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

Originally posted by Maxmars
You know, should I begin to get the impression I am witnessing an example of coordinated posting, some will have an unpleasant and difficult time shaking scrutiny over everything the participant's do.

Someone might imagine I'm speaking specifically to them....

Imaginations shouldn't be allowed to run wild.

There sure is a lot of it on the site, and it sure can infect conversations, and derail threads.

I honestly wish it was something the staff did give more attention and scrutiny too.

I do though like to let my imagination run wild, it's the only way I will ever have the Swedish Bikini Team I fear.

Originally posted by centurion1211

Originally posted by centurion1211

That said, I thought this thread might veer off into just another "get Walker" thread at first. Have to give

to everyone that's managed to avoid that.

Based on the post just above, looks like I handed out the props too soon. Somehow I knew this would end up being about Walker and not the prosecutor.

Why wouldn't this be about Walker, after receiving the email the first thing he should have done is called for the prosecutors resignation, that would never happen. They only care about protecting each other, if this email hadn't gotten out I am sure this prosecutors job would still be safe and secure and we wouldn't be talking about it.

reply to post by centurion1211

How are you so sure that they are "in this together"? Where's the evidence? That's all I'm asking for.

Let's say you were given a ticket for not wearing your seat belt and you had to appear in court. The Judge asks if you are guilty in this regard and you decide to let him know that not only were you not wearing your seat belt but you were speeding and drinking alcohol as well. That's akin to what happened here in my view.

They were asked for specific information and they were given the grand daddy. You cannot believe that whoever was in charge of releasing these emails didn't see the one that encouraged a false flag operation.

reply to post by Aquarius1


That's an excellent point Aquarius Walker certainly could have stepped up to the plate, rebuffed the overture, and forwarded the information he recieved to Indiana Authorities like the Attorney General of the State.

He didn't appear to do that did he?

reply to post by jackflap


These people are backstabbers, the handing over of the email itself was akin to a false flag if you ask me. He gave up his buddy, hoping to shift the scrutiny elsewhere is what I am thinking.

Originally posted by TKDRL
reply to post by jackflap

 

These people are backstabbers, the handing over of the email itself was akin to a false flag if you ask me. He gave up his buddy, hoping to shift the scrutiny elsewhere is what I am thinking.

This is highly possible and along the lines of what the wise Spartan King was cautioning in that the disclosure itself has a lot more involved than what meets the eye in the way it is simply being presented to us.

Unfortunately the Press imgaines our attention spans are not capable of reading anything more than a few short paragraphs absent most of the who, what, how, why, when and where, that made up the classic journalism we were taught about in school.

reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler


Everything and everyone is suspect in this particular case.

Which is why I expressed my doubt about the source.

Interdepartmental e-mail communications are public property.

When it comes to a Government entity.

All communications through Government agencies are subject to scrutiny as public record.

reply to post by SpartanKingLeonidas


Yes, but we know how to skirt around that. We are careful about subject lines and key words in our content, we also encrypt some emails so that they are not searchable for a wide array of key words or subjects. When a FOIA request comes in, and is forwarded to the IT department and the department heads, they make every attempt to be honest and comply with the request, but their searches are futile if the people using the email system are smart.

That being said, most people are not all that smart about their emails or other electronic communications, so the FOIA requests often turn up a lot of dirt.

You won't catch me though!

reply to post by SpartanKingLeonidas

All communications through Government agencies are subject to scrutiny as public record.

Which makes me wonder how the prosecutor would document this suggestion to begin with. I'm sure he was aware of everything you posted here my friend. He didn't become a prosecutor by being a dummy. The governor set the stage by claiming he had so many emails in support of his bill. He too must have realized that people would then demand proof. The bill was passed and I have to wonder how all of this affected the passage of the bill.

Originally posted by getreadyalready
reply to post by SpartanKingLeonidas

 

Yes, but we know how to skirt around that. We are careful about subject lines and key words in our content, we also encrypt some emails so that they are not searchable for a wide array of key words or subjects. When a FOIA request comes in, and is forwarded to the IT department and the department heads, they make every attempt to be honest and comply with the request, but their searches are futile if the people using the email system are smart.

That being said, most people are not all that smart about their emails or other electronic communications, so the FOIA requests often turn up a lot of dirt.

You won't catch me though!

Another efficient means they utilize to bypass these measures?

A face to face discussion one on one without witnesses.

Or even behind closed doors through Secret Society organizations.

Yes, corruption is widespread, even through e-mails.

Encrypting e-mail so to divert it or route it away from F.O.I.A. requests is to be expected.

It is the sort of corruption I have grown to know and understand in a lifelong mission.

Not every American is that easily fooled.

Originally posted by jackflap
reply to post by SpartanKingLeonidas

 

All communications through Government agencies are subject to scrutiny as public record.

Which makes me wonder how the prosecutor would document this suggestion to begin with. I'm sure he was aware of everything you posted here my friend. He didn't become a prosecutor by being a dummy. The governor set the stage by claiming he had so many emails in support of his bill. He too must have realized that people would then demand proof. The bill was passed and I have to wonder how all of this affected the passage of the bill.

Not all civil servants understand the level of scrutiny they are under.

Nor do some of them care one iota.

Prosecutor or not.

The only documentation he could supply would be a sanitized version of e-mails.

Hell, just the other day, on ATS no less, I found a redacting service through advertisers.

Rapid Redact : Redaction Software For All Government and Business Redaction Requirements

I took out the Google Adwords coding of course.

reply to post by SpartanKingLeonidas


Of course! There are a great many times in any given day that I begin to type an email, and then I have second thoughts, I delete it, and I get up and walk to someone's office to have a discussion that does not need to be in print.

It is never nefarious in nature, but with so many people exercising their FOIA rights, it becomes easy to get caught up as collateral damage, misquoted, taken out of context, or just plain railroaded as guilty until proven otherwise.

Anybody that works in a public servant capacity should be vigilant in keeping their written communications superbly professional and avoid any possibility of misunderstanding.

Originally posted by getreadyalready
reply to post by SpartanKingLeonidas

 

Of course! There are a great many times in any given day that I begin to type an email, and then I have second thoughts, I delete it, and I get up and walk to someone's office to have a discussion that does not need to be in print.

It is never nefarious in nature, but with so many people exercising their FOIA rights, it becomes easy to get caught up as collateral damage, misquoted, taken out of context, or just plain railroaded as guilty until proven otherwise.

Anybody that works in a public servant capacity should be vigilant in keeping their written communications superbly professional and avoid any possibility of misunderstanding.

Or just stick to policy, procedure, and protocol.

That is what I do and people squirm when I do it.

Usually because they are not as able to talk, walk, understand, or interpret and write it as I am.

I had a newer employee try to tell me what I was going to do after 10 years on the job.

I spouted off policy procedure, and protocol.

After 10 minutes he started stammering he did not understand 2/3's of what I just said.

I told him, with witnesses, that basically said I went the long way around to telling him to screw himself.

A round of applause went off and he stammered I could not talk to him like that.

I said I definitely could because I knew policy, procedure, and protocol.

And there was nothing he could say, do, or try due to a lack of education.

Of course I was only toying with him.

Imagine if I had wanted to destroy him.

He quit shortly after that.

That was not a Government job though.

I did handle an incident with an organization I am affiliated with though the exact same way.

This was to depose a former leader who did not get that he was not welcome.

That man went underground for 2 years hiding from me before he popped back up in my sights.

Originally posted by ProtoplasmicTraveler
reply to post by getreadyalready

 

You know I honestly wonder what the heck would happen if, someone had the guts (actually if a lot of people had the guts) to put the government on trial in a court of law, instead of submitting meekly to the process of the government putting them on trial.

First, not to be too picky, but the scumbag in this case was NOT an "elected official." He was appointed by the elected District Attorney. Even so, the proverbial "skunk in the jury box" opportunity awaits. Once the stench gets in, even a whiff, the jury knows what is up.

The first thought that crossed my mind when I heard this on NPR was that a good defense attorney could pretty well ruin a lot of prosecutions in that county by setting all his cases for jury trial and subpoenaing that deputy as a witness.

The questioning would be horrible, and the "independence" of the District Attorney's office would be subject to innuendo, at least, that all of its prosecutorial decisions are tainted with fabricated evidence.

Jurries really can rule on the law itself and not just the act of the accused lawbreaker.

Juries are smarter, generally, than most people give them credit, and can decide NOT to follow the law, but they cannot rule on the law itself. They are given specific written questions to answer, not just a blank piece of paper to say what they think.

s & f, though, this needs to get spread everywhere.

jw

The saddest thing is we ALL know how crooked politicians are. They are perceived as "leaders". Representatives of the people. I've come across politics in many MANY different arenas.


ACTUAL politics are boring as hell.
Especially Canadian.

These "elected" representatives are not paid a great deal, and their "power" is normally eaten up by "red tape" and "due process".
So greed is the only reason they are there.

And even then, the greed is to help out their friends, companies, etc that they have a specific interest in. Money. It eventually will circle back to them. Changing by-laws, smaller laws all to assist the special interests that they are connected to. All the other stuff(ACTUAL POLITICS), has really turned into "fluff".

They are mudslinging children at election time. This should be enough to see that the best interest of the people isn't going to be well represented.
That kind of thought process goes on while they are in "power".


People are diabolical, self serving and arrogant. Then we elect them to "lead" us. haha.
I don't think that means anything to anyone anymore.

reply to post by SpartanKingLeonidas


SKL, I think that is an idealistic view, but it won't work in my current position. Sometimes I have to give guidance or advice or opinion. We make decisions with the best of intentions, but sometimes things go wrong. I could not put every one of my opinions in writing, because to do so would be career suicide. There is not a policy or protocol for everything that comes up in a day, especially as a supervisor.

I'm not discounting the value of following policy and procedure, that is my bread and butter answer to everything! In fact, I start the answer to every question with, "What did the policy say?" If they haven't checked policy, they scurry away and sometimes they don't come back. Sometimes they already checked, and the policy is unclear. Then we have to make an interpretation of that policy. Sometimes the policy is just plain wrong, or written with another intention that would be misapplied in a certain circumstance. In those cases, we have to make judgement calls.

In some cases, we reach a decision, and to protect a subordinate, I tell them, "let me put this in an email to you, so that you are protected if it goes wrong." Sometimes I tell them, "DO NOT put this in an email, this is just friendly advice, make your own decision, but be careful!"

We all know the press cannot be trusted, and things will be taken out of context and publicized, and the truth is not important, only the headlines and soundbites count!

Originally posted by getreadyalready
reply to post by SpartanKingLeonidas

 

SKL, I think that is an idealistic view, but it won't work in my current position. Sometimes I have to give guidance or advice or opinion. We make decisions with the best of intentions, but sometimes things go wrong. I could not put every one of my opinions in writing, because to do so would be career suicide. There is not a policy or protocol for everything that comes up in a day, especially as a supervisor.

Of course not.

You might be in a position of authority.

My first example was as a fellow crew-member with a new employee trying to tell me what to do.

One on one.

If an employee asks my opinion, or advice, or for direction I give it freely and direct.

Not one of my career commentary has been in writing.

There may not be policy, procedure, and protocol for everything you do.

There is however for myself.

My stepfather was a Vietnam era Marine and he taught me well.

Contingency planning, policy, procedure, and protocol, and ethics, morals, and beliefs.

If I come across a policy I know it intimately and all of the others influencing it.

This is where this conveyance of information between Government individuals got screwed up.

They both were ignorant of what was happening and showed it in writing.

Originally posted by getreadyalready
I'm not discounting the value of following policy and procedure, that is my bread and butter answer to everything! In fact, I start the answer to every question with, "What did the policy say?" If they haven't checked policy, they scurry away and sometimes they don't come back. Sometimes they already checked, and the policy is unclear. Then we have to make an interpretation of that policy. Sometimes the policy is just plain wrong, or written with another intention that would be misapplied in a certain circumstance. In those cases, we have to make judgement calls.

I do the exact same thing as you.

What is the policy?

What is the procedure?

What is the protocol?

Is this updated recently?

I teach them the policy as I make decisions and update my supervisors as I do it.

Too few Government entities through employees know their own policy.

Obviously, the Indiana prosecutor, was ignorant, and the Wisconsin Governor would have been.

If he had listened to him.

Originally posted by getreadyalready
In some cases, we reach a decision, and to protect a subordinate, I tell them, "let me put this in an email to you, so that you are protected if it goes wrong." Sometimes I tell them, "DO NOT put this in an email, this is just friendly advice, make your own decision, but be careful!"

All e-mails I send are CC'ed back to myself.

While working as a Security Officer in a hospital, a Federal facility, I came up with a saying.

CYA, CMA, COA, Cover Your Ass, Cover My Ass, Cover Our Asses.

Originally posted by getreadyalready
We all know the press cannot be trusted, and things will be taken out of context and publicized, and the truth is not important, only the headlines and soundbites count!

Press is as fickle as a whore looking for their next John.

They will screw all the other whores just to get that next John.

And as well they will smile while stabbing them in the back.

reply to post by jdub297


Thanks my friend, and you are correct this prosecutor isn't elected but appointed and it's through the appointment process we get stuck with a number of unsavory characthers at the department head level of the Federal Government.

Given the power and authority to rule over large fiefdoms, yet elected by no one, but someone who was elected through a process that's all to corrupt itself.

Great post, thanks for joining in.

Originally posted by ProtoplasmicTraveler

Is this our future, like with the Reichstag fire in early Nazi Germany where grass roots political movements and the people who are prone to belong to them are branded as ‘domestic terrorists’ by violent acts carried out in their name, not by the people themselves, but the government officials who want dictatorial power at any and all costs?

This is our past, and present. And obviously, yes, this is our future ... barring any upheaval from the mass population.

I think our government was sensing that there was a movement stirring in the United States. And I don't think it's a simple coincidence that the Middle East is amuck in revolution right now.

Ask your Average Joe if he supports a "U.S. Revolution" now, after we've seen what's happened in the Middle East. My guess is that you'd get a 95% feedback of: "Absolutely Not".

reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler


We have been enemies of the state for quite a long time!!

Here is the legal phrase subject to the jurisdiction thereof, but at law this refers to alien enemy and also applies to Fourteenth Amendment citizens:


"As these words are used in the first section of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Federal Constitution, providing for the citizenship of all persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, the purpose would appear to have been to exclude by the fewest words (besides children of members of the Indian tribes, standing in a peculiar relation to the National Government, unknown to the common Law), the two classes of cases, children born of *ALIEN ENEMIES(emphasis mine), in hostile occupation, and children of diplomatic representatives of a foreign state, both of which, by the law of England and by our own law, from the time of the first settlement of the English colonies in America, had been recognized exceptions to the fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the country." - United States v Wong Kim Ark, 169 US 649, 682, 42 L Ed 890, 902, 18 S Ct 456. Ballentine's Law Dictionary

And also this..

The declared National Emergency of March 9, 1933 amended the War Powers Act to include the American People as enemies:
"In Title 1, Section 1 it says: The actions, regulations, rules, licenses, orders and proclamations heretofore or hereafter taken, promulgated, made, or issued by the President of the United States or the Secretary of the Treasury since March 4, 1933, pursuant to the authority conferred by subdivision (b) of section 5 of the Act of October 6, 1917, as amended, are hereby approved and confirmed."

"Section 2. Subdivision (b) of section 5 of the Act of October 6, 1917, (40 Stat. L. 411), as amended, is hereby amended to read as follows: emergency declared by the President, the President may, through any agency that he may designate, or otherwise, investigate, regulate, or prohibit, under such rules and regulations as he may prescribe, by means of licenses or otherwise, any transactions in foreign exchange, transfers of credit between or payments by banking institutions as defined by the President, and export, hoarding, melting, or earmarking of gold or silver coin or bullion or currency, BY ANY PERSON WITHIN THE UNITED STATES OR ANY PLACE SUBJECT TO THE JURISDICTION THEREOF."

We are ALL enemies of the corporate "U.S." citizen or Citizen makes no difference to the "policy enforcement" officers. We live in the U.S.A. otherwise known as America, NOT the corporate "U.S'.", therefore we are NOT U.S. citizens!!