It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


VIDEO: FBI Shows Up At Protesters House And Asks Strange Questions! Must Watch!

page: 12
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in


posted on Jun, 12 2010 @ 07:31 PM
And where is the dress code? These two "FBI Agents" look like complete slackers to me.

posted on Jun, 12 2010 @ 07:32 PM
Well, this would appear to be real.

I'm not sure about the male officer, but Layne Brewster-Smith is a Police Officer at University of Texas at Austin according to this, and according to page four of this, she "was assigned to the Central
Texas Joint Terrorism Task Force (JTTF) in February 2008, becoming a liaison between UTPD and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI)"

So it would appear, assuming that this is the same woman, that this incident was legitimate, not a hoax, and not something we can second-guess, barring any additional evidence to the contrary. That said, I feel it's important to at least acknowledge that both officers were very courteous, respectful, and respectful of this woman's legal rights.

Now, do I feel it's right or good that the JTTF and/or the FBI show up at someone's door questioning any knowledge of the intent to cause harm to people or property, apparently predicated solely upon ostensibly peaceful protest activities? Absolutely not. At the same time however, I must bear in mind that when the FBI or other law enforcement receive tips or other information, whether accurate and full or not, that information must be investigated, even if only in a cursory fashion as in this incident.

I staunchly oppose any intrusion of government (or anyone else for that matter) into personal privacy, and certainly any government (or other) discouragement or interference with the right to peaceably assemble. However - at least in the footage we see here - in my opinion the officers were courteous, respectful, non-intrusive, and non-threatening. It does not appear that any of her civil rights were violated, unless there is more to this that we are not seeing, which is of course always possible.

Again, I'm not happy that this happened. I just have to try to be open-minded about the intent behind their "visit."

posted on Jun, 12 2010 @ 07:35 PM
reply to post by zysin5

I agree with you. This seemed staged to me too. For your convenience, here is my post on page 5

It looked staged to me too.
Too many things don't make sense in the video
To start with, this woman was very brazen, forward, and didn't mind taking up the supposed agents time. Well then, why didn't she verify their credentials by calling the FBI ?
She even printed in the video
"Rule #1: Check badges carefully"
So why didn't she call an FBI office to check their badges? They stated right at the start of the video they were ,"from right here in Austin".
She checked the badges sooooo carefully that she didn't even notice one of the 2 agents was not FBI but a US Marshal.

The video shows:
The supposed female agent is not FBI but a US Marshal (Layne Brewster-Smith Special Deputy US Marshal)
The USMS is the enforcement arm of the United States federal courts. U.S. Marshals protect court officers and buildings and ensure the effective operation of the judicial system. The US Marshals Service assists with court security and prisoner transport, serves arrest warrants and seeks fugitives.

If you notice in the video, they even have different badge styles.

Next I've noticed that this video must have been shot on a Friday, because the supposed FBI agents are so casually dressed. I didn't realize the FBI had Casual Friday??? Oh wait, one of the supposed agents weren't with the FBI which means 2 completely different portions of the government have Casual Friday

The lady likes throwing around the pointless fact that she has 5 kids. So what? What does that have to do with anything? Is she actually claiming that if you have kids, you can't commit a crime????

At one point in the video, the lady points the camera at the female agent and again says she is an FBI agent.. But wait according to rule #1, she would have CAREFULLY checked the female agents ID ??? Now obviously the written text would have been edited in later so why wouldn't she have noticed the fact that the person was not an FBI agent at some point? I did when I watched it 1 time. She probably spent hours reviewing the footage during the editing process yet not once did this fact come up??? Hmmm....

This woman has put so little thought into this video that she actually inserts the following text
"Rule #3: Pleading silence is a 1st amendment right, it does not mean you are hiding info".

In reality,
The fifth amendment protects witnesses from being forced to incriminate themselves. To "plead the Fifth" is to refuse to answer a question because the response could provide self-incriminating evidence of an illegal conduct punished by fines, penalties or forfeiture.[3]

If she plead the 1st Amendment,
The First Amendment (Amendment I) to the United States Constitution is part of the Bill of Rights. The amendment prohibits the making of any law "respecting an establishment of religion", impeding the free exercise of religion, infringing on the freedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of the press, interfering with the right to peaceably assemble or prohibiting the petitioning for a governmental redress of grievances.

Took 2 seconds to look up. She seems oh so passionate about this but can't put enough thought into it to check with WIKI before posting???? REALLY??

At another point, she asks what will happen if she pleads the right to remain silent. The supposed agent tells her nothing will happen and they'll leave.

At one point she inserts a picture of FBI agents with suspects that are not caucasion. She's trying to imply these people are innocent but being harassed or arrested by the FBI but she doesn't go on to explain the picture in any way so it's obvious the picture was inserted for effect and not context.

Another odd thing is that each of the 3 characters all have different accents. Just seems odd.

One of my favorite parts is when the supposed agent offers to sit down anytime she wants, "off the record" to talk to her. She's spouting her opinion on the record at her front door in front of 2 FBI...oops. 1 FBI and 1 Marshal...anyway... she doesn't have a problem chatting on the record so why didn't she ask to set something up off the record right then and there? To at the very least, call their bluff ???? This goes against the character she's showing on camera.

She follows them out to record their license plate. The one that doesn't have a federal ID on it. Almost like it was her brothers car or something???? again kinda strange.

Throughout the video and even at the end, she makes a big deal about KNOWING YOUR RIGHTS...yet she didn't know hers...again hmmmmm.

Based on the end of this video, I believe it to be faked to inflame the situation about the aid ships. My opinion is that this person has "the means justifies the end" mentality.

posted on Jun, 12 2010 @ 07:51 PM
This lady made one MAJOR mistake. Did you catch it?

It's right there, in the beginning of the video. Actually a little bit right before the video. Did you notice? Ok, I'll tell you:

She answered the door.

These guys were looking for information, and she gave it to them. Every single action you take in response to anything is information. Your body language, your tone of voice, even the wayyou plead the 5th - is information. They now have a better idea of how to handle her if they wanted to proceed with anything in the future.

The only way to give the lease amount of information is to not respond at all. Remember this - it may save you one day.

Now I will admit that this lady did have an alternative goal. She intended to make an example of these agents and prove a point. And that she did very well. But please, PLEASE, do not look at this video as the "correct way to handle FBI agents".

Of course, it is possible to be in a situation where you have to give at least some response. If she was outside watering her lawn, she would probably have to say something. But it should be brief and to the point, with the goal of getting away without looking too suspicious. She could simply state that she is extremely busy at the moment and cannot answer any questions. She could leave it at that and go inside, or perhaps tell them that she will contact them and ask if you can get their information (and of course never respond).

Remember, that is what you would do if you want to do what is best for you as an individual. It depends on what your goals are. If you actually want to prove a point or take a stand or "protest" as she has, then by all means, please do. But know that that is what you are doing. She knew what she was doing.

Perhaps your goal is to actually help the agents because you think they have your best interests in mind. Then do that! but here again, know that that is what you intend to do. But if you do decide to engage in any conversion, realize you will be giving them information, and ANY information you give them can and WILL be used against you.

For your particular goals, it might be good for you to just "blend in", and act like a concerned citizen. Maybe they will make a deal with you to be an "Insider" of your group, and then you can play double agent.

I'm just brainstorming here, but the main point stands: know what you are doing and why you are doing it, otherwise - SHUT UP AND GET OUT!

[edit on 12-6-2010 by TattarrattaT]

posted on Jun, 12 2010 @ 07:56 PM
I think the agents did a good job and were very nice------but they should have never been there in the first place. We need to separate the guys and gals just doing their jobs from the people who actually make the decisions.

But maybe someone did think she was a threat and called her in. I am torn on this issue. I found it weird she did not answer the simple question that was asked but yet wanted them to continue.

posted on Jun, 12 2010 @ 07:58 PM
reply to post by At0mZer0

I am anti- socialist/ communist.

I am not a fan of muslims.

I am pro- israel the way I am pro US. Mostly but not blindly.

I am also 100% behind this lady. The cops were nice, she was nice...the way it should be.

The fact they couldnt answer her questions about where she was when she was called in on is crap. If your being targeted, you need to know about where...

I guess that is turned loose in court....maybe.

posted on Jun, 12 2010 @ 08:11 PM
reply to post by zysin5

Incitement? Fear mongering?

International Solidarity Movement?

Good call and I feel like an ass for not catching this sooner. When my brain said "First ammendment? Thats the fifth!" I should have stopped.

star and virtual flag to you!

posted on Jun, 12 2010 @ 08:39 PM
Folks, The subject is the FBI showing up to a protesters home and asking questions, not each other. Stay on topic.

posted on Jun, 12 2010 @ 09:04 PM
reply to post by TattarrattaT

This lady made one MAJOR mistake. Did you catch it?

It's right there, in the beginning of the video. Actually a little bit right before the video. Did you notice? Ok, I'll tell you:

She answered the door.

You know... funny that you should say that. I live in an area where the jovies have a tendancy to come a knocking quite regularly. Had these two knocked on MY door... they would have never gotten a response. Basically because I don't normally answer my door for strangers or anyone unexpected. So if the FBI had wanted to interview me... they would have needed to send me a letter to set up a time and date to be interviewed... which is the way it has been done in the past.

posted on Jun, 12 2010 @ 09:07 PM
If anyone thinks that OP video is real they are insane. You see simple street cops illegally trying to stop people from video taping, and you think real FBI would be a couple goobers smiling for the camera and letting the lady control the convo?

If you want a conspiricy, why not look into why this lady is making fradulent videos about "government oppression of her cause" then look at what it's like in the UK after the muslums used these tacticts for a decade.

I'd warn you not to fall for this b.s

I think on Monday I'll call the Huston FBI office and request to speak to these two officers. When they don't exist I'll post my findings on here.

posted on Jun, 12 2010 @ 09:10 PM
reply to post by At0mZer0

The FBI Agents were very polite and reasonable. They told her more than once it was not about the protest and at first explained it was about a call they had received. She tried to divert attention from that fact, so she did not really help her own case.

For all you, me or anyone else knows, she may well have information about somebody who is planning a violent protest. We don't know and she refused to answer. If it were me and I had no information, I would have answered immediately that I did not know, removing the doubt. The way she handled it was in the same manner as somebody who did have information would.

The most interesting part of all of this is how various people react. Some totally ignoring the fact they told her it was not about the protest and that they revealed they had had a call about her. Others labeling what may well be some very decent people wrongly, simply because they were responding to a call about her.

I can only go with what I've learned in my lifetime observing people and in this case, her hesitation and how she answered would lead me to think she actually had the information they wanted. If she did, she is not a peaceful protester and it is her who is the bad guy in the picture, not the FBI.

The way she kept talking about her being a Mother bothered me also. That was not genuine. Her tone was all wrong. She wielded her children like a weapon.

Since the FBI did nothing wrong and since she was accusatory and defensive out of the gate, I'll have to side with the FBI on this one.

We all know that some of the people who are fanatical about defending Hamas are in fact violent themselves. There is justification for the authorities to have concern about some of the activists.

I'm also somewhat biased I admit. In my youth, I was a Vietnam War protester. We had nothing but problems with fake peace activists like the Weather Underground bunch. They were all about violence and destruction while lying about wanting peace. The end goal of the Weather Underground was actually the violent overthrow of the US Government. None of us wanted anything to do those fakes.

On top of that, anyone I ever knew who was even bothered by the authorities deserved it. Hell half of them did not even know what they were protesting. They just got off on causing trouble. I think that's true of many protests. These people are easy to spot. They always do things like vandalizing property, harassing innocent people walking down the street and throwing things. It's the same now. Even worse with this Gaza issue. Gaza is just convenient.

Anyway, she did herself no favors with that video. The only reason to invoke rights is if you have information about a crime or have committed one yourself. But mostly it was the accusatory way she dealt with them, exposing her bias towards them. Only question is, was it bias or guilt?

posted on Jun, 12 2010 @ 09:15 PM
reply to post by felonius

I don't think that is exactly right. If she is violent or planning acts of violence and she finds out who called; who is to say she won't hurt the person who reported her? Would it not then be the Agents fault for telling her? Did they not do the right thing in protecting their source?

posted on Jun, 12 2010 @ 09:18 PM

Originally posted by richierich
To answer your question: The agents were not investigating anything. They were there to let the lady know that if she dared to protest againt anything that Israel does not approve of, she risks being targeted by the government.

That is a bit of a ridiculous assumption. The government has neither the resources nor the manpower to go door-to-door intimidating every protester they do not agree with.

posted on Jun, 12 2010 @ 09:29 PM

Originally posted by Blaine91555For all you, me or anyone else knows, she may well have information about somebody who is planning a violent protest...The way she handled it was in the same manner as somebody who did have information would...her hesitation and how she answered would lead me to think she actually had the information they wanted.

Not necessarily. Though she does spend a lot of time trying to deflect and change the subject, it may not be because she has anything to hide. She may have just been trying to stonewall and frustrate the investigators.

Originally posted by Blaine91555
The way she kept talking about her being a Mother bothered me also. That was not genuine. Her tone was all wrong. She wielded her children like a weapon.

And her position. Though her constant references to her mother and her job were not for the investigator's benefit; that was to provoke sympathy in whomever watches the video, trying to instantly cast the investigators as bad guys.

Again, I don't think she has any intentions to harm anyone. I think she was just trying to use the incident to score political points and generate sympathy for her cause.

posted on Jun, 12 2010 @ 09:29 PM
reply to post by Blaine91555

The way she kept talking about her being a Mother bothered me also. That was not genuine. Her tone was all wrong. She wielded her children like a weapon.

I wouldn't use the term weapon... but I would use the term SHIELD. Like when a man hides behind a woman's skirt... this woman apparently likes to hide behind a diaper.

posted on Jun, 12 2010 @ 09:34 PM

Originally posted by babybunnies
Why bother with expensive, labout intensive, time consuming surveillance when you can simply go up to terrorists and ask "please tell me what you're planning".

I'm sure a real terrorist would be happly to oblige [/end sarcasm].

A lot of people have been making the same point. However, asking her if she was involved or planning any violent activity, even in such a nonchalant manner, is not stupid in the least. When law enforcement asks questions such as that, the person's answer is not important. What they want to is to gauge to person's reaction.

posted on Jun, 12 2010 @ 09:34 PM
reply to post by DoomsdayRex

Good points. Hard to tell. All anyone can do is go with gut feelings.

posted on Jun, 12 2010 @ 09:38 PM
reply to post by Hedera Helix

Yes that is a better word for it. I don't know, it just bothered me.

Nobody in the video did anything wrong on either side. Perhaps all that matters is why she posted it and the motivation behind that. If it's to make people hate good cops, she fails miserably in my book.

posted on Jun, 12 2010 @ 09:41 PM

Originally posted by Blaine91555
Good points. Hard to tell. All anyone can do is go with gut feelings.

Why she was visited by the investigators and the nature of the call are anyone's guess. It could be she crossed the wrong person, it could be she's passionate though a bit abrasive and that rubbed someone the wrong way, or it could have been out of a legitimate concern. Whatever the case may be, my gut-instinct is that she is innocent.

My gut instinct also tells me she allows her passion to over-ride her good sense. In her mind, no matter why the FBI was there, they were the bad guys there to harass her for her views. And given chance to confront who she perceives as her enemy, she was going to stick it to them as best as she could.

[edit on 12-6-2010 by DoomsdayRex]

posted on Jun, 12 2010 @ 09:43 PM
reply to post by DoomsdayRex

I would think that invoking the 5th may have told them a lot. If they work on percentages, I'm sure most people who invoke the 5th are guilty of something.

The FBI has always struck me as different. They seem to go by the book, period end of subject. Very polite.

top topics

<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in