing.... or face the punishment that you so easily distill. It
is simply YOUR CHOICE GENTLEMEN.
The Robert Paisola Innocence Project
Robert Paisola is dealing with the State of Ohio and the US Department of Justice for an Inmate who is being abused, singled out, and degraded by staff in Nelsonville Ohio. Now that US Senators are involved, God help the State of Ohio. This is calle...d basic inmate rights, not making sure someone is living a posh lifestyle in jail. See www.HarryBlausey.com Why... Because the whole world is watching and we HAVE A LARGE VOICE.
Western Capital SALT LAKE CITY -- A federal judge will allow "lay" witnesses, including Elizabeth Smart, to testify at the upcoming competency hearing for Brian David Mitchell. This will be the first time Elizabeth Smart will take the stand against Mitchel...l, one of two people accused of kidnapping her more than seven years ago. Judge Dale Kimball denied a motion by Mitchell's defense in which attorneys argued Smart's testimony and those of others were not relevant to determining whether or not Mitchell was competent to stand trial. In his ruling, Kimball said Smart's testimony will give a full picture about Mitchell's day-to-day interactions and whether he was preoccupied with religion. He said Mitchell himself has made their testimony relevant because of his refusal to cooperate in "any psychological evaluations or diagnostic tests." Elizabeth Smart's father, Ed Smart, told KSL he wasn't surprised by the ruling. "What can a professional bring to the table when somebody is not cooperating?" Smart said. He said the judge's ruling was expected and his daughter had been preparing to testify against Brian David Mitchell. He said it will be interesting to find out if Mitchell will disrupt the court with his singing again, or stay quiet so he can stay in the courtroom during Elizabeth Smart's testimony. Federal prosecutors said Elizabeth Smart will testify Mitchell was driven by sex, not religion. The judge also said Smart will be giving mostly facts and federal prosecutors will have an expert witness for opinions on a mental diagnosis. On Friday, Elizabeth's father said her experiences with Mitchell could build a strong case that Mitchell is competent to stand trial on federal kidnapping charges. "Elizabeth can certainly provide what she dealt with for nine months, how he manipulated the system, how he got what he wanted, all under the guise of religion," said Ed Smart. Mitchell's attorneys filed a motion to preclude lay witnesses from testifying at Mitchell's competency hearing. At a hearing on Friday, they argued that Smart could talk about her experiences with Mitchell but could not give opinions about his state of mind. Ed Smart expects, ultimately, Mitchell will be ruled competent to stand trial. That would contradict a finding in state court on kidnapping charges. But federal prosecutors have long argued different rules apply in the federal system. Mitchell was found incompetent to stand trial on state charges. This is his first federal competency hearing. Elizabeth Smart will take the stand on Oct. 1, to accommodate her leaving for an LDS mission to Paris. Federal prosecutors are not commenting on the ruling, and defense attorneys did not return our calls.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
BRIAN DAVID MITCHELL, et al.,
Case No. 2:08CR125DAK
This matter is before the court on a portion of Defendant Brian David Mitchell’s Motion
to Preclude the Introduction of All Lay Witness Testimony. The motion seeks to preclude the
introduction of testimony by all lay witnesses including, but not limited to, staff members of the
Utah State Hospital, family, friends, acquaintances, coworkers, and ecclesiastical leaders of
Defendant at the hearing to determine Defendant’s competency to stand trial. Because of
scheduling conflicts, the parties agreed to brief and argue the portion of this motion dealing with
the testimony of the victim, Ms. Elizabeth Smart, prior to addressing the other witness testimony
at issue in the motion. Defendant retains the right to file a reply memoranda in support of its
motion with respect to the other proposed lay witness testimony.
On September 25, 2009, the court held a hearing on the portion of the motion pertaining
to Ms. Smart. At the hearing, Plaintiff was represented by David F. Backman and Richard N.
Lambert, and Defendant was represented by Robert L. Steele, Parker Douglas, and Audrey K.
James. The court took the motion under advisement. Having carefully considered the parties’
memoranda submitted prior to the hearing and their arguments at the hearing, as well as the law
and facts relevant to the motion, the court enters the following Memorandum Decision and Order
with respect to the portion of Defendant’s motion pertaining to Ms. Smart.
In preparation for the upcoming competency hearing, the United States provided
Defendant with a preliminary witness list. The list identified 39 lay witnesses. The anticipated
scope of the lay witness testimony is observations of and interactions with Mr. Mitchell. The
United States also provided Defendant with reports detailing the contents of lay witness
interviews with government officials. The report of the psychiatric examination conducted by
the United States’ expert, Dr. Michael Welner, incorporates information from many of these
witness interviews, including an interview with Ms. Smart. Many of these interviews were
conducted after other experts’ prepared their competency evaluations of Defendant.
Through the briefing of this motion, the United States has represented that it intends to
call Ms. Smart at the competency hearing to testify as to facts and opinions relating to:
Defendant’s lack of religious focus; how Defendant’s conduct was inconsistent with his use of
religious terminology and references to himself as a prophet; Defendant’s manipulation of others;
Defendant’s ability to lie to make his conduct appear to conform with societal norms when it was
to his advantage; and how Defendant has concealed, denied, and rationalized his conduct.
I. Legal Standard for Competency Determination
To determine the relevance and admissibility of Ms. Smart’s proposed testimony, it is
necessary to consider the issue in the context of the legal standards applicable to a competency
hearing. “[T]he Constitution does not permit trial of an individual who lacks ‘mental
competency.’”Indiana v. Edwards, 128 S. Ct. 2379, 2383 (2008). In Dusky v. United States
362 U.S. 402 (1960), the Supreme Court defined the legal standard for assessing competency to
stand trial as including: “(1)‘whether’ the defendant has ‘a rational as well as factual
understanding of the proceedings against him’ and (2) whether the defendant ‘has sufficient
present ability to consult with his lawyer with a reasonable degree of rational understanding.”
Edwards, 128 S. Ct. at 2383 (quoting Dusky
, 362 U.S. at 402). Unlike the insanity defense
which concerns the defendant’s mental state at the time of the offense, the issue of competency to
stand trial focuses on the defendant’s current mental state.See United States v. Gold
, 790 F.2d
235, 238 (2d Cir. 1986).
II. Relevance and Admissibility of Testimony
Defendant’s motion to exclude lay witness testimony from the competency hearing states
that it is based on relevance, danger of unfair prejudice, considerations of delay, undue waste of
time, and needless presentation of cumulative evidence pursuant to Rule 401 and 403 of the
Federal Rules of Evidence. Rule 401 defines relevant evident as that evidence “having any
tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence . . . more probable or less
probable than it would be without the evidence. Fed. R. Evid. 401. Rule 403, however, allows
relevant evidence to be excluded “if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger
of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, . . . or by considerations of undue delay, waste of
time, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence.” Fed. R. Evid. 403.
Defendant’s counsel appeared to back away from these challenges to Ms. Smart’s
testimony at the hearing and focused mainly on whether she could provide opinion testimony
under Federal Rule of Evidence 701. Nonetheless, the court will address all of the arguments
presented in Defendant’s motion because it is unclear from the oral argument whether Defendant
was conceding relevance and admissibility or merely relying on the arguments in the briefing for
A. Rule 403 – Relevance
Defendant argues that Ms. Smart’s lay observations of Defendant will not help the court
in trying to answer the competency question. Several courts, however, have allowed lay witness
testimony in determining competency: “the Court may rely on, in addition to expert testimony,
lay witness testimony concerning the [defendant’s] rational behavior, and cross examination of
[defendant’s] expert.”Bundy v. Dugger
, 675 F. Supp. 622, 634 (M.D. Fla. 1987).
In this case, Defendant has made lay witness testimony relevant by refusing to submit to
any psychological evaluations or diagnostic tests. Dr. Golding, who prepared a report for the
state proceedings, specifically recognized that Defendant’s refusal to cooperate lessens the
reliability of the expert opinions. It is also the likely cause of conflicting expert opinions as to
Defendant’s competency. InState v. Robertson,
the court noted that both experts testified that
“patient cooperation was very important in diagnosing competency and that without cooperation
any test result was questionable.” 932 P.2d 1219, 1224 (Utah 1997). Defendant’s refusal to
cooperate has made fact evidence from collateral sources necessary to a determination of his
Defendant attacks the relevance of testimony that is based on events that occurred many
years ago to a determination of Defendant’s current mental state. In evaluating the competency
issue, Defendant asserts that the court should not be sidetracked by testimony of Mr. Mitchell’s
life and the specifics of his alleged crime. But all of the expert reports give Defendant’s history
in varying degrees of detail in order to diagnose his current mental state. Thus, even though
Defendant attacks the utility of lay testimony, such as Ms. Smart’s, which is based on
interactions that occurred many years ago, it is well-established that evidence of Defendant’s
prior conduct can give the court a better understanding of Defendant’s current condition. In
addition, the United States has presented persuasive arguments that certain aspects of the crime
itself can be relevant to the competency determination.
Moreover, the United States maintains that Defendant’s mental condition has not varied
throughout the years. The United States should have an opportunity to put on enough evidence
to establish that fact. And, if that fact can be established, conduct from many years ago could be
considered as probative as evidence of Defendant’s present conduct.
Defendant relies on a Sixth Circuit case in the insanity context which states that “when a
lay witness’ direct knowledge of the defendant is brief and superficial and far removed in time
from the commission of the crime or the trial, the testimony usually should not be admitted.”
United States v. Smith, 437 F.2d 538, 541 (6th Cir. 1970). In Smith
, the lay witness testimony
was offered by a commissioner who interacted with the defendant during a preliminary hearing
and an FBI agent who listened to the defendant’s conversation during a ride to the police station.
Id.In stark contrast with Smith
, Ms. Smart’s proposed testimony consists of close interactions
over a nine-month period and cannot be characterized as superficial.
The United States contends that lay witness testimony is especially relevant in a case such
as the present case where a defendant may be malingering or manipulating the system.1
United States v. Birdsell, 775 F.2d 645, 650-51 (5th Cir. 1985); United States v. Gigante
, 925 F.
Supp. 967, 969-77 (E.D.N.Y. 1996);State v. Robertson
, 932 P.2d 1219, 1224 (Utah 1997).
These cases recognize that lay witnesses can provide valuable evidence in situations involving
malingering because the evidence provided by lay witnesses, who have more lengthy interactions
with the defendant in question, is often not the type of evidence that is available to reviewing
experts during their limited periods of observation.
Defendant claims that these cases are distinguishable from the instant case. Defendant
argues that unlike these cases, Ms. Smart will not be providing any new evidence because all of
the experts had access to transcripts of her interviews. But, the experts in this case, faced with a
defendant who would not participate, have all relied on collateral sources to varying degrees,
including Ms. Smart’s testimony. It will be valuable, as will be discussed more below, for the
court to assess whether the experts have properly characterized and used her testimony in their
Moreover, the import of these cases is that lay witnesses often have valuable evidence
because of the length of time they spend with the defendant. “It appears imminently reasonable
that the district court would rely on the observations of those witnesses in long-term daily contact
Defendant asserts that evidence cannot be “especially” relevant, it is relevant or it is
not. While Defendant chooses to attack the use of “especially,” the court finds this attack largely
one of semantics. The United States was not only responding to an attack of the evidence’s
relevance but one under Rule 403 as well. Rule 403, which focuses on the probative value of
relevant evidence, makes the court determine whether certain evidence is more probative than
prejudicial. When weighing such evidence under Rule 403, some evidence will be especially
probative. The court finds no basis for attacking the United States’ characterization of especially
probative evidence as especially relevant to the issues before the court.
with the patient rather than conclusions based on a relatively brief period of examination.”
, 775 F.2d at 650-51. Ms. Smart can provide testimony as to Defendant’s conduct over
the course of a nine-month period. That length of time is far more intensive that any of the
expert witnesses in this case.
In addition, the cases recognize that there can be a stark difference between the conduct
of a defendant in a day-to-day situation where there is little reason to believe one is being
evaluated and a formal interview being conducted for the sole purpose of evaluating the
defendant’s behavior. InRobertson
, the court noted that the defendant “showed a markedly
different speaking ability, depending upon whether he was being formally observed or merely
dealing with staff.” 932 P.2d at 1224. Thus, the court finds that Ms. Smart’s proposed testimony
is relevant to whether Defendant acted different on a day-today basis than he did in controlled
The United States also argues that a key issue in determining competency will be whether
Defendant is so preoccupied with his religious beliefs that he cannot make competent decisions.
Given Defendant’s refusal to participate fully in evaluations and his limited time in interviews
with the psychiatrists and psychologists, lay witness testimony is particularly relevant on this
issue. Ms. Smart can provide relevant testimony that will give the court a full picture of
Defendant’s day-to-day interactions her and whether he was preoccupied with religion. The
government represents that much of the proposed testimony from Ms. Smart relates to whether
Defendant was, in fact, preoccupied with his religious beliefs.
The court concludes that Ms. Smart’s proposed testimony is relevant to the issues
involved in the court’s determination of competency. Accordingly, the court finds no basis for
concluding that Ms. Smart’s proposed testimony should be excluded under Rule 401 standards.
B. FRE 403 – Probative Value versus Potential Prejudice
After making the determination that Ms. Smart’s proposed testimony is relevant to the
issues involved in determining competency, the court must then determine under Rule 403
whether the value of such testimony is outweighed “by the danger of unfair prejudice . . . or by
considerations of undue delay, waste of time, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence.”
Fed. R. Evid. 403.
Defendant first asserts that Ms. Smart’s observations relevant to Defendant’s existing
mental state have been incorporated into Dr. Welner’s comprehensive report and live testimony
as to those same undisputed facts is a waste of court time and a needless presentation of
cumulative evidence. Dr. Welner’s report outlines in detail the relevance of her testimony to
Defendant’s capacity and ability to understand the charges against him, and his ability to consult
with his attorneys and aid in his defense. The United States points out, however, that while
Defendant argues that her testimony should be excluded as cumulative because Dr. Welner’s
report summarizes the information, Defendant seeks in another motion before the court to
exclude Dr. Welner as a witness because his report does not fairly describe the information from
Live testimony developed through traditional direct and cross examination would
overcome any concerns about how Dr. Welner characterizes the factual evidence. In addition, to
the extent that Defendant questions the veracity of the testimony, given that it is based on events
from many years ago, live testimony will allow the court to hear from the witness firsthand to
determine credibility and the weight to properly accord such evidence. While acknowledging at
the hearing that Ms. Smart’s testimony has remained consistent in interviews spanning several
years, Defendant also appeared to question whether the testimony was fully consistent. And in
his reply memoranda, Defendant states “to the extent that her recollection of events has changed
in the intervening time.” Faced with such remarks, the court cannot conclude that her live
testimony is a waste of time or the needless presentation of cumulative evidence. Moreover,
Defendant’s claims that the evidence is undisputed are made when it is advantageous to his
arguments regarding cumulative evidence, but it is not consistent with many of his other
arguments throughout the brief and in other motions. The court, therefore, finds significant value
in being able to hear the underlying factual testimony so the court can evaluate how accurately
that testimony is characterized and used in the experts’ evaluations.
The defense’s strategy of appearing not to dispute the testimony not only appears less
than candid but it could raise issues later in the proceedings. If the court allows live testimony
and Defendant is given a full opportunity to cross examine such testimony, there can be no
question regarding the vetting of such evidence. Moreover, the general rule is that “the
prosecution is entitled to prove its case free from any defendant’s option to stipulate the evidence
away.”Old Chief v. United States,
519 U.S. 172, 189 (1997). Parties are traditionally allowed to
present their cases in the best manner they see fit. The court will not interfere with a party’s
strategy unless the court is assured that it presents prejudicial concerns. The court finds no such
concerns with the United States’ strategy to present live testimony. The United States
represented at the hearing that it intends to narrow down the witness list and to focus only on
issues pertinent in the competency context. If the evidence presented at the hearing becomes
cumulative or irrelevant to the competency decision, the court can limit the testimony at that
time. The court finds no basis at this time for restraining the Untied States’ strategy for
presenting its case.
Defendant also questions the probative value of lay witness testimony because the Tenth
Circuit has recognized that it may be “very difficult” for “untrained people” to recognize when
someone is suffering from a paranoid delusional system. “[A] defendant suffering from this
illness may outwardly act logically and consistently but nonetheless be unable to make decisions
on the basis of a realistic evaluation of his own best interests.”Cook v. Lafferty
, 949 F.2d 1546,
Cir. 1991). Other courts, however, have concluded that “objections to such lay
witness testimony relate more to weight than to admissibility.”People v. Medina
, 799 P.2d
1282, 1292-93 (Cal. 1990). Courts have recognized that
lay witnesses may testify upon observed symptoms of mental
disease, because mental illness is characterized by departures from
normal conduct. Normal conduct and abnormal conduct are
matters of common knowledge, and so lay persons may conclude
from observation that certain observed conduct is abnormal. Such
witnesses may testify only upon the basis of facts known to them.
They may testify as to their own observations and may then express
an opinion based upon those observations. Of course the testimony
of a lay witness with training in this or related fields may have
more value than the testimony of a witness with no such training.
Naples v. United States
, 344 F.2d 508, 515 (D.C. Cir. 1964).
, the defendant contended that the court erred in permitting the prosecutor to
elicit an opinion for a lay witness regarding the defendant’s mental state. 799 P.2d at 1292. The
lay witness was a deputy who had a conversation with the defendant at the county jail following
the defendant’s arrest.Id.
The conversation concerned the defendant’s housing situation and his
need for protective custody.Id.
The court found no error in the district court allowing the
deputy to give lay opinion testimony as to whether the defendant appeared to understand their
. The court found the challenged testimony was reasonably relevant to the
question of whether the defendant was presently able to communicate with his counsel.Id.
The court concludes that Defendant’s concerns regarding Ms. Smart’s testimony goes
more to the weight afforded the testimony, not its admissibility. “The finder of fact in a hearing
as to a defendant’s competency to stand trial is generally the sole judge of the credibility of
witnesses, and the weight to be given their testimony and other evidence. It is for the finder of
fact to resolve conflicts in the testimony of witnesses.” 21 Am. Jur. 2dCriminal Law
Defendant also argues that lay witnesses, such as Ms. Smart, should not provide live
testimony at the competency hearing because it is the expert witness’s job to sift through the raw
data and glean the important facts to the legal framework for determining competency.
Defendant states that neither counsel nor the court is professionally equipped through education
or experience to take raw facts from lay witnesses, determine the significance of those facts
within the mental health context, and apply the relevant facts to the question of Defendant’s
mental status. Defendant cites to no authority for this proposition and the argument is squarely at
odds with the court’s role in determining competency. The court acts as a finder of fact and
determines the weight to be given the testimony and other evidence.See
21 Am. Jur. 2d
§ 103 (2009). The court’s role in this regard includes expert testimony as well.
The court also has several procedural mechanisms at its disposal with respect to making the
ultimate determination regarding competency. InGigante
, the court made findings of fact
regarding lay witness testimony and ordered the experts to accept the findings as true and
reassess the defendant’s competency. 925 F. Supp. at 969-77. The court, therefore, finds no
merit in Defendant’s argument that live testimony from lay witnesses should be precluded based
on concerns regarding the court’s ability to apply such facts to the ultimate determination of
Defendant next contends that allowing Ms. Smart’s testimony on issues only tangentially
related to Defendant’s present competency could taint a future jury pool. In essence, Defendant
contends that the probative value of her testimony does not outweigh the potential prejudice of
influencing the jury pool. The case has received substantial media coverage, and the testimony
must be carefully circumscribed to address competency without diverging into sensationalistic
details or creating a trial within a trial on extraneous issues. Defendant asserts that the court’s
evaluation of the competency issue should not be sidetracked by extended testimony over the
facts of Defendant’s life and the specifics of the alleged crime.
The United States responds that a claim that pretrial publicity violates a defendant’s right
to a fair trial is usually only raised after the pre-trial publicity has occurred or it becomes
apparent during voir dire that publicity has tainted the jury pool.See Gardner v. Galetka
F.3d 862, 888 (10th
Cir. 2009). The Tenth Circuit has recognized that “‘pre-trial publicity in
topical criminal cases is inevitable.’”Id.
at 889 (citation omitted). The local trial of newsworthy
cases cannot become the exception rather than the rule.
Defendant does not articulate what proposed testimony he believes would taint the jury
pool. Thus any such prejudice can only be considered speculative at this point. Speculation
regarding potential prejudice is not an appropriate basis for excluding relevant evidence. The
court also cannot presume that prejudice will arise from conducting necessary proceedings in the
matter. Even if the court found concerns regarding prejudice warranted, the court could employ
other procedures to allay potential prejudice before it precluded relevant evidence from the
proceeding–such as sealing the proceedings. Tellingly, Defendant did not suggest alternatives to
precluding the testimony. Moreover, at any time during the hearing when the solicited testimony
appears to be seeking evidence that is more prejudicial than probative, defense counsel can object
and the court can restrict testimony on a per question basis rather than a blanket preclusion of
testimony. The court concludes that the jury pool concern is not a basis for finding all of the
proposed testimony more prejudicial than probative.
Although Defendant raises several concerns as to potential prejudice from the court
allowing Ms. Smart to testify at the competency hearing, the court finds no basis for concluding
that her testimony should be excluded on the grounds that its probative value is outweighed by
potential prejudice or considerations of undue delay, waste of time, or needless presentation of
cumulative evidence. This ruling is with respect to her ability to testify based on the general
descriptions of her proposed testimony as represented to the court by the United States.
Defendant, however, is not foreclosed from raising objections at the hearing with respect to
C. Rule 701
If the court allows Ms. Smart to testify, Defendant argues that her opinion testimony must
be carefully tailored.2
Rule 701 of the Federal Rules of Evidence governs opinions from lay
Neither party contends that Ms. Smart is an expert witness on any issue before the
witnesses. Rule 701 provides that lay witness testimony “in the form of opinions or inferences is
limited to those opinions or inferences which are (a) rationally based on the perception of the
witness, (b) helpful to a clear understanding of the witness’ testimony or the determination of a
fact in issue, and (c) not based on scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge within the
scope of Rule 702.” Fed. R. Evid. 701. Defendant attacks Ms. Smart’s ability to offer opinions
under each of these limitations.
Under subsection (a), Defendant cites toSmith
for the proposition that it is difficult for
lay testimony to be helpful as to the “lack of something.” But, unlike the lay witnesses inSmith
Ms. Smart’s testimony covers a nine-month period of time and her testimony is not confined to
how “normal” Defendant appeared. The United States has represented that Ms. Smart’s
testimony will cover several subjects, such as Defendant’s lack of religious focus, his
manipulation of others, and his ability to lie to make his conduct appear to conform with societal
norms when it was to his advantage. This type of testimony is not just testifying to “a lack of
something.” In addition, the court has already discussed the helpfulness of lay witness testimony
in a case where a defendant may be malingering.
Under subsection (b), Defendant argues that he does not believe the testimony would sort
out disputes or make clear a not-so-clear narrative. Defendant contends that Ms. Smart’s
testimony has not changed significantly and all of the experts have had the opportunity of looking
at her testimony. There is, however, a dispute between the expert’s in this case as to Defendant’s
competency. And, each of the experts use Ms. Smart’s to varying degrees in forming their
opinions. There are also questions regarding the expert’s use of Ms. Smart’s testimony. Because
of the dispute between the experts and the dispute regarding their use of her testimony, the court
finds that her live testimony would be helpful to the determination in issue.
Under subsection (c), Defendant argues that Ms. Smart cannot testify as to opinions that
are based on specialized knowledge or too close to the ultimate decision of competency. Rule
701 precludes lay opinions that are based on scientific, technical, or specialized knowledge. But
none of Ms. Smart’s proposed testimony suggests that she will be opining on anything other than
her lay observations. And, the United States represented at the hearing that Ms. Smart will
present mainly facts, with limited opinion testimony. Moreover, the United States has an expert
witness to opine as to mental diagnoses and other specialized matters. The court does not believe
there will be a significant issue with respect to Ms. Smart’s opinion testimony coming too close
to the ultimate issue, but, to the extent that the United States veers into this area while taking her
testimony, the matter can be dealt with during the specific questioning at the evidentiary hearing.
In conclusion, the court concludes that Ms. Smart’s proposed testimony is relevant to the
issues to be determined with respect to competency under Rule 401 and it is admissible at the
competency hearing under Rule 403. In addition, Ms. Smart can testify as to her opinions
consistent with Rule 701. Accordingly, the court denies Defendant’s Motion to Preclude the
Introduction of All Lay Witness Testimony as to the portion of the motion regarding Ms. Smart’s
Defendant acknowledges that even though he argues against the admission of any
lay witness testimony, as the victim in this case, the court may have more latitude in allowing
Ms. Smart to testify under the Crime Victims’ Rights Act. The Crime Victims’ Rights Act states
that the victim has the right “to be reasonably heard at any public proceeding in the district court
involving release, plea, sentencing or any parole proceeding,” but it does not include typical
evidentiary hearings such as competency hearing, motions to suppress, or trial. 18 U.S.C. §
3771(a)(4). This exclusion may have been a recognition that the victim’s testimony would
usually be allowed as relevant in these types of evidentiary hearings whereas it may be excluded
from more procedural hearings. Or it may be an acknowledgment that the admission of
Based on the above reasoning, Defendant’s Motion to Preclude the Introduction of All
Lay Witness Testimony is DENIED as to the portion of the motion regarding Ms. Smart’s
proposed testimony. Pursuant to the prior scheduling agreement between the parties, the
evidentiary hearing to take Ms. Smart’s testimony will be held Thursday, October 1, 2009, at
DATED this 28th day of September, 2009.
DALE A. KIMBALL
United States District Judge
testimony at such hearings would be governed more appropriately by the rules of evidence. In
any event, while the Act does not grant an affirmative right to be heard at a competency hearing,
the Act’s intent is to provide a victim with appropriate access to the proceedings and it dictates
that the victim has a right to be “treated with fairness.” Because the court finds Ms. Smart’s
testimony relevant and admissible under the Federal Rules of Evidence, the court need not
determine whether a competency hearing is the type of hearing at which the CVRA would allow
a victim to testify.
The Harry Blausey Case Continues... When will the State of Ohio Learn, A WCM Exclusive for The Associated Press
Western Capital Multimedia
September 25, 2009
For The Associated Press
(Nelsonville, Ohio) The Robert Paisola Innocence Project has just been notified that former Newark, Ohio Realtor, Harry Blausey has been placed in solitary confinement for "Accepting a Piece of Bread from another Inmate" Blausey, said in a letter to WCM and AP that "I was put in the Hole (Segregation) on Friday, Did not get my medications for three days, and my hearing aid was stolen"
Blausey, has been in custody for nearly a year, for "Providing False Writings" under Ohio Code. And has been the center of worldwide controversy over his abuse and treatment while under the custody of The Ohio Department of Corrections. He was allegedly following the advice and procedures from Real Estate Guru's Russ Whitney, Carlton Sheets and Donald Trump, among others, when charges were levied against him by Licking County Ohio Prosecutor Kenneth Oswalt, who stated "It is not so much what Mr. Blausey did, but what he did not do"
Calls to the institution warden, Francisco Pineda went unanswered, and we were told that "we would be receiving a personal call from Ohio Governor Ted Strickland, and that he is very aware of this matter" said David Lucas, a Representative for the Robert Paisola Foundation.
We will bring you more details on this story as it unfolds from The Hocking Correctional Facility in Nelsonville, Ohio
Copyright 2009 All Rights Reserved
Journalist, Jane Burgermeister, Files Charges against WHO and UN for Bioterrorism and Intent to Commit Mass Murder, Robert Paisola Reports Live- Video
We recommend that everyone reading this read the entire article in it's entirety.
Flu is not normal deadly - and you can't vaccinate against it all, anyway.
I am working with a guy right now who contracted swine flu (he AND his son) - they got the flu, felt liked crap, took treatment, (not vaccine), recovered & are both fine.
Listen to an Interview with Journalist Jane Burgermeister Live from Austria:
The Interview Continues to Part 2 Automatically...
For The Western Capital Foundation
Read about this in THE CANADA FREE PRESS
Read Here Also : Joseph Moshe (MOSSAD Microbiologist): “Swine flu vaccine is bioweapon”
This article was released to journalists around the world minutes ago from Rome Italy. We are going to reprint the entire article as we received it from Media Bistro and the World Health Organization . We will not water this down like you will see on the networks as they sit for hours trying to determine what to say. That is your job. We deliver the message, you decide. Let us be clear.. We are making no guarantees as to the accuracy of this report, however the data that was reviewed came up positive
Beginning of Article--
Journalist Files Charges against WHO and UN for Bio terrorism and Intent to Commit Mass Murder
by Barbara L. Minton,
As the anticipated July release date for Baxter's A/H1N1 flu pandemic vaccine approaches, an Austrian investigative journalist is warning the world that the greatest crime in the history of humanity is underway. Jane Burgermeister has recently filed criminal charges with the FBI against the World Health Organization (WHO), the United Nations (UN), and several of the highest ranking government and corporate officials concerning bio terrorism and attempts to commit mass murder. She has also prepared an injunction against forced vaccination which is being filed in America. These actions follow her charges filed in April against Baxter AG and Avir Green Hills Biotechnology of Austria for producing contaminated bird flu vaccine, alleging this was a deliberate act to cause and profit from a pandemic.
Summary of claims and allegations filed with FBI in Austria on June 10, 2009
In her charges, Burgermeister presents evidence of acts of bio terrorism that is in violation of U.S. law by a group operating within the U.S. under the direction of international bankers who control the Federal Reserve, as well as WHO, UN and NATO. This bio terrorism is for the purpose of carrying out a mass genocide against the U.S. population by use of a genetically engineered flu pandemic virus with the intent of causing death. This group has annexed high government offices in the U.S.
Specifically, evidence is presented that the defendants, Barack Obama, President of the U.S, David Nabarro, UN System Coordinator for Influenza, Margaret Chan, Director-General of WHO, Kathleen Sibelius, Secretary of Department of Health and Human Services, Janet Napolitano, Secretary of Department of Homeland Security, David de Rotschild, banker, David Rockefeller, banker, George Soros, banker, Werner Faymann, Chancellor of Austria, and Alois Stoger, Austrian Health Minister, among others, are part of this international corporate criminal syndicate which has developed, produced, stockpiled and employed biological weapons to eliminate the population of the U.S. and other countries for financial and political gain.
The charges contend that these defendants conspired with each other and others to devise, fund and participate in the final phase of the implementation of a covert international bio weapons program involving the pharmaceutical companies Baxter and Novartis. They did this by bioengineering and then releasing lethal biological agents, specifically the "bird flu" virus and the "swine flu virus" in order to have a pretext to implement a forced mass vaccination program which would be the means of administering a toxic biological agent to cause death and injury to the people of the U.S. This action is in direct violation of the Biological Weapons Anti-terrorism Act.
Burgermeister's charges include evidence that Baxter AG, Austrian subsidiary of Baxter International, deliberately sent out 72 kilos of live bird flu virus, supplied by the WHO in the winter of 2009 to 16 laboratories in four counties. She claims this evidence offers clear proof that the pharmaceutical companies and international government agencies themselves are actively engaged in producing, developing, manufacturing and distributing biological agents classified as the most deadly bioweapons on earth in order to trigger a pandemic and cause mass death.
In her April charges, she noted that Baxter's lab in Austria, one of the supposedly most secure bio security labs in the world, did not adhere to the most basic and essential steps to keep 72 kilos of a pathogen classified as a bio weapon secure and separate from all other substances under stringent bio security level regulations, but it allowed it to be mixed with the ordinary human flu virus and sent from its facilities in Orth in the Donau.
In February, when a staff member at Bio Test in the Czech Republic tested the material meant for candidate vaccines on ferrets, the ferrets died. This incident was not followed up by any investigation from the WHO, EU, or Austrian health authorities. There was no investigation of the content of the virus material, and there is no data on the genetic sequence of the virus released.
In answer to parliamentary questions on May 20th, the Austrian Health Minister, Alois Stoger, revealed that the incident had been handled not as a bio security lapse, as it should have been, but as an offense against the veterinary code. A veterinary doctor was sent to the lab for a brief inspection.
Burgermeister's dossier reveals that the release of the virus was to be an essential step for triggering a pandemic that would allow the WHO to declare a Level 6 Pandemic. She lists the laws and decrees that would allow the UN and WHO to take over the United States in the event of pandemic. In addition, legislation requiring compliance with mandatory vaccinations would be put into force in the U.S. under conditions of pandemic declaration.
She charges that the entire "swine flu" pandemic business is premised on a massive lie that there is no natural virus out there that poses a threat to the population. She presents evidence leading to the belief that the bird flu and swine flu viruses have, in fact, been bio engineered in laboratories using funding supplied by the WHO and other government agencies, among others. This "swine flu" is a hybrid of part swine flu, part human flu and part bird flu, something that can only come from laboratories according to many experts.
WHO's claim that this "swine flu" is spreading and a pandemic must be declared ignores the fundamental causes. The viruses that were released were created and released with the help of WHO, and WHO is overwhelmingly responsible for the pandemic in the first place. In addition, the symptoms of the supposed "swine flu" are indistinguishable from regular flu or from the common cold. The "swine flu" does not cause death anymore often than the regular flu causes death.
Burgermeister notes that the figures for deaths reported for the "swine flu" are inconsistent and there is no clarity as to how the number of "deaths" has been documented.
There is no pandemic potential unless mass vaccinations are carried out to weaponize the flu under the guise of protecting the population. There are reasonable grounds for believing that the mandatory vaccines will be purposely contaminated with diseases that are specifically designed to cause death.
Reference is made to a licensed Novartis bird flu vaccine that killed 21 homeless people in Poland in the summer of 2008 and had as its "primary outcome measure" an "adverse events rate", thereby meeting the U.S. government's own definition of a bio weapon (a biological agent designed to cause an adverse events rate, i.e death or injury) with a delivery system (injection).
She alleges that the same complex of international pharmaceutical companies and international government agencies that have developed and released pandemic material have positioned themselves to profit from triggering the pandemic with contracts to supply vaccines. Media controlled by the group that is engineering the "swine flu" agenda is spreading misinformation to lull the people of the U.S. into taking the dangerous vaccine.
The people of the U.S. will suffer substantial and irreparable harm and injury if they are forced to take this unproven vaccine without their consent in accordance with the Model State Emergency Health Powers Act, National Emergency Act, National Security Presidential Directive/NSPD 51, Homeland Security Presidential Directive/HSPD-20, and the International Partnership on Avian and Pandemic Influenza.
In the U.S. since 2008, Burgermeister charges that those named in her allegations have implemented new and/or accelerated the implementation of laws and regulations designed to strip the citizens of the U.S. of their lawful constitutional rights to refuse an injection. These people have created or allowed provisions to remain in place that make it a criminal act to refuse to take an injection against pandemic viruses. They have imposed other excessive and cruel penalties such as imprisonment and/or quarantine in FEMA camps while barring the citizens of the U.S. from claiming compensation from injury or death from the forced injections. This is in violation of the laws governing federal corruption and the abuse of office as well as of the Constitution and Bill of Rights. Through these actions, the named defendants have laid the groundwork for mass genocide.
Using the "swine flu" as a pretext, the defendants have preplanned the mass murder of the U.S. population by means of forced vaccination. They have installed an extensive network of FEMA concentration camps and identified mass grave sites, and they have been involved in devising and implementing a scheme to hand power over the U.S. to an international crime syndicate that uses the UN and WHO as a front for illegal racketeering influenced organized crime activities, in violation of the laws that govern treason.
She further charges that the complex of pharmaceutical companies consisting of Baxter, Novartis and Sanofi Aventis are part of a foreign-based dual purpose bio weapons program, financed by this international criminal syndicate and designed to implement mass murder to reduce the world's population by more than 5 billion people in the next ten years. Their plan is to spread terror to justify forcing people to give up their rights, and to force mass quarantine in FEMA camps. The houses, companies and farms and lands of those who are killed will be up for grabs by this syndicate.
By eliminating the population of North America, the international elite gain access to the region's natural resources such as water and undeveloped oil lands. And by eliminating the U.S. and its democratic constitution by subsuming it under a North American Union, the international crime group will have total control over North America.
Highlights from the complete dossier
The complete dossier of the June 10th action is a 69 page document presenting evidence to substantiate all charges. This includes:
Factual background that delineates time lines and facts that establish probable cause, UN and WHO definitions and roles, and history and incidents from the April, 2009 "swine flu" outbreak.
Evidence the "swine flu" vaccines are defined as bioweapons as delineates in government agencies and regulations classifying and restricting vaccines, and the fear of foreign countries that "swine flu" vaccines will be used for biological warfare.
Scientific evidence the "swine flu" virus is an artificial (genetic) virus.
Scientific evidence the "swine flu" was bio engineered to resemble the Spanish flu virus of 1918 including quotes from Swine Flu 2009 is Weaponized 1918 Spanish Flu by A. True Ott, Ph.D., N.D., and a Science Magazine report from Dr. Jeffrey Taubenberger
The genome sequence of the "swine flu"
Evidence of the deliberate release of the "swine flu" in Mexico
Evidence as to the involvement of President Obama that delineates his trip to Mexico which coincided with the recent "swine flu" outbreak and the death of several officials involved in his trip. Contention is made that the President was never tested for "swine flu" because he had been previously vaccinated.
Evidence as to the role of Baxter and WHO in producing and releasing pandemic virus material in Austria includes a statement from a Baxter official stating the accidentally distributed H5N1 in the Czech Republic was received from a WHO reference center. This includes delineation of evidence and allegations from Burgermeister's charges filed in April in Austria that are currently under investigation.
Evidence Baxter is an element in a covert bio weapons network
Evidence Baxter has deliberately contaminated vaccine material.
Evidence Novartis is using vaccines as bio weapons
Evidence as to WHO's role in the bio weapons program
Evidence as to WHO's manipulation of disease data in order to justify declaring a Pandemic Level 6 in order to seize control of the USA.
Evidence as to the FDA's role in covering up the bio weapons program
Evidence as to Canada's National Microbiology Lab's role in the bio weapons program.
Evidence of the involvement of scientists working for the UK's NIBSC, and the CDC in engineering the "swine flu".
Evidence vaccinations caused the Spanish killer flu of 1918 including belief of Dr. Jerry Tennant that the widespread use of aspirin during the winter that followed the end of World War I could have been a key factor contributing to the earlier pandemic by suppressing the immune system and lowering body temperatures, allowing the flu virus to multiply. Tamiflu and Relenza also lower body temperatures, and therefore can also be expected to contribute to the spread of a pandemic.
Evidence as to manipulation of the legal framework to allow mass murder with impunity.
Constitutional issues: the legality vs. illegality of jeopardizing the life, health and public good by mass vaccinations.
The issue of immunity and compensation as evidence of intent to commit a crime.
Evidence as to the existence of an international corporate crime syndicate.
Evidence of the existence of the "Illuminati".
Evidence as to the depopulation agenda of the Illuminati/Bilderbergs and their involvement in the engineering and release of the artificial "swine flu" virus.
Evidence that weaponized flu was discussed at the annual Bilderberg meeting in Athens from May 14-17, 2009, as part of their agenda of genocide, including a list of attendees who, according to a statement once made by Pierre Trudeau, view themselves as genetically superior to the rest of humanity.
Media is keeping Americans clueless about the threat they are under
Jane Burgermeister is a dual Irish/Austrian who has written for Nature, the British Medical Journal, and American Prospect. She is the European Correspondent of the Renewable Energy World website. She has written extensively about climate change, biotechnology, and the ecology.
In addition to the charges currently under investigation that she filed against Baxter AG and Avir Green Hills Biotechnology in April, she has filed charges against WHO and Baxter among others concerning a case of exploding "swine flu" vials meant for a research lab on a busy IC train in Switzerland.
In her view, control of the media by the ruling elite has allowed the world crime syndicate to further its agenda unabated while the rest of the people remain in the dark about what is really going on. Her charges are an attempt to get around this media control and bring the truth to light.
Her greatest concern is that "in spite of the fact Baxter has been caught red handed nearly triggering pandemic, they are also moving ahead, together with allied pharma companies, with supplying the vaccine for pandemics." Baxter is hurrying to get this vaccine to market some time in July.
For more information:
For more information:
___End of Release___
Western Capital Multimedia 2009
Influenza A. Terrorismo mediatico e gruppi di resistenza al vaccino
(WCM International Rome)- Mentre l'Organizzazione Mondiale della Sanita' decide sulla strategia da applicare per i vaccini di massa contro l'influenza A dopo aver inspiegabilmente innalzato il livello d'allarme per la pandemia da 5 a 6 nel mese di Maggio e mentre la giungla mediatica ripropone a raffica in tv, sui giornali il medesimo melodramma che racconta preventivamente della sciagura imminente, la comunita' di internet e' ormai in allerta.
Da diversi mesi, infatti, sta attuando la sua forza propagandistica per ostacolare questo vaccino che sembra avere tutte le sembianze di un ''terrorismo mediatico'' attutato a fini politici ed economici ai danni delle popolazioni mondiali.
L'ALLARME: Le proteste non sono nate da un popolo di visionari del web, ma dalle denunce di alcuni esponenti della comunita' medico-scientifica in primis della Dott.sa Jane Burgermeister del mese di Giugno e poi un articolo apparso sul Daily Mail che riferiva di una lettera intercettata e inviata dal Governo Inglese a 600 neurologi in cui si allertava la comunita' scientifica sulla probabilita' di riscontrare casi di Sindrome di Guillem-Barre' nelle persone vaccinate.
In realta' questo sintomo non e' un semplice sospetto, ma e' stato gia' riscontrato nel 1976 quando improvvisamente una influenza suina che semino' il panico nella popolazione anche grazie all'appoggio dei media, indusse numerose persone a vaccinarsi. Morirono piu' persone a causa del vaccino rispetto a quante ne morirono a causa della pandemia. In quell'anno pero' sfortunatamente le case farmaceutiche produttrici del vaccino non riuscirono ad incassare quanto avevano pronosticato perche' la Sindrome fu subito ricondotta alle sostanze di cui era composto il materiale vaccinico ed il Governo Americano fu costretto a rimborsare con milioni di dollari le persone colpite.
Molte sono le reazioni della comunita' scientifica che nel frattempo si e' divisa in due tronconi: da una parte coloro che appoggiano il vaccino e che lo descrivono come necessario al fine di bloccare una presunta ''pandemia'' lanciata dall'OMS e appoggiati anche dal mondo politico. Dall'altro invece medici, immunologi, neurologi, giornalisti medico-scientifici come la Burgermeister che parlano non solo di pericolo e di materiale vaccinico contaminato, ma di denunce contro il Governo Americano, contro la Bexter (azienda farmaceutica che ha prodotto il vaccino) e contro l'OMS. Secondo la Burgermeister anche in questo caso i fondi vengono dalla Rockefeller Foundation come avvenne negli anni '70 e nei primi anni '90 quando si vaccino' la popolazione delle Filippine cntro il ''tetano'' in realta' le categorie che furono vaccinate erano soltanto ''donne incinte'' che poi abortirono ispiegabilmente. Si scopri' poi che il vaccino conteneva l'ormone della gravidanza o hCG che produceva un effetto anticoncezionale. Dunque anche questo progetto di vaccinazone di massa fa parte di un unico progetto da analizzare nella storia delle vaccinazioni di massa e che fino ad oggi e' costato centinaia di milioni di dollari tutti derivanti dalla Rockefeller Foundation.
Nel frattempo Kathleen Sebelius ha firmato un decreto che garantisce l'immunita' giuridica alle case produttri del vaccino.
Perche' tutto questo? Si pronostica forse un'Apocalisse?
Sulla base di cio' sono nate numerosissime resistenze al vaccino in tutto il mondo sia da parte dei cittadini sia da parte della comunita' scientifica:
Resistenza Austriaca: la dott.sa Jane Burbermeiser che lavora come giornalisa in ambito medico scientifico ed ha collaborato per numerose testate scientifiche come ''The Scientist'', il ''Reuter's Healt'', il ''British Medical Journal'', ''Nature'', si e' impegnata a sporgere denuncia prima presso l'ambasciata statunitense a Vienna e poi all'FBI.
Resisenza Francese: Il Professor Debre' parla in un'intervista televisiva di un'influenza blanda e denuncia il governo di terrorismo mediatico per fini politici. Debre' e' Direttore del servizio di Urologia presso l'ospedale di Cochin, membro del comitato nazionale di etica e parlamentare francese.
Resistenza Italiana: Il Dottor Serravalle ha scritto un'aperta lettera ai genitori dando il suo parere di pediatra in merito al vaccino e raccomandando i genitori a non vaccinare i propri figli poiche' non solo il vaccino non e' stato testato e non si conoscono di specifico gli effetti collaterali sui bambini, ma poiche' ''gli antivirali possono dare a vlte effetti collaterali importanti. Il 18% dei bambini in eta' scolare del Regno Unito a ci e' stato somministrato l'Oseltamvir in occasione dell'epidemia, ha presentato sintomi neuropsichiatrici ed il 40% sintomi gastroenterici. Con lui si schiera anche l'Associazione Culturale dei Pediatri Italiani.
Composizione del vaccino. Quel che si sa e' che questo vaccino e' stato adiuvato con ''MS 59 un derivato dell'MF 59 della Chiron ideato per la Guerra del Golfo e modificato per l'influenza H5N1. Secondo alcuni esperti della sanita' i coadiuvanti fanno parte della nuova generazione di armi biologiche'' in quanto possono ''rompere la ''tolleranza'' cioe' la capacita' dei globuli bianchi di ignorare cio' che e' auto e attaccare cio' che e' straniero''. Quesa capacita' viene ostacolata dai coadiuvanti e il pericolo di una vera e propria autodistruzione sale poiche' viene messo in bilico il sistema immunitario del corpo umano. Fin dal 1930 l'utilizzo dei coadiuvanti a base di olio (MS 59) fu limitato alla ricerca sugli animali a causa dell'elevata pericolosita'.
Influenza stagionale: Sul sito del Ministero della Salute invece e' comparsa una circolare che informa sulla composizione del vaccino contro l'influenza stagionale 2009/2010. Il vaccino sara' trivalente come ogni anno, dunque proteggera' contro tre ceppi virali che si sono diffusi l'anno precedente, in questo modo si cerca di immunizzare contro eventuali modificazioni del virus. Come si legge nella circolare un antigene utilizzato e' analogo al ceppo A/BRISBANE/59/2007 (H1N1) e questo ci induce a pensare che qualora le persone decidano di non vaccinarsi contro l'influenza suina, saranno comunque immunizzati grazie al vaccino contro l'influenza stagionale. Non a caso Fazio, viceministro della salute, parla di evitare ''sovrapposizioni'' tra le due vaccinazioni.
Il piano del Governo: Il vaccino non e' stato sufficientemente testato e dunque sara' privo di ''bugiardno''. Questa e' la ragione per cui non sara' distribuito attraverso le farmacie. Il costo del vaccino sara' a carico del governo e sara' distribuito attraverso i medici di medicina generale, pediatrici e medici competenti. Il governo Italiano ha come obbiettvo quello di vaccinare da un minimo di 8,6 miloni di italiani fino a 24 milioni e poiche' ogni persna dovra' assumere due dosi di vaccino il Governo s e' impegnato ad acquistare un totale di 48 milioni di dosi. La campagna partira' il 15 Novembre ma, qualora il siero dverre raggiungere anticipatamente il mercato italiano, la campagna comincera' il 15 Ottobre.
Il piano Europeo: Il 12 Ottobre i ministri della sanita' UE si riuniranno in via straordinaria per fare il unto sull'influenza A, come riferisce il minstro svedese alla sanita', Maria Larsson. In particolare si decidera' su un accordo tra i vari paesi per dispensare il vaccino anche alle aree in via di sviluppo come l'Africa in quanto, la scarsita' delle risorse impedisce ai Governi africani di acquistare il vaccino o autoprodurlo come sta facendo l'India attravers 4 o 5 aziende locali.
L'obbiettivo dell'OMS e' quello di vaccinare un totale di 4,9 milioni di persone e la campagna di vaccinazione prevede due ondate: la prima che ha come obbiettivo quello di vaccinare almeno 2,5 miliardi di persone e la seconda invece a come obbiettivo quello di immunizzare almeno 2,4 miliardi di persone nel mondo.
Questa dunque e' una guerra combattuta semplicemene sulla base dell'informazione tra i media manipolati dai Governi che disseminano terrorismo e la comunita' scientifica che si sfoga su internet coivolgendo sempre piu' persone.