Mr McNiven, forgive me if I have not fully digested your message here. Before I continue I have a few questions and comments for you.
Mods, I apologize for the long quotes, but these are long sentances to address.
Originally posted by Timothy S. McNiven
I like to point out to people that US Attorney General John Ashcroft, who was one of the Lawsuit's Defendants, did not have me arrested, or
even questioned about my committing the US Federal Felony of impersonating a US Federal Agent when I testified before US Federal Court that, in fact,
I am a US Federal Agent for the US Defense Department.
You had stated that you were a cpl in the U.S. Army. It seems there is a progression of your career that I have missed. How did you rise to the
position of US Federal Agent?
Originally posted by Timothy S. McNiven
which makes my US Defense Department US Government 9-11-01 prior knowledge information- the only US Government 9-11-01 prior knowledge
information (that which has come from US Government Departments or Agencies), to be "Publicly Confirmed" to be true by the US Government.
No. Ashcroft's perceived affirmation that you are who you say you are, has
zero effect on the validity of your 9/11 information. It is
completely unrelated. The trial you reference also had nothing to do with 9/11.
Originally posted by Timothy S. McNiven
do you have a higher US Government legal opinion than the US Attorney General's Office, under US Attorney General John Ashcroft, on whether or not I
told the Truth when I Testified in US Federal Court, that in fact I am a US Federal Agent and a US Federal Law that gives you this higher US
Government legal opinion? Not one Democrat has answered this question or had any further contact with me.
No-one answers that question because the question is rather hollow. To what extent does Ashcroft's affirmation that you are an Agent provide his
affirmation of your 9/11 information? It is illogical.
You may quell this concern by providing a letter from Ashcroft stating his support of your 9/11 information, rather than stretches and
connotations.
Originally posted by Timothy S. McNiven
I have also been given the written support of the Canadian Government that what I say about the US Government 9-11-01 prior knowledge information is
true over
Originally posted by Timothy S. McNiven
it also has been given the written support of the Canadian Government through its highest military representative
This is what troubles me the most. You consider a letter from an assistant in McCallum's office as "written support of the Canadian government"
when quite clearly the assistant was simply acknowledging receipt of your letter and nothing more.
www.codenamegrillfire.com...
Originally posted by Timothy S. McNiven
Is the reason that Bush did not go after Mr.McCallum the way he went after the 'German woman Government Official' because he knew he would lose the
US Government's closest Military Ally, Canada, on the issue of US Government 9-11-01 prior knowledge information?
You speculate about the U.S. President "going after" Mr McCallum simply because of your letter? Pure fantasy.
Originally posted by Timothy S. McNiven
United States Defense Department Intelligence Investigative Office Supervisor to the Office of the Secretary of Defense,
Timothy S. McNiven
You stated you were a cpl. in the US Army. Then you stated to us you are a Federal Agent. And now your signature line. I am most confused, can you
be clear about who and what you are, and how that progressed?
Originally posted by Timothy S. McNiven
My website
I have looked at your website. Unfortunately the letter of 'support' from Gov. Ventura is an automated email response . . .
blurryone: 
