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.


Indiana prosecutor told Wisconsin governor to stage 'false flag' operation

page: 11
<< 8  9  10   >>

log in


posted on Mar, 26 2011 @ 12:17 PM

Originally posted by crimvelvet
reply to post by empireoflizards

Could there have been other false flags that actually were successfully carried out?


G. Edward Griffin discusses them in these two PDFs. They are well worth the read.

Part 3: Days of Infamy:
Part 4: The War on Terrorism:

You can find the rest of the links to the first two PDFs and other info here:

Thanks for the links! I think it is very important to not only study individual cases for illegal activities by those in power (suspected or proven), but to also understand the history and mechanism of the how the power structure works. This is important for staying grounded when trying to debate those who are always trying to debunk the possible reality of any 'false flags' or other 'conspiracy theories'. It seems that there really is enough documented information out there to build strong just takes some digging.

posted on Mar, 26 2011 @ 01:12 PM

Originally posted by dragonridr
reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler

Hes a lawyer what do you expect.Lawyers are all ways looking for ways around things legal or otherwise its the way they think.

Most lawyers are very ethical people who are NOT going to circumvent laws. There are some lawyers who will do anything to make a commission -- sure.

But the ONLY recourse you have against the government, the Law, or a corporation is a Lawyer. That is your ONLY legal recourse. A necessary evil or an ally.

posted on Mar, 26 2011 @ 06:20 PM
reply to post by TheImmaculateD1

A GOP AG was caught red handed trying to stage a terrorist attack. The ConserviBagger Dictatorship, driven by racism and hate.

You might want to remember two famous quotes:

The urge to save humanity is almost always only a false-face for the urge to rule it. --H. L. Mencken

On April 1887, Sir John Dalberg-Acton made his famous pronouncement:

"I cannot accept your canon that we are to judge Pope and King unlike other men with a favourable presumption that they did no wrong. If there is any presumption, it is the other way, against the holders of power, increasing as the power increases. Historic responsibility has to make up for the want of legal responsibility. All power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men, even when they exercise influence and not authority: still more when you superadd the tendency or certainty of corruption by full authority. There is no worse heresy than that the office sanctifies the holder of it."

Very, Very few politicians are honest and honorable.

Here are two that I admire:
Congressman Louis McFadden (Republican) and Congressman Wright Patman (Democrat)

Instead of blindly supporting bankster funded puppets because they belong to "your team" aka political party, I suggest looking at what the individual actually says and does.

This country is in the mess it is in because the elite who are intent in destroying it understand how to use divide and conquer. Most of the politicians from BOTH parties are bought and paid for by the banksters who also own the news media, unions...

They are spending it [Wealth stolen from us] to acquire control over the power centers of society. The power centers are those groups and institutions through which individuals live and act and rely on for their information. They are literally buying up the world but not the real estate and the hardware, they're buying control over the organizations, the groups and institutions that control people. In other words, to be specific, they are buying control over politicians, political parties, television networks, cable networks, newspapers, magazines, publishing houses, wire services, motion picture studios, universities, labor unions, church organizations, trade associations, tax-exempt foundations, multi-national corporations, boy scouts, girl scouts, you name it. Make your own list of organizations and you will find that this is where those people have been for many decades spending this river of wealth to acquire operational control particularly over those institutions and individuals, those organizations that represent opposition to themselves. That's a critical area for expenditure on their part.

edit on 26-3-2011 by crimvelvet because: Added last paragraph

posted on Mar, 26 2011 @ 06:25 PM
reply to post by VitriolAndAngst

Lawyers are not ethical people at all. They support the fact they have their own language, to justify their existance. If lawyers didnt have their own language they would be irrelevant, and people could defend themselves without hiring them, charging crazy fees. I am talking charging weeks worth of pay for a few hours of their time, and that is just traffic court. I am willing to bet hiring a lawyer for criminal defense will cost the average person months of pay. Screw lawyers.

posted on Mar, 26 2011 @ 08:50 PM
reply to post by TKDRL

Lawyers are not ethical people at all....

I think lawyers serving in public office is a conflict of interest. Lawyers should be barred from ever being part of a legislative body.

I think it was Walter Mondale, who after leaving politics become a businessman. He said if he had understood what all those regulations did to a business, he would never have voted for them.

posted on Mar, 26 2011 @ 10:22 PM
reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler

Fantastic point. Thanks for giving me a bit more faith.
edit on 26-3-2011 by Chindogu because: (no reason given)

posted on Mar, 27 2011 @ 08:58 AM
not in the least bit surprised, which is sad

I also think that we will see an even larger number of such behind the curtain activities to magnify the threat of homegrown militias and anti-govt. activists

From the MIAC report to the TSA to the patriot act.......
It all falls under the same umbrella

posted on Mar, 27 2011 @ 09:21 AM
reply to post by ModernAcademia

Well here is another revalation coming out of the ongoing battle in Wisconsin where a judge issued a restraining order on the Secretary of State not to publish the new law until a pending court case was ruled on but the Records and Publishing Office of the State published it and put the law on it's website anyway.

In the appeal, Van Hollen argues that Sumi has no jurisdiction over state lawmakers or Wisconsin's secretary of state, all of whom have sovereign immunity. Sumi's order bars La Follette from publishing the new law.

Those on the site who follow and know about Freeman on the Land principles will find this snippette particuarly interesting as the Wisconsin Secretary of State clearly states that lawmakers have Soverieng Immunity, and are not actually bound by the Court's rulings!

Originally prior to the modified 13th Amendment altered in the aftermath of the Civil War and then the new 14th Amendment quickly added we were all Sovereign Citizens.

After those two amendments to the Constitution we were made incorporated citizens of the States we live in (state property) and the States incorporated under the Territory of Washington DC.

However it appears from this statement that Lawmakers have managed to retain the Soveriegn Citizen status that they stripped from us when 'freeing the slaves'.

posted on Mar, 27 2011 @ 09:57 AM
reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler

They sure do thumb their noses at us. What was it....power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely, or something like that.

A very interesting read about the corruption of power in this country. I remember as far back as Richard Nixon who wanted more power than was granted to him, and ended up abusing his power. Unfortunately, for our country, the lesson some people learned from Nixon was to continue that power grab with dirty tricks and abuse.

posted on Mar, 27 2011 @ 09:53 PM
reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler

Well here is another revalation coming out of the ongoing battle in Wisconsin where a judge issued a restraining order on the Secretary of State not to publish the new law until a pending court case was ruled on but the Records and Publishing Office of the State published it and put the law on it's website anyway.

Interesting you bring this up.

Let me give you a bit of background on her.
First, she is a Circuit Court judge, presiding over civil matters, meaning, the majority of her day she listens to speeders, red light runners, parents of truant students, etc.

But wait, there's more than that to her.

Here's a snippet form a talk she gave, entitled:
“Judicial Decision Making: Activism or Accountability?”

She will begin with a brief overview of what a circuit court judge does, and then discuss decision making and the values associated with it--including Jewish values. Temple Beth El and Jewish Social Services of Madison affectionately host and co-sponsor this event. A light brunch follows the lecture.


But, the best for last.

Judge Maryann Sumi's son, is a political operative who also happens to be a former lead field manager with the AFL-CIO and data manager for the SEIU State Council.

Jacob “Jake” Sinderbrand runs a company called Left Field Strategies, a firm that works on political campaigns.
From his bio on his company's website:

A lifelong political activist, Jake Sinderbrand got his start as a volunteer doorknocker, and has years of experience training both volunteers and canvassing staff. Jake graduated from Macalester College cum laude with a degree in political science, specializing in American political structures.
He has developed his professional political experience serving as a lead field manager with the AFL-CIO and as data manager for the SEIU State Council through the 2008 election cycle.
Jake’s expertise in canvass planning and turf strategy helped these organizations to have among the most successful field operations in Minnesota.

Oddly, his website has disappeared, but screenshots remain.
Link to screenshot

Link to article

I'll let the rest of you connect the dots.

posted on Mar, 28 2011 @ 07:44 AM
DOES the Governor fall into Terrorist category?????///.......after all he caused terror and fear on the people that was just the observer,,,,and was in an allegedly plot against himself?????/..........HOW many po;itical conspirators are there?????

posted on Mar, 28 2011 @ 08:28 AM
reply to post by TKDRL

Lawyers are not ethical people at all.

AMEN to that.

Anyone who thinks lawyers are ethical and hard working has watched too many "Perry Mason" reruns and never had to actually deal with a lawyer.

In dealing with my Father's estate, his lawyer "lost" the will allowing the other heir to steal everything just about everything. When I found and confronted him with a copy of the will with a handwritten note on the envelope stating the will was in his safe he produced it within minutes!

I went through FIVE lawyers trying to find one who was not suborned! Meanwhile most of the stuff was stolen and sold by the other heir, he even tried to sell the house! All the stocks, bonds, bank accounts, the car were taken since Dad and son had the same name. All was moved out of state which was completely against the law of the state until the estate was settled.

My Ex-brother BRAGGED about pulling the same stunt upon the death of at least seven other relatives and the opposing lawyers DID NOTHING! When a Spouse dies you get 1/2 of the estate but he literally showed up at the grieving spouses' homes and loaded up the goodies AND forced them to open safe deposit boxes so he could clean them out!

I have dealt with lawyers on several other issues and only found TWO decent ones.

WE were badly conned by the Brock and Scott law firm. So were numerous others. A paralegal told me what we went through was common practice at her law office too.

...While employed as a non-lawyer at Brock & Scott, respondent conducted real estate closings without an attorney being present. Respondent signed his own name to the documents associated with the real estate closings. After conducting the closings, it was respondent’s practice to have other employees of the firm sign as witness and/or notary on the documents even though they were not present at the closings. Respondent conducted some closings when there was no licensed South Carolina attorney on the premises. Respondent routinely signed as witness and notary to documents relating to closings at which he was not present....

What is not mentioned is the Mortgage Contract you signed is NOT the contract you end up with. We signed a fixed rate mortgage. The law clerk went to make "copies" in another room and the Adjustable Rate box was mysteriously checked on the copy we were handed. It had been blank originally, I know because I checked.

We had agreed to a much higher fixed rate so we would NOT have an Adjustable, Instead we got stuck with BOTH! Now thanks to that we are always near foreclosure.

The law is always on the side of the guy with big bucks. Lawyers do as little work as possible, "going through the motions" if you are a "little guy" and can't pay the big bucks.

posted on Mar, 28 2011 @ 08:34 AM
reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler

I htink I posted this else where but here it is again:

About "sovereign immunity"

May, 2001

With its decisions in Seminole Tribe v. Florida 1 and Alden v. Maine, 2 the Supreme Court has tremendously broadened the immunity that states enjoy from suits brought by private individuals. In Seminole Tribe, the Court held that a state may not be sued in federal court for violations of the federal Indian Gaming Regulatory Act. 3 In Alden, the Court held that a state may not be sued in its own courts for violations of the federal Fair Labor Standards Act. 4 In both instances, Congress had expressly declared its intention to make the states subject to suit by private parties. Taken together, these decisions thus establish the remarkable proposition that states may violate federal statutes yet not be held accountable in any court of law. 5

State immunity from suit has been a controversial doctrine in the United States since the Founding. Indeed, the doctrine was initially repudiated by the Supreme Court in the early days of the Republic, in Chisholm v. Georgia... SOURCE

posted on Mar, 29 2011 @ 12:19 AM
reply to post by crimvelvet

WE THE PEOPLE have the ultimate say on what laws are valid. TPTB has tried to take that power away by cover-ups and keeping us ignorant.
I am talking about TRIAL by JURY.
There is a reason we now see only judges trying cases. T
There is a reason why jurors are never told about their Constitutional rights and duties.
There is a reason laws are written in such a way that a person is denied the right to a trial before a jury, even though it is unconstitutional.
A Jury has the RIGHT to judge both the law and the facts

I am glad that you got to this.
I am trying to diligently make it through the information in this thread and then, umm.....

I think it was jdub(numbers) said that we do not have the right to judge the law, and I started having a miniature panic attack inside my own head.
And the whole instructions to the jury thing is all smoke and mirrors.
It is a big scam. Some call it behavior modification.
The court wants you to find the person guilty because the charges are not criminal, for the most part...

They are code violations. They are "commercial charges".
They always carry a fine and never have a victim.

If there is no victim it is not a crime.
It is a code violation.
They dress it up like a crime.
And make you do the time, but if no victim is present then it is a code violation.
It's like, I want to repeat that over and over to try and break the programming.

That is how deeply saturated with amoral slugs we are within our government.

TPTB, or heck, just plain old psychos like this guy have been trying to take the power out of the hands of the middle class since its birth in the 50's and 60's.
The middle class is what makes America, America.
We lose the middle class, then we lose our country.

A juror has the most powerful vote in the land.
Juries were designed to hear lawsuits brought to them.
Someone posted, maybe in this thread, that Sheriffs and Juries are our only hope and that is 100% spot on the money.

Juries can decide however they wish.
On whatever they wish and no one can change any of that. Ever.

No is still up to the individual juror.

No legislation. The legislation is on trial as well, but they will not tell you that.

Sorry to rant.

I will finish now.

Good post Crimvelvet.
edit on 3/29/2011 by Josephus23 because: (no reason given)

posted on Mar, 29 2011 @ 12:30 AM
reply to post by Josephus23

....The court wants you to find the person guilty because the charges are not criminal, for the most part...

They are code violations. They are "commercial charges".
They always carry a fine and never have a victim.

If there is no victim it is not a crime.
It is a code violation.
They dress it up like a crime.
And make you do the time, but if no victim is present then it is a code violation.
It's like, I want to repeat that over and over to try and break the programming.

I have posted this a couple times before but it is the MOST IMPORTANT bit of information for protecting our freedom so I will post it again:

We have a RIGHT to a trial by jury in criminal matters or in civil matters over $20. Jurors have the RIGHT to NULLIFY laws. That is what "case law" is all about.

Case Law (n) Case Law is the decisions, interpretations made by judges while deciding on the legal issues before them which are considered as the common law or as an aid for interpretation of a law in subsequent cases with similar conditions. Case laws are used by advocates to support their views to favor their clients and also it influence the decision of the judges

Notice in this "legal" definition they LIE. It is not SUPPOSED TO BE "the decisions, interpretations made by judges' it is SUPPOSED TO BE decisions by a JURY!

“The trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State, where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.” -- Constitution for the United States of America, Article III, Section 2, Paragraph [3]

Trial by Jury, almost hidden away in the Constitution of the United State is one of the most precious freedoms that Americans possess.

The saving grace of William Penn’s trial was to establish a critical precedence, whereby jurors could act on the basis of their conscience. It is a precedence which in modern day is sorely needed, when public opinion, law enforcement agencies, and the Courts themselves heavily influence the deliberations of juries to the point of denying justice. [This has been particularly true in cases where there is a great deal of publicity, there is a serious Scapegoatology atmosphere running about, and where law-enforcement agencies, courts, and governments are seeking new ways to extend their power.]

“It is not only his right, but his duty... to find the verdict according to his own best understanding, judgment, and conscience, though in direct opposition to the direction of the court.” -- John Adams

John Adams words are fundamentally important in that every member of every jury must know they have an inalienable right to IGNORE Court-directed verdicts, public opinion, and/or the letter of the law (however interpreted by law enforcement agencies), as well as to be allowed to search for the truth in their deliberations.

No judge should dissuade or deny a juror’s right to obtain the truth in whatever way the juror determines.

This search for the truth and the decisions reached thereby must include:

1) The jury having full access to what any member of the jury considers relevant to the case (i.e. not being denied access by the Court, media, or any other source);

2) The jury being given the respect of being able to discern for themselves between rumor, conjecture, fact, and legitimate evidence, and

3) The jury taking on the responsibility for and being allowed to ask questions, doing independent research, and whatever else the jury decides to do (in it’s infinite wisdom) in order to discover, to the best of its ability, the underlying truth of any court case. The jury should not be limited by only what the Court “allows” into evidence or what the Court “decides” the jury should hear.

Every jury must stand up for their rights on the basis of Common Law (and/or the Constitution, Magna Carta, and other documents of liberty), as was the case in William Penn’s trial. They must actively pursue learning the truth, and then they must use their discernment to make their ultimate choice(s)

Do you want to know just how POWERFUL this right is????

First National Bank of Montgomery vs. Daly (1969)

Defendant Jerome Daly opposed the bank's foreclosure on his $14,000 home mortgage loan on the ground that there was no consideration for the loan. "Consideration" ("the thing exchanged") is an essential element of a contract. Daly, an attorney representing himself, argued that the bank had put up no real money for his loan. The courtroom proceedings were recorded by Associate Justice Bill Drexler, whose chief role, he said, was to keep order in a highly charged courtroom where the attorneys were threatening a fist fight. Drexler hadn't given much credence to the theory of the defense, until Mr. Morgan, the bank's president, took the stand. To everyone's surprise, Morgan admitted that the bank routinely created money "out of thin air" for its loans, and that this was standard banking practice. "It sounds like fraud to me," intoned Presiding Justice Martin Mahoney amid nods from the jurors. In his court memorandum, Justice Mahoney stated:

Plaintiff admitted that it, in combination with the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis, . . . did create the entire $14,000.00 in money and credit upon its own books by bookkeeping entry. That this was the consideration used to support the Note dated May 8, 1964 and the Mortgage of the same date. The money and credit first came into existence when they created it. Mr. Morgan admitted that no United States Law or Statute existed which gave him the right to do this. A lawful consideration must exist and be tendered to support the Note.

The court rejected the bank's claim for foreclosure, and the defendant kept his house. To Daly, the implications were enormous. If bankers were indeed extending credit without consideration – without backing their loans with money they actually had in their vaults and were entitled to lend – a decision declaring their loans void could topple the power base of the world....

Justice Mahoney, who was not dependent on campaign financing or hamstrung by precedent, went so far as to threaten to prosecute and expose the bank.

He died less than six months after the trial, in a mysterious accident that appeared to involve poisoning.

THAT folks is just how powerful case law is and show TPTB are scared to death of case law. That is why they killed Justice Mahoney.

The fully informed jury movement:

FIJA seeks to require that juries be informed of their nullification rights. Informed jury amendments have been filed as an initiative in seven states and legislation has been introduced in the Alaska state legislature.

...the right of juries to judge both the law and the facts -- to nullify the law if it chose -- became part of British constitutional law.

It ultimately became part of American constitutional law as well, but you'd never know it listening to jury instructions today almost anywhere in the country....

Now a remarkable coalition has sprung up to challenge this secrecy as undemocratic, unconstitutional and dangerous. Though organized by libertarian activists, the Fully Informed Jury Amendment movement includes liberals and conservatives...

...many groups in this country feel the government has overstepped its power in some way and that there must be protection for the natural rights of American citizens. They are defending not only the right to protest or carry a gun or not wear seatbelts but challenging the right of the government to decide such matters without the mediating effect of a jury's judgement of fairness in a particular case.

Another weapon, one every single one of us should be pushing for, is state law allowing voters to recall federal Senators and Representatives as well as state officials.
Recall Congress Now Org

However this will be a bitterly fought battle. The last thing TPTB wants is their pet legislators worried about what the voters want instead of what they have been bribed to do.

While 18 of the 50 United States offer their citizens an opportunity to recall their elected officials, it is a fact that in our nation’s history, no federal legislator has yet been recalled.

It has not been for lack of interest. Rather, the process has languished in part due to debates on whether or not legal authority exists for recall of U.S. Senators and Congressmen; and, in the case of Idaho, interference by a state court prevented recall of a federal legislator....

After reviewing the body of law and opinion concerning recall, it is apparent that if recall of federal legislators is to succeed, it will likely only be after an intense battle in the federal court system as to the degree to which the courts will go to allow the literal meaning of the Tenth Amendment to be in force and effect.

As this author reads this language, it appears clear that " the States ‘ and " the people " living with in them, should be recognized to have the right of recall.

But in order to implement a strategy that will enable recall petitions to result in actual removal of errant Senators and Congressmen, considerable legal and political obstacles will present themselves and can only be overcome by understanding the lengths to which those opposed to recall can be expected to go...

Eighteen states have recall provisions. Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Georgia, Idaho, Kansas, Louisiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Montana, Nevada, New Jersey, North Dakota, Oregon, Rhode Island, Washington, and Wisconsin all have recall of some kind available to their voters. Only seven of these states require any grounds.

Judges: Appointed vs elected? That is another question we as voters need to think very very carefully about.

posted on Mar, 29 2011 @ 12:43 AM
reply to post by crimvelvet

Judges: Appointed vs elected? That is another question we as voters need to think very very carefully about.

I totally think that they should be elected.

That is the same reason that I understand why sheriffs are the only body in the state that is actually able to enforce the law.
Every other law enforcement agency can only temporarily detain a person.
Because sheriffs, who hire and are responsible for all deputy sheriffs, are elected officials.

They have more power than all other law enforcement officials, but we don't learn that.
They run the jails because that is enforcing the law, but they do not spy on the common person.
Like the po-po-police-man come rob me.

The sad thing about elections though is exactly why the FF created the system we have today.

The threat of a direct democracy is the tyranny of the masses.
And in that situation it would suck to be the one eyed person in a world of the blind.

posted on Apr, 7 2011 @ 03:45 PM
WOW! Just plain WOW! Great find Proto!
Totally caught with their pants down. Can't say that this surprises me though, you know, the fact they would consider this.
False flags are an all time favorite tactic of TPTB to push forward their psychotic agendas.

posted on Apr, 7 2011 @ 03:54 PM
This story certainly was quickly ignored by the press. You guys hit it on the head in the first few pages, sorry I doubted you. Pretty shocking, really.

new topics

top topics

<< 8  9  10   >>

log in