The Freedom Articles Get a Dose of the Truth | Alternative Media, Independent News Wed, 04 Nov 2020 20:19:59 +0000 en-US hourly 1 The Freedom Articles 32 32 The LDS Church Protects and Recycles Pedophiles Wed, 04 Nov 2020 00:01:25 +0000 The LDS Church protects and recycles pedophiles! Did you know that over the last few years, there have been mass arrests and take-downs of notorious pedophile networks all around the world (and it’s all public knowledge)? While it might shock many to hear that Hollywood has been revealed as a haven for pedophiles and sex […]

The post The LDS Church Protects and Recycles Pedophiles appeared first on The Freedom Articles.

LDS Church pedophilia

Numerous survivors, witnesses and other whistleblowers have come forth to expose how the LDS Church protects pedophiles.

The LDS Church protects and recycles pedophiles!

Did you know that over the last few years, there have been mass arrests and take-downs of notorious pedophile networks all around the world (and it’s all public knowledge)? While it might shock many to hear that Hollywood has been revealed as a haven for pedophiles and sex abusers (with special thanks to Harvey Weinstein and the Me Too Movement), the Vatican has also been exposed for harboring countless pedophiles within the Catholic Church. In fact, between 2004 and 2019, the Vatican handled thousands of cases of child sexual abuse, stretching across many continents. Consequently, thousands of Catholic Priests, Bishops and Clergy have been found guilty of sexually abusing children. Even high ranking Vatican officials have been indicted for the sexual abuse of children.

On the other hand, did you know that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (aka LDS Church) has also racked up countless accusations of child sexual abuse over the course of many decades, and yet, they are still standing strong? In fact, the LDS Church currently has over 16 million members worldwide and at least 80 to 100 billion dollars in assets as of 2019.

Surprisingly, while two of the world’s most powerful entities have been exposed and brought to justice (Hollywood and the Vatican), the LDS Church continues to thrive! How is it possible that the LDS Church has been able to cover up multitudes of child sexual abuse cases for decades while also escaping the justice system?

As you’re about see, the LDS Church operates within a virtually fail-proof system that protects even the most notorious of pedophiles – from church members all the way up to top ranking officials at the head of the hierarchy.

For the sake of full disclosure, before we begin, the information I’m about to share has already been exposed through various sources over the course of many years. However, despite indisputable public information, child sexual abuse within the LDS Community continues to run rampant. Therefore, the primary goal of this article is to put some complex pieces of the puzzle together so that we can have a clear picture of how (and why) the church protects and even recycles pedophiles. (At the end of this article, there will be a detailed bibliography with more than 75 resources.)

The LDS Code of Silence (Church Policy that Covers up Child Sexual Abuse)

Despite the fact that child sexual abuse is considered a serious crime in the United States, and elsewhere in the world, the LDS Church classifies child sexual abuse as merely a sin, and furthermore, according to church policies, it’s not a crime to sexually molest children.

As a result, LDS victims of abuse are discouraged from notifying the law and filing criminal charges, and instead, they are instructed to speak only to their Bishops – and from that point on, the church handles the matter internally as if it is a sin (disregarding the law entirely).

However it’s important to note that in Utah (the spiritual headquarters of the LDS Church), as well as 43 other states in the U.S, Church Clergy are not required to report child sexual abuse to the legal authorities when the confession comes directly from the perpetrator. Nonetheless, even in states with mandatory reporting, and even when the report comes from the victim, LDS Bishops are instructed to circumvent legal authorities.

So, instead of notifying the law in cases of child sexual molestation, there is an ecclesiastical trial where the LDS “disciplinary council” determines whether or not a church member has committed a sin worthy of discipline (aka probation, dis-fellowship or excommunication). However, if a Bishop decides that the abuse is not “too bad,” the case does not go to the disciplinary council, and instead, the Bishop handles the matter himself. In many cases, no disciplinary action is taken whatsoever. Even when disciplinary measures are taken, the perpetrator’s actions are kept secret from the LDS community, and consequently, the perpetrator has free rein to go on abusing other children in the community.

Special Abuse Helpline

Due to a growing number of reports in the 1990s, the LDS Church set up a special hotline to help Bishops deal with sexual abuse cases within their congregations. While Mormon leaders insist that the sole purpose of the hotline is to help church officials comply with the law, court documents suggest that the real purpose of the hotline is to shield the church from lawsuits, thereby, protecting pedophiles.

According to Vice News, “Court documents have revealed that calls from the Mormon Church’s 24-hour helpline, used by church officials to report suspected abuse, are being transferred to a law firm that defends the church in abuse-related lawsuits.”

Directing abuse-related calls to church lawyers allows the church to classify them as “attorney-client” communications, protecting them from disclosure in lawsuits and other forums, according to legal experts.” – The Daily Beast

While there’s significant evidence that the helpline is designed to protect LDS pedophiles by keeping them out of the criminal system, the cover-up does not end there. Apparently, “The Church Handbook of General Instructions,” that is given to all LDS Bishops, contains a “policy” that prevents Bishops and church members from getting involved in any type of criminal matter without speaking to the church’s legal counsel. According to a recent Fox News investigation, leaders of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints received a letter dated August 4, 2020 reminding them of this church policy:

 “We remind leaders and members of a long-standing policy that Church leaders should not involve themselves in civil or criminal cases regarding members in their units, quorums, or organizations without first consulting with Church legal counsel.”

Letter signed by members of the First Presidency (aka head of the LDS Church)

In response to this letter, Ronald Zambrano, a California attorney with West Coast Employment Lawyers said, “He had grave concerns about any sort of blanket policy that might exist behind closed doors that would prohibit leaders from testifying or responding to a subpoena. This is no different than the culture of silence that led to the abuse of these kids in the Catholic Church… It’s a form of coercion. It’s a danger to our society.”

“If the Church is encouraging people to stay silent, you’re encouraging people to be complicit in these terrible events, and that is irresponsible.” – Zambrano

Rocky Anderson, an attorney and former mayor of Salt Lake City, said he believes the policy indicates “cultish control of members.” Anderson goes on to say, “The policy seems designed to cause dangerous delays, cover-ups, and perhaps obstruction of justice…. Listen to our lawyers instead of your conscience or your duties to the community, victims, or the truth?” – Fox News

Furthermore, LDS members who can’t, or won’t, talk to their Bishops about child sexual abuse, are told to call LDS Family Services hotline. However, unbeknownst to the caller, the moment “sexual abuse” is mentioned, the call is immediately transferred to a “special counselor” (aka legal attorney) representing the Law Offices of the LDS Church.

In a nutshell, the LDS Church has long-standing “policies” that protect Mormon pedophiles by keeping the law out of church business, and since most cases of child sexual abuse in the LDS community are never reported to the police, there are no accurate statistics.

So, what exactly happens to accused pedophiles?

According to the Lantern Project, the Mormon Church not only conceals child sexual abuse, they also give sanctuary to known sexual predators. The following is taken directly from the Lantern Project (the direct link for the Lantern Project can be found at the end of this article).

Does the Mormon Church Conceal Child Sexual Abuse and Give Sanctuary to Known Sexual Predators?

“Based on insurmountable evidence, the policies and practices of the LDS Church make it a haven for child molesters.” For example, “Franklyn Richard Curtis – High Priest, Primary Teacher, Blazer Leader, Home Teacher, and for fifteen years known to the First Presidency to be a Predatory Child Molester. Curtis sexually abused dozens of Mormon children in five states. Yet he represents just the ‘Tip of the Iceberg. ’Curtis was undoubtedly a sick individual. But what can you say about an organization that covered up for his crimes over and over for eighteen years?”

Excommunicated Pedophiles get New Memberships with no record of prior child abuse
A pedophile who is excommunicated can get a new membership record upon rebaptism which has no reference to the prior history of abuse. (‘Clean-slate’ doctrine at work.)

…On Tracking known Pedophiles within the church
Because of design flaws in the database indexing system, it is impossible for the church to know whether a current member was previously excommunicated for child sexual abuse. This is because a new membership number is issued upon re-baptism and the record does not show any prior record reference numbers.

…Protocol sheet for Helpline reflects:
The Church Helpline is not for helping victims or getting child molesters reported to police but is about church claims management and scandal control. Concedes that there are no reporting resources for victims and their families within the LDS, just clergy. However, clergy are urged not to report abuse directly to police.

….On the Church Help Line
The church admits that it keeps no records of the number or nature of calls that come in on the hotline. It rings into LDS social services and is manned by an individual (who was a former stake president). If there is a reporting issue he conferences-in the LDS attorney.

…How the church defends its practice of recycling child molesters in court
Church lawyers acknowledge that the church’s policy is to forgive and recycle child molesters in their priesthood. “Child molesters are punished under church law, and once they have repented and been forgiven by the church, they are re-baptized. Once re-baptized, the church believes that the perpetrator has become a new person and they can start over.

For example, after the LDS Church disciplined Franklyn Curtis, he repented for his sins, and then, through a rebaptism, he was cleansed of his previous transgressions in the eyes of the church – and all was forgiven.


For all intents and purposes, the LDS Church uses “freedom of religion” to defy criminal laws, and since Bishops have the power to forgive any sin, no matter how heinous, the church has assumed the right to atone the sins of even serial child molesters.

To sum it all up, even if accused pedophiles are excommunicated from the church, once they repent and are forgiven, they can be re-baptized back into the church as if nothing has happened. Along with this “clean slate” approach, pedophiles are not required to undergo behavior therapy or rehabilitation of any kind, and in fact, any potential church punishment is undefined.

Since the church believes that once a perpetrator is re-baptized, he becomes a “new person” with a fresh start, he receives a new membership record with no reference to any prior abuse, and while his new record is not tarnished in any manner, there are no public red flags to indicate his prior crimes against children.

Moreover, once a perpetrator is atoned for his sins, he is restored to his former position in the church and his prior sins cannot be held against him. So, not only does the church protect child molesters from the law, they also keep their secrets as well.

Even though the church hierarchy acknowledges that they do not do background checks on members involved with youth, nor screen out child molesters, it appears as if they may privately highlight re-baptized pedophiles; assigning them to positions where they work directly with children.

The Boy Scouts sexual abuse scandal is a perfect example:

In the 2020 documentary, “Church and The Fourth Estate,” film maker, Brian Knappenberger, highlights the widespread sexual abuse (and cover-up) involving both the LDS Church and the Boy Scouts. Apparently, these two organizations have been deeply connected for 110 years.

According to Brian Knappenberger:

“What typically happened was that an abuser in the Boy Scouts would go to the bishop, the bishop would determine if that person had repented. If so, then they could go back into the position they were in and there was no need to go to the law or even to inform people around them about what the person had done.”

While the LDS Church obviously allows self-identified pedophiles to work with children, it’s also curious how many “re-baptized pedophiles” get promoted into positions of power. I suppose this is why you can google the word “pedophile” along with the names of many of the LDS leaders and get alarming results.

Furthermore, in addition to church policies that protect and recycle pedophiles, the Mormon culture sets the stage for the whole atrocity to be orchestrated!

5 Ways that the LDS Culture Perpetuates Pedophilia

#1. Mormon Image is Everything

One of the reasons that child sexual abuse is covered up so well in the LDS Community is because image is everything to the Mormons. While devout Mormons are taught to follow strict religious rules that include no alcohol, no hot drinks, no premarital sex, etc…, they also spend several hours at church every Sunday. Moreover, after being “endowed” in the church, Mormons have to wear special church sanctioned underwear (with masonic emblems) 24/7. On top of all this, church members are encouraged to “report thy neighbor” for not following Mormon doctrine.

Since LDS members have a fear of being judged by their community, they have to keep up a picture perfect image to friends, family and neighbors. If this reminds you of the “Stepford Wives” where everyone smiles on the outside and no one talks about the real issues, it should!

Not surprisingly, victims of abuse are taught to keep family secrets in order to maintain a good Mormon image, and consequently, if they do speak out, family and friends often downplay the abuse or dismiss it altogether.

Moreover, it’s not uncommon for victims of sexual abuse to be accused of provoking the attack in some way, and then, guilt is leveraged to make them feel responsible so that they don’t speak out – while at the same time, family members often defend the perpetrators.

And yes, this is all orchestrated in the name of protecting the perfect Mormon family image!

While the majority of Mormon families try to represent the ideal, wholesome family on the outside, it’s a completely different story behind closed doors, and in fact, family dysfunction runs rampant in Utah (the state with largest Mormon population in the world).

According to U.S statistics, Utah has many of the highest rates for pornography addiction, depression, child abuse, sexual child abuse, domestic violence, mental illness, suicide, etc…. In fact, according to the Salt Lake Tribune, “In 2018, suicide was the leading cause of death for Utah youths ages 10 to 17, and the state’s suicide rate for all ages is more than 60 % above the national average.”

As experts try to determine the cause of these high statistics, they seem to be missing the most prevalent issue in the Mormon Culture – the ritual sex abuse of children!

#2. The LDS Culture of Obedience and Submission

While the primary means for resolving conflict in the Mormon culture is based on hierarchy, oppression, intimidation, and male-dominated authoritarianism, LDS members are taught to be submissive, meek, humble, patient, and willing to submit to all things.

Along with the constant message to be both obedient and submissive, Mormons are also taught that they have a Christian responsibility to “forgive and forget”, and as a result, they naturally learn to avoid confrontation at all costs. Needless to say, the combination of these dynamics perpetuate the prevalence of child sexual abuse in the LDS community.

#3. No Boundaries

Another reason that abuse is so prevalent within the Mormon Community is due to “lack of boundaries.” From early childhood onward, church members are brainwashed into obeying church leaders unquestionably – and do whatever they are told. In fact, one of the first things that leaders teach their followers is to always put the needs of others before their own.

While this might sound nice and loving on the surface, there’s an inherent flaw in this theology that makes people vulnerable to abuse. You see, if we’re taught that other people’s needs are always more important than our own, we have no choice but to acquiesce whenever someone makes a request. In other words, Mormons are not allowed to say no!

In fact, it’s fair to say that there’s an unspoken message in the church that says, “You don’t have the right to say no”, and therefore, having boundaries makes you a bad person.

Since Mormon children are literally trained to do things that they don’t want to do, they are naturally easy prey to sexual predators – and it wouldn’t be surprising if this dynamic was by design.

#4. The Pretense of Happiness

Since most Mormon families appear to be happy and successful while in public, victims of abuse often feel very alone – and may even doubt their experiences. After all, if everyone else appears to be so happy, and you are the only one who seems to be traumatized and depressed, you might believe that there is something wrong with you. So, for many LDS victims, it seems far better to just keep quiet, pretend to be happy, and eventually, master the perfect façade (just like everyone else).

#5. Identifying Children Who Might Talk

As yet, another means of concealing child sexual abuse, I suspect that the church has a special way to identify children who might accuse their perpetrators. In the LDS Church, it is common practice for male Bishops to privately interrogate pre-adolescent children about their sexual experiences, and in fact, behind closed doors, girls and boys as young, as twelve years old, are forced to answer very provocative questions about their sexuality.

While most of these children feel extremely vulnerable and uncomfortable during the interview, the pretense for this invasive questioning is based on the ideology that LDS Church members are supposed to be chaste. However, behind this pretense, there appears to be a nefarious, hidden purpose. After all, why would a Christian Church interrogate pre-teens about their sexuality?

Well, what if the church uses these invasive sexual interviews as a way to identify children who remember being sexually abused and who might expose the truth?

Furthermore, during the interview, if a child does confess to being sexually molested by his or her parents, relatives or other LDS members, the Bishop can conveniently cover-up the matter by making the child feel responsible for the abuse and shaming him or her into life-long secrecy.

Recipe for Concealing Child Sexual Abuse

Although there are no reliable statistics, the prevalence of child sexual abuse in the LDS Church is abhorrently high. In fact, it would not be surprising if the majority of the congregation was directly affected, either as victims or perpetrators – or potentially both.

No doubt, the combination of various dynamics is designed to ensure a “code of silence” that protects LDS pedophiles while conveniently bypassing the law. As described above, these dynamics include:

  • Church policies that protect the church and its officials at the expense of innocent children.
  • An LDS law firm that intercepts child sex abuse cases so that they are not reported to the legal authorities.
  • A fake victim’s helpline.
  • The LDS protocol of interrogating pre-teens about their sexual experiences (in order to identify children who might expose the truth).
  • Recycling perpetrators through re-baptism and restoring their position in the church.
  • Various methods of defending sexual perpetrators from the law while hiding their crimes from the community.
  • Last, but not least, the Mormon culture demands that “Good Mormons” must practice obedience and submission – even if it means protecting known pedophiles.

The degree of Mind control in the LDS Church is so deep that even Mormons who have left the church continue to defend it.

In the rare chance that a child sex abuse case might actually go to criminal court, the LDS Legal Counsel has a practice of shaming and blaming victims in order to discourage them from speaking out against their perpetrators, and shockingly, it is not uncommon for the LDS Legal Counsel to accuse sexually traumatized children of being “whores” who seduced their abusers.

Now, that you understand how the LDS Church protects known pedophiles, and even serial child molesters, you’re probably wondering why a Christian Church would protect sexual predators at the expense of innocent children?

Part 2: Why is the LDS Church filled with Generations of Pedophiles?

Unfortunately, whether you want to believe it or not, there is substantial evidence to support the fact that the LDS Church is actually a Luciferian Religious Order disguised as a Christian Church.

Unbeknownst to most Mormons, Joseph Smith, the founder of Mormonism, based the original LDS Doctrine on the Luciferian Cult known as Freemasonry. (In fact, Joseph Smith was not only a Freemason who practiced “black magic,” he was also a known pedophile; marrying girls as young as fourteen.)

“Although we can say with certainty that the god of Freemasonry is a demon, we do not know specifically which demon Masons worship in lodge.  We simply know that they refer to their demon as the Great Architect of the Universe, or GAOTU.  All demons are under the leadership of Satan. Therefore, Freemasons cannot avoid worshiping Satan by proxy.”
– King James Bible: Corinthians 10:20-21

Just like the Mormons, most Freemasons have no idea that they are worshiping Lucifer (aka Satan).

According to the book, “Free at Last” by True Ott:
“The entire Mormon religion is Mason from start to finish. It clearly involves ritualistic Satanic abuse in the upper echelons of power and, like the Roman Catholic church, it involves sexual abuse of babies and young children. Utah has several unrelated but confirmed cases of abuse, and other areas have been officially exposed, but “the church” is still as powerful as ever and enjoying great success, even enjoying a candidate for president in 2012. Considering that the government and the church both are under the control of these Lucifer worshiping organizations, is it any wonder why they, like the Catholics, are getting away with it? The Illuminati has members all across the board; judges, police, you name it. It seems to me that this “church” has far too much power.” – True Ott

After examining mounds and mounds of evidence that appears to be bottomless, I’ve come to the conclusion that the acronym “LDS” actually represents “Luciferian Demonic Society”!

Please be clear, we’re not just talking about horrific events that happened in the past; we’re talking about generations of ritualistic abuse that are still being perpetrated on children today. For example, did you know that the daughter and son-in-law of the current Latter-day Saint President and Prophet, Russell M. Nelson, are now on trial for the satanic ritual abuse of children? (For info on this topic, please see links in the resource section below.)

Believe me, I know that all this information can be very hard to digest, and when information is this disturbing, it’s normal to experience cognitive dissonance. However, if you have eyes to see, and the courage to look, everything is in plain sight. So, please do your own research!

The Temple Endowment Ceremony

The most sacred religious ceremony in the LDS Church is known as the “Temple Endowment Ceremony.” Although this ceremony is considered to be the highest of the high for Mormons, it’s actually based on a Satanic Ritual (a variation performed by the Freemasons).

According to the Latter Day Saints website, “Receiving your temple endowment is one of the most sacred experiences of your life. Many members of the Church receive their endowment before a mission or marriage, while others simply have a strong desire to move forward along the covenant path. Only in the temple can we receive the ordinances necessary for us to be exalted in the celestial kingdom.”

Although the Endowment Ceremony is a secret temple ceremony, information has been leaked out, and in fact, at the end of this article, there’s a link to a live Endowment Ceremony that was secretly filmed in Salt Lake City, Utah.

So, what happens during the Endowment Ceremony?

As a pivotal part of the Endowment Ceremony, participants must act out a religious scene where a church member plays the part of Lucifer. At some point in the ceremony, Lucifer tells the participants to put on his “Green Apron” in order to hide their nakedness from God. Moreover, “Lucifer’s Apron” is kept on for the entire ceremony. (For some reason, the green apron is so significant that many Mormons are even buried in it.)

Believe it or not, during the ceremony, Lucifer literally tricks the participants into pledging their eternal souls to him. How does he do this?

Well, firstly, he asks them to make a covenant with God (aka contract, commitment, etc…). The covenant includes committing to a total of five LDS laws:

  • Law of Obedience
  • Law of Sacrifice
  • Law of the Gospel
  • Law of Chastity
  • Law of Consecration

Secondly, Lucifer tells them that if they break any covenant, for any reason, their eternal soul will belong to him – and for the ceremony to continue, they must agree to these terms.

But, why doesn’t anyone question this ludicrous agreement?

By the time the Endowment Ceremony is scheduled, participants are already brainwashed and groomed to obey the church. Additionally, the ceremony is set up in such a way that participants are afraid to question anything. For example, they’re led to believe that if they ever share any temple secrets, their lives will be in danger, and in fact, during the ceremony, they must pretend to slice open their own throats and rip out their own guts, thereby acting out the fatal consequences for disclosing the truth (another reason, the nefarious actions of the LDS Church have remained hidden for so long).

So, as a result of major mind control, Endowment participants just go along with the process; reciting what they’re told to recite and doing what they’re told to do.

Unfortunately, even for the most pure and noble Mormons, it’s literally impossible to live according to a list of covenants for an entire lifetime. Since failure is inevitable at some point, it would mean that every man and woman who goes through the Endowment Ceremony has ultimately committed his or her soul to Lucifer.

By getting people to agree to something that they can never fulfill, along with a binding consequence, it’s fair to say that the whole ceremony is a Luciferian trick – designed to acquire unsuspecting souls.

Of course, most Mormons have no idea that they are participating in a Masonic Ritual where they’re actually making a deal with the devil!

Although the Mormons generally do not realize the implications of their actions, they have implicitly aligned themselves with Lucifer’s teachings, and they have voluntarily taken on the emblem of his power….” – Joel B. Groat

But, What Does Child Sexual Abuse have to do with Luciferianism?

Well, according to Luciferian theology, it is believed that demonic spirits are passed from adults to children through vile sexual acts that often begin during infancy and continue throughout childhood.

In other words, the act of sexually abusing a child is the product of a satanic ritual where demonic spirits are passed down from one generation to the next, and dare I say that all acts of child sexual abuse have their roots in Satanism.

In a nutshell, we’re talking about a Demonic Inheritance through ritualistic child sexual abuse, and this is the real reason why pedophilia is so predominant in the LDS Church.

Moreover, sexually abused children often have multiple perpetrators; this can include one or both parents, various relatives, grandparents, neighbors, babysitters, scout leaders, church clergy, bishops, missionaries, etc…, and it is not uncommon for older children to sexually abuse younger siblings. And, let us not overlook, all the Mormon pedophile cults that exist in many LDS neighborhoods.

Make no mistake, we’re not talking about isolated incidents; we’re talking about a hidden agenda that is indoctrinated into all members of the LDS Church – with or without their knowledge or consent.

The book, “Satanic Ritual Abuse and Mormonism” by Jerald Tanner discuses over 125 cases of alleged ritual abuse:

“In some cases, these investigations involved hundreds of hours of investigation and evaluation. In addition, the Unit investigators have met with hundreds of citizens who claim to be victims of satanic, religious, physical or sexually motivated ritual crimes….None of the allegations…. have resulted in’ prosecutions except for the case of the Zion Society in Ogden… Investigator Mike King told KUTV that he and another investigator talked to ‘hundreds’ of victims who alleged they were raped, tortured, forced to perform horrible acts, brainwashed, saw babies murdered or were forced to participate in ritual murders.”

Of course, this is not the only investigation, and in fact, one of the most well-known investigations occurred between 1990 and 1991 when Bishop Pace interviewed about 100 different people in Salt Lake County, Utah – all swearing that they were part of a Mormon Satanic Cult.

Ultimately, in 1991, Bishop Glenn L. Pace wrote a confidential memorandum to Church authorities that became known as the “Pace Memorandum.” While the 100-page document exposed a satanic cult within the LDS Church, Bishop Pace presented substantial evidence showing that children were being ritualistically abused. Surprisingly, the memo was published by the great-great granddaughter of Brigham Young (one of the LDS founders) and her husband.

Here is a detailed excerpt from the Pace Memorandum (at the time of publication, only 60 people had been interviewed):

The Pace Memorandum Exposed the LDS Church

“Pursuant to the Committee’s request, I am writing this memorandum to pass along what I have learned about ritualistic child abuse. I have met with sixty victims. That number could be twice or three times as many if I did not discipline myself to only one meeting per week.

Of the sixty victims with whom I have met, all sixty individuals are members of the Church. Forty-five victims allege witnessing and/or participating in human sacrifice. The majority were abused by relatives, often their parents. All have developed psychological problems and most have been diagnosed as having multiple personality disorder or some other form of dissociative disorder.

Ritualistic child abuse is the most hideous of all child abuse. The basic objective is premeditated–to systematically and methodically torture and terrorize children until they are forced to dissociate. The torture is not a consequence of the loss of temper, but the execution of well-planned, well-thought out rituals often performed by close relatives. The only escape for the children is to dissociate. They will develop a new personality to enable them to endure various forms of abuse. When the episode is over, the core personality is again in control and the individual is not conscious of what happened.

Dissociation also serves the purposes of the occult because the children have no day-to-day memory of the atrocities. They go through adolescence and early adulthood with no active memory of what is taking place. Oftentimes they continue in rituals through their teens and early twenties, unaware of their involvement. Many individuals with whom I have spoken have served missions and it has not been until later that they begin to remember. One individual has memories of participating in rituals while serving as a full-time missionary.

The victims lead relatively normal lives, but the memories are locked up in a compartment in their minds and surface in various ways. They don’t know how to cope with the emotions because they can’t find the source. As they become adults and move into another environment, something triggers the memories, and, consequently, flashbacks and/or nightmares occur. One day they will have been living a normal life and the next they will be in a mental hospital in a fetal position. The memories of their early childhood are recalled in so much detail that they once again feel the pain that caused the dissociation in the first place.

There are two reasons why adults can remember with such detail events that happened in their past: First, the terror they experienced was so stark that it was indelibly placed in their mind. Second, the memory was compartmentalized in a certain portion of the mind and was not subjected to the dilution of experiences of ensuing years. When it is tapped, it is as fresh as if it happened yesterday.

The memories seem to come in layers. For example, the first memory might be of incest; then they remember robes and candles; next they realize that their father or mother or both were present when they were being abused. Another layer will be the memory of seeing other people hurt and even killed. Then they remember having seen babies killed. Another layer is realizing that they participated in the sacrifices. One of the most painful memories may be that they even sacrificed their own baby. With each layer of memory comes another set of problems with which they must deal.”
– End of excerpt – Pace Memorandum

So, what happened as a result of the Pace Memorandum?

Well, here’s a quote from the Utah State Task Force on Ritual Abuse:
“The May, 1992 report confirmed Pace’s findings. The main person involved in the subcommittee was Dr. Noemi P. Mattis who said that a Satanic ring “as secretive as the mafia” were hiding in the Mormon church’s hierarchy.”

Although the Utah State Task Force on Ritual Abuse confirmed the reports in the Pace Memorandum, no definitive actions were taken to end the abuse, and in fact, the LDS Hotline was created in 1995 to help cover-up all the continuing accusations of child sexual abuse.

So, basically, 30 years after the Pace Memorandum was first recorded, the satanic ritual abuse of children continues to go on behind closed doors…and still no one is stopping it!

Under a Dark Spell

Imagine that a dark spell is cast over the sexually abused child. As mentioned in the Pace Memorandum, the sexual abuse of a child is so horrific that most children dissociate during the trauma. When the child dissociates, his or her core personality detaches from consciousness, and because this allows for a split in personality, a new personality is created to handle the abuse each time it occurs.

And, believe it or not, the real purpose of the trauma is to intentionally create a split in personality so that the new personality can be possessed by a demonic spirit.

Therefore, whenever the child or adult dissociates, and the conscious mind is out of the way, the alternate personality can fulfill its own demonic agenda, and this means that when the child becomes an adult, he or she is “programmed” to unconsciously repeat the sexual abuse with his or her own children. And, yes, this means that it’s possible for sexually abusive parents to dissociate during the act so that they have no idea what they are doing, or who they are doing it to.

Since the abused and the abuser are both under a spell (and their bodies are possessed by demonic alters (aka altered personalities), they may have no conscious awareness or recollection of the abuse – and as a result, there may be no obvious signs of sexual abuse.

Furthermore, when the child dissociates during sexual abuse, any memories associated with the abuse are compartmentalized, and because this results in a specific type of amnesia, it’s common for people to forget all about childhood sexual trauma. No doubt, this explains why so many LDS members experience deep traumatic issues throughout life but cannot identify the real cause.

Pedophilia violates our core being to the extent that our brains automatically respond to the trauma even if we don’t! Childhood sexual abuse is known to heighten suggestibility, decrease critical analysis and conscious choice, confuse gender, and perpetuate perversion.

Cathy O’Brien (author of “Trance Formation of America”)

While most LDS members are under a demonic spell and have no idea what they’re participating in, make no mistake, high level church officials know exactly what they’re doing.

In fact, according to True Ott:

“I have interviewed numerous individuals who fearfully tell of witnessing and/or participating in dark rituals underneath the LDS Temple in Salt Lake City. At first, I thought these individuals were psychologically imbalanced for their stories were so very bizarre that they could not have possibly been true. Imagine, the hierarchy sacrificing human infants, and even consuming human flesh during candlelit secret ceremonials? Now, however, I am more inclined to believe these individuals.”

The following statement was found in Wilford Woodruff’s Journal (president of the LDS Church from 1889 – 1898):

Under the pulpit in the west End [of the SLC Temple] will be a place to Offer Sacrifices. There will be an Altar prepared for that purpose so that when any sacrifices are to be offered they should be offered there.’”

“To this truth seeker, this quote is very troublesome for a couple of fairly obvious reasons. The individuals I interviewed claimed to have seen such an altar, and claimed it was underneath the west end of the temple. According to this personal journal entry, such an altar apparently existed at one time, and in all likelihood yet exists today.”

Remembering Childhood Sexual Abuse

Oftentimes, we do not remember childhood sexual abuse until something randomly triggers a memory. For example, smelling a certain scent associated with the abuse, looking at childhood photos, or possibly, experiencing a new trauma.

Even when memories of abuse do start to surface, they often come up in brief, fragmented flashes, and we don’t process the full memory.

Although it’s natural to doubt memories of sexual abuse when they first flash before us, once we doubt or discount a memory, it slides back into the recesses of the mind and we immediately block further memories from surfacing.

Therefore, it’s important to trust your memories even if they’re just brief flashes, and in fact, the more you pay attention to the flashes, the more your memories will start to fill in. There might also be a certain feeling associated with a memory, and by going deeper into the feeling, it’s possible to retrieve the full memory.


Of course, the biggest obstacle in remembering childhood sexual abuse is in trusting our memories, especially if we’ve been taught to doubt our memories or if we fear that no one will believe us.

Plus, since it’s extremely common for a Mormon child to have multiple perpetrators, the enormity of the abuse can result in conflicting memories that blur together, causing both confusion and disbelief.

(By the way, did you know that, in the early 1990’s, the concept known as “False Memory Syndrome” was created to discredit the testimony of sexual abuse victims in court?)

As another obstacle to remembering child sexual abuse, many pedophiles are described as charming, cheerful and even likeable people, and because they don’t generally appear as the creepy pedophile archetype we might associate with child molesters, it’s easy for most pedophiles to hide in plain sight.

Moreover, if the abuser appears to be a nice, kind person in everyday life, it can be hard to believe that such a “good” person could do such horrible things!

Of course, trying to reconcile the “nice guy” with being a pedophile can cause cognitive dissonance, and if we can’t believe that our kind, loving father, teacher, uncle, bishop or sibling can be an abusive pedophile, we’ll probably discount any memories where sexual boundaries were crossed.

So, how can you reconcile the “nice guy” and the abusive pedophile as one in the same?

Well, it’s important to remember that virtually every pedophile was once a sexually abused child, and since there’s often a split in personality during the abuse, two or more personalities can reside within the same one body throughout a lifetime.

Therefore, the nice guy and the pedophile could represent two different personalities living in the same one body – with neither being aware of the other.

Nonetheless, when a formerly abused child continues to act out as an adult perpetrator, passing on a demonic spell through ritualistic sexual abuse, he or she is no less accountable.


As another interesting fact, many people have reported that they experienced flashbacks of satanic ritual abuse when they went through the Temple Endowment Ceremony at the LDS Temple in Salt Lake City, Utah. More specifically, memories of satanic ritual abuse were triggered when a sequence of certain words were spoken during the Endowment Ceremony. Apparently, these exact phrases were spoken during satanic rituals when these same people were children.

In response to these disturbing reports, the LDS Church changed the wording in the Endowment Ceremony. Very interesting!

Ending the Atrocious Cycle of Ritualistic Abuse within the LDS Church

No doubt, if we want to end the atrocious cycle of ritualistic child sexual abuse in the LDS community, the truth has to come out of the shadows and into the light, and while this requires complete honesty and full disclosure, it also requires getting past shame and secrecy.

Therefore, the best thing that anyone can do is speak up and tell the truth – and not stop speaking up until something is done.

So, even if no one believes you at first, keep telling the truth!

By speaking up and sharing information like this, you’re telling people that they can trust their memories, and they too can speak up. In fact, the major purpose for publishing this article is to open the space for sharing and healing, and therefore, please consider posting this article on social media.

The more people who speak up, the easier it will become for others……and therefore, if you are LDS, you might want to consider that many of your LDS friends, neighbors and community members have been sexually abused as children but are too afraid to speak up. In fact, the odds are good that the person sitting next to you in church was also sexually abused as a child.

As more and more victims start to come forward, and share their dark secrets, at some point, a threshold will be met, and in the blink of an eye, widespread momentum will turn into a movement that can’t be stopped or suppressed.


So, what should you do if you have been abused, you are being abused or you suspect someone you love is being abused?

If you’re a victim of childhood sexual abuse:

– Report any abuse directly to the police or a non-LDS crisis hotline, or at the very least, talk to a trusted non-LDS teacher or friend.
– Don’t report sexual abuse to Bishops or church clergy.
– Don’t call LDS Family Services.
– Don’t get bullied into submission by church members or clergy who want you to believe that pedophilia is not a crime.
– Don’t allow anyone to convince you that it’s your fault or shame you into feeling dirty or guilty. Anyone who tries to emotionally manipulate you is either knowingly part of the satanic cult or they’ve been brainwashed to keep you silenced.
– Since the Department of Child Services (DCS) and Child Protective Services (CPS) have both been connected to child trafficking and child sexual abuse, don’t contact either of these “social service providers.”


If someone tells you that they are being abused, or they were abused, always believe them. If you show any signs of doubt, you’ll only make them shut down and recount their experience.

If you suspect that your child is being sexually abused by a relative or community member, talk to your child without judgment. In fact, Mormon Mothers be warned, based on the high prevalence of pedophilia in the LDS community, there’s a good chance that one or more of your children are being sexually molested by someone you know. Therefore, let your kids know that they can confide in you and that you’ll believe whatever they tell you – and especially, make sure that they know that you’ll stand up for them no matter what! Therefore, notify the legal authorities immediately, and under no circumstances, contact your Bishop or church officials.

Moreover, all parents should teach their children how to say “no” to someone bigger than them – and mean it!

Last, but certainly not least, if you are currently abusing a child, please protect that child by immediately getting help outside the LDS Church.

Healing Tribunals

Unfortunately, child sexual abuse occurs on such a grand scale in the LDS Community that in a large Mormon family, it’s possible that all or most family members have been sexually abused by parents, grandparents, older siblings, baby sitters, church clergy, community members, neighbors, etc…

Needless to say, many sexually abused children grow up to be perpetrators of their own children.

So, what do you do when several family members admit to being sexually abused as children – and now, as adults, many of them may be sexually abusing their own children?

In other words, what do you do when yesterday’s victims are today’s perpetrators?

No doubt, every adult is responsible for their own actions, and there is no excuse for sexually abusing a child. However, it’s also pivotal to understand that every LDS member has been a victim of a deceitful, satanic cult, and even though every adult should be held accountable for their actions, hopefully, there is space for healing and compassion – making it possible for both individuals and families to heal.

Certainly, this type of pervasive healing is a complicated process, especially since we’re essentially talking about millions of LDS followers, and while the path ahead might not be clear, some things are very clear….

First and foremost, the truth must be exposed, the perpetrators must be identified, and any children who are still being abused must be protected at all costs – and of course, measures must be taken so that the cycle of abuse is permanently stopped!

Furthermore, church leaders who knowingly participated in ritual satanic child abuse, or covered it up, should be held accountable through the legal system.

However, considering the grand scale of potential child sexual abuse cases in Utah alone, half the population in Utah could end up in prison, and therefore, the criminal system may not be the best solution for the individual, family or community.

Nonetheless, even if you’re hesitant about filing criminal charges, at the very least, contact an attorney who represents victims of sexual abuse in the LDS Church.

So, when the criminal system is not the answer, what is?

In many aboriginal tribes, when a tribe member has committed a crime, community members create a tribunal where everything is exposed – and there is no secrecy.

Therefore, LDS families or communities who have been affected by ritualistic abuse could create their own private tribunals.

To form a healing tribunal for your family or community:

  • For a healing tribunal to be effective, the perpetrators must be willing to take full responsibility for their actions.
  • Community members should hold perpetrators accountable for their actions (in a non-violent manner), and therefore, perpetrators should not be defended by community members in any way.
  • In fact, members of the tribunal should not be allowed to defend the LDS faith or use it for any type of deflection.
  • The tribunal space should be a safe place where everyone gets a chance to tell their story, speak their truth and be heard in a non-judgmental way. Everyone must commit to honesty and transparency.
  • Instead of shaming and blaming victims, and causing even more trauma, victims should be nurtured and believed.
  • In the tribunal space, victims should be able to honestly confront their abusers, and safely express their anger, rage, shame, etc…
  • Family or community members must agree on the repentance and/or punishment – or decide to pursue a legal process.
  • Professional help should be sought, both for personal inner healing, as well as family healing when appropriate. In fact, the family or community needs to create a series of plans that support individual and group healing for all involved, such as psychotherapy, rehabilitation, etc…
  • Most importantly, great concern should be given to any children currently being abused, and therefore, in order to stop the abuse and prevent future abuse, the legal authorities should be immediately contacted, and the abuse should be treated as a serious crime.
  • Strong measures should be taken to ensure that the abuse does not continue in any shape or form. Since pedophilia is a crime, it’s impossible to have consensual sex with a child, and therefore, any form of sexual participation with a child is illegal, including child pornography.
  • For all abused children, professional help should be provided, and keep in mind that even infants store memories of sexual abuse – and often develop split personalities.
  • While forgiveness can be the intention of the family or community, forgiveness cannot be forced. Oftentimes, there’s a long and messy healing process before forgiveness is achieved.
  • Although it’s a personal choice, you might also want to consider having your name removed from the LDS Church database. By having your name in the database, you’re passively agreeing to the LDS Luciferian Agenda. (For how to remove your name from the LDS Temple, see link at the end of this article.)
  • Everyone involved should learn how to set and respect boundaries!

Setting Boundaries

First and foremost, your body and your life comprise a precious gift, and the way in which you honor this gift is by setting firm boundaries that protect you emotionally, mentally, physically and spiritually.

Here are 7 life changing boundaries:

  1. You always have the right to say No!
  2. Never do something you don’t want to do because you want someone to like you.
  3. Never stay in an uncomfortable situation because it’s too awkward to get up and leave.
  4. If a potential perpetrator won’t take “no” for an answer, do whatever you need to do to protect yourself; yell, scream, threaten to call the police, and if need be, fight back physically.
  5. Don’t make any important choices if your heart and head don’t agree.
  6. Whenever you find yourself saying, “I don’t know,” it always means no!Repeat after me, “I don’t know, means no”!
  7. Finally, you have the right to decide who touches your body and how they touch it, and therefore, whenever you say “No,” make sure that the other person knows that you really mean it!!!! (Once again, children cannot consent to participating in any sexual acts – and pedophilia is illegal.)

LDS Church to Crumble: From Dust and Ashes, New Life Shall Be Born

After generations of the most extreme deception and abuse, the LDS Church is about to crumble, and while this might sound scary to many devout Mormons, it’s important to remember that the real strength, support and security lies not in the church, but in your true spiritual values and a direct connection to Source!

Although the process of healing and forgiveness can take time and be extremely challenging, we all have the power to rebuild family and community relationships, and by doing so, we’re investing in the well-being of future generations.

So, for everyone who has been under the dark spell of the Luciferian Demonic Society, it’s time to come out of the murky shadows and wake-up in the light!

Remember, on the path to healing our deepest wounds, love is our greatest strength!



Copyright © Nanice Ellis, 2020. This article may be republished in its original form with proper accreditation. All rights reserved.



(Please keep in mind that this list is just the tip of an extremely large iceberg)

Over 300 Cases against the LDS Church 1959 to 2017

Download full PDF

Investigations of Child Sexual Abuse within the LDS Church
Pace Memorandum – 12 page document on LDS satanic ritual abuse

Report of Child Sexual Abuse in LDS Neighborhoods
UNIV.OF UTAH – Marion B. Smith – March, 2004

Criminal Investigations of Mormons Involved in Child Sexual Abuse

LDS Internal Investigation of Abuse


Child Sexual Abuse Cases in the LDS Community

Six Mormon Families Suing LDS Church over alleged cover-up of child sexual abuse

Mormon father confesses to molesting his 5 year old daughter

Utah doomsday group – 3rd Man Accused of Child Sex Abuse


Mormon Sunday School Teacher indicted for molesting children

Lawsuit Charges Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in San Jose with Allowing Church Leader to Sexually Abuse Two Young Girls

Boy Scouts Sexual Abuse Cover-up in the Mormon Church

Mormon Abuse Cases according to Wikipedia

Sexual Abuse in the Mormon Church and Cover-ups!

Interview with Attorney Tim Kosnoff: Defending Sexual Abuse Victims against the LDS Church

Serving Up Children to Pedophiles: Church and the W. Virginia Michael Jensen Sex Abuse Case

Early LDS Pedophilia Encouraged by Church – children forced to marry old men

The LDS Temple is a Secret Luciferian Cult

Exposing Satanism in the LDS Temple

Mormonism is Lucifer’s Church

Mormonism and Satanism – PDF

Sure Sign that Mormonism is actually Satanism

Human Sacrifice Reports in the LDS Temple

Lucifer’s Power and Priesthood in the LDS Temple – and the Green Apron
(This article refers to the “live” version of the temple ceremony filmed in the Salt Lake City Temple. Please find video of secret temple endowment ceremony below.)


Written Transcript of Temple Endowment Ceremony

LDS Church President – Nelson family accused of satanic ritual abuse

Current Church President – family accused of satanic ritual abuse

LDS Church Concealing Abuse

Lantern Project: Does the Mormon Church Conceal Child Sexual Abuse and Give Sanctuary to Known Sexual Predators?

FOX 13 Investigates: LDS Church urges leaders to not participate in ‘any type of court case:

Fox 13: LDS Church Policy – Code of Silence!

Court Documents Reveal LDS Bishop Failed to Report Abuse – leading to continued abuse

LDS Leaders Failed to Report the Manufacturing of Child Pornography in Daycare Center

Fake Victim’s Hotline

Mormon Church Accused of Using a Victims’ Hotline to Hide Sexual Abuse Claims
10 min video –

LDS Church Uses Victim’s Hotline to Hide Sexual Abuse Cases

Mormon Church accused of using their sexual abuse hotline to quiet victims and stave off potential lawsuits

Mormon Church accused of shielding itself from sex abuse claims with victims hotline

The Abuse Help Line and Policy Statements from LDS Handbooks and Manuals

LDS Church Involved in Child Trafficking

Is the Mormon Church Behind Arizona’s Child Sex Trafficking Ring?

Worldwide LDS Child Trafficking Ring in Arizona

Is the Arizona Human Trafficking Council Preventing Child Trafficking or Facilitating it?

Bishop Arrested for Child Trafficking



Books on Pedophilia and Satanic Worship in the LDS Church

“Satanic Ritual Abuse and Mormonism” – free PDF download,332978

Sins of Brother Curtis by Lisa Davis

Paperdolls: A True Story of Childhood Sexual Abuse in Mormonism by April Daniels

The Darker Side of Virtue, Corruption, Scandal and the Mormon Empire, by Anson Shupe

Brothers of the Secret Lodge: The God of the Freemasons & the New World Order
by John P. Morgan

In 1860, The Devil in America by an author using the pen name “Lacon” was published exposing the “Devil of Mormonism” and claiming that the Devil himself created the religion through Joseph Smith.

In 1891, in Paris, a book called Le Diable au 19e siècle promised “definitive” revelations on Satanism and the Satanic nature of Freemasonry. Its main author, Leo Taxil, claimed that Freemasonry was controlled by a Satanic secret society called “Supreme Council of Palladism” of which the Mormon President John Taylor was a member.

In 1923, author René Guénon, in his book L’Erreur spirite stated that the Mormon church was being controlled by Satanic forces and ultimately by the Devil himself.

In 1980, the book Michelle Remembers by Canadian psychologist, Lawrence Pazder and his patient Michelle Smith, publicized information concerning ritualistic abuse and Satanism. Some of the survivors interviewed linked the abuse to Satanic cult groups started by Brigham Young and said that their parents were the main sources of abuse.

Movies/Documentaries – Child Sexual Abuse in the LDS Church

No Crime in Sin

The Godmakers Book/Documentary by Ed Decker

The God Makers 2 – LDS Church Abuse

‘Church and the Fourth Estate’ Documentary – Boy Scouts/LDS Church Sex Abuse Scandal

More LDS Church Abuse Cases

Adult Survivors of Child Sexual Abuse: The Case of Mormon Women, Gerdes, Beck, Cowan-Hancock and Wilkinson-Sparks, Affilia, Vol. 11, No.1, Spring 1966 (Journal of Social Work)

Study on 71 Mormon women survivors of abuse in their dealings with church leaders. Revealing high percentage were counseled to forget abuse or were disbelieved; and of eighty perpetrators, only 3 were disciplined by church in any way. Survivors of abuse were punished more harshly than was the sexual abuse of children by male priesthood holders.
Affilia, a Journal of Social Work 1996     434-458

Church Shunned Sex Abuse Study/95 Report Faults Mormon Clergy for Handling of Victim Complaints, Paul McKay, Houston Chronicle 5/10/99     454-59

Mormons Hit by Child-Sex Lawsuits by Bob Van Voris
National Law Journal 11/16/98     323-325

Mormons Caught Up in Wave of Pedophile Accusations/Church Deals with Abuse Cases without Reporting them, Critics Say, Houston Chronicle 5/09/99     326-334

Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints Emphasizes Personal Propriety and the Value of Children. The Same Church Has Protected Serial Child Molesters Across the Country, by Lisa Davis,     Phoenix Times 12/10/94     334-369

Keeping Mum on Mormon Sexual Abuse by Marion Smith The Event, Vol. 15, No. 23
Salt Lake City, UT  3/28/96    370-376

Nowhere to Turn, the Lavar Withers Case (Church hierarchy ignore years of complaints of sexual abuse of female patients of Dr. Withers, a Stake President of the LDS church in Rexburg, ID. he Idaho Statesman Special Report
12/10/95     388-399

The Fairfield Wives
(Article about sexually abusive gynecologist and Stake President in Fairfield, CA whose abuse was ignored and covered up by Mormon Church leadership for years.) San Francisco Weekly, 8/5/98     398-433

Ch. 5: Child Abuse in Utah: The Family Secret
Discusses interviews with Utah Social Services workers, prosecutors and child welfare advocates who report a problem with LDS bishops covering up child sexual abuse by attempting to counsel with pedophiles without reporting them. Also discusses interviews regarding church leaders lack of cooperation in prosecution of LDS sexual abusers. Prometheus Books, Buffalo, NY 1991     376-382

Pastor of Shilo Christian Center in Idaho Falls, ID came out with a meticulously detailed report on an investigation that he conducted into the Mormon temple ceremony, saying that it was deeply rooted in Satanic worship.

In 1985, a therapist by the name of Dr. Barbara Snow showed up in a little town called Lehi, Utah where she made satanic ritualistic abuse allegations against respected local church leaders, leading to one Mormon elder actually being convicted. She and other therapists worked to expose other Mormon satanic rings in Utah and Idaho but couldn’t get enough to land any convictions.

Renowned MormonMitt Romney

Short Video on Mitt Romney and his connection to the Deep State

Mitt Romney Pals Around with Child Molesters

Romney Company “Bain Capital” owns Teen Treatment Programs – Abuse and Deaths

Mitt Romney and MKUltra

MK Ultra Minion Mitt Romney


Church Handbook of General Instructions (download full pdf)

National Sexual Assault Hotline (free and confidential)

How to Remove Your Name from the LDS Temple Records


Truth and Transparency; religious accountability through impact journalism

Woman hauled off Church Podium for accusing former bishop of raping her

LDS Bishops Act Like Sexual Predators

They’ve Known All Along – 10 min video

Top 10 Facts: The Mormon Church Doesn’t Want Its Members to Know

“Trance Formation of America” by Cathy O’Brien

TRANCE Formation of America

Church of Jesus Christ Endowment Ceremony

About the Freemasons

Scathing Lawsuit Seeks Punitive Damages from Mormon Church

The Corporate Structure of the Mormon Church

LDS Church Assets Total 80 to 100 Billion Dollars as of 2109

Law Firms Who Represent Sexual Abuse Victims
(Since the following list of law firms is not an endorsement of any type, please do your own due diligence).

Tim Kasnoff – attorney at law (represented 150 cases against LDS Church)

Ava Law Group

Crew Janci LLP

Rosenfeld Injury Lawyers

The post The LDS Church Protects and Recycles Pedophiles appeared first on The Freedom Articles.

]]> 3
COVID Vaccine Trials: Rigged Benchmarks and Horrible Side Effects Fri, 30 Oct 2020 01:20:16 +0000 By now, word regarding the COVID vaccine trials has leaked out. We know that many companies from the Big Pharma cartel have had to report embarrassing results from their COVID vaccine trials. Recently, we learnt that a volunteer participant in Brazil died in the COVID vaccine trial being conducted by AstraZeneca (in conjunction with Oxford […]

The post COVID Vaccine Trials: Rigged Benchmarks and Horrible Side Effects appeared first on The Freedom Articles.

COVID vaccine trials

Many Big Pharma companies are conducting COVID vaccine trials in which volunteers are plagued by horrible side effects. Additionally, the trials are set up so that ‘success’ is an incredibly low benchmark to achieve.

By now, word regarding the COVID vaccine trials

has leaked out. We know that many companies from the Big Pharma cartel have had to report embarrassing results from their COVID vaccine trials. Recently, we learnt that a volunteer participant in Brazil died in the COVID vaccine trial being conducted by AstraZeneca (in conjunction with Oxford University). Before that, in the same set of AstraZeneca trials, 2 women developed serious adverse effects, one of whom experienced neurological symptoms consistent with a serious spinal inflammatory disorder called transverse myelitis. Meanwhile, in the COVID vaccine trials of Johnson and Johnson (yes, the same Big Pharma company that was present at Bill Gates’ prophetic Event 201 simulation), there was an ‘unexplained illness’ in one of the volunteers. Even for those who passionately believe in vaccines, these horrible side effects are disturbing, all the more since the New World Order (NWO) agenda is dictating that the COVID vaccine be rolled out worldwide on a quasi-mandatory or fully mandatory basis.

Widespread and Serious Side Effects Everywhere in COVID Vaccine Trials

In another case, the COVID vaccine being developed by Moderna led to one participant developing a fever of more than 103º and later fainting in his home. In Moderna’s Phase 1 human trial, 100% of volunteers in the high-dose group suffered systemic side effects – fatigue, chills, headache and myalgia (muscle pain). In fact, Moderna’s vaccine was shown to have a 20% “serious” injury rate in its high-dose group; one participant in their trial stated that he had become “the sickest in his life” after taking the vaccine. In this interview with Gates, the CBS anchor reveals 80% of trial participants had a systemic reaction after the 2nd dose. The corruption goes deeper still, for the FDA just granted permission to yet another Big Pharma company Pfizer to test its experimental COVID vaccine on American children! Although it wasn’t for the COVID vaccine, there was another COVID trial that was halted; the NIH stopped the Eli Lilly COVID antibody trial because of safety concerns. The dubious amount of side effects apparently hasn’t been a problem for AstraZeneca, who according to Reuters was able to strike deals with many nations whereby it will gain protection from future vaccine liability claims.

Vaccine Trials Rigged by Being Set up with Very Low Benchmarks for Success

The horrible side effects are ominous enough, but it doesn’t stop there. There is also fraud in the way the trails are designed. By setting the bar very low, the vaccine can come through the trials looking like a winner, even it’s not particularly effective (to say nothing of its safety). Mercola writes:

“Shockingly, preventing infection with SARS-CoV-2 is not a criterion for success in these vaccine trials. The only criterion for a successful COVID-19 vaccine is a reduction of symptoms shared by both COVID-19 and the common cold. In AstraZeneca’s case, the interim analysis includes 50 vaccine recipients. The vaccine will be a success if 12 or fewer develop symptoms after exposure to SARS-CoV-2, compared to 19 in the 25-person control group.”

In the well-quoted article Covid-19 Vaccine Protocols Reveal That Trials Are Designed To Succeed, William Haseltine wrote:

“Prevention of infection must be a critical endpoint … Prevention of infection is not a criterion for success for any of these vaccines. In fact, their endpoints all require confirmed infections … the vaccines are not expected to prevent infection, only modify symptoms of those infected.

We all expect an effective vaccine to prevent serious illness if infected. Three of the vaccine protocols—Moderna, Pfizer, and AstraZeneca—do not require that their vaccine prevent serious disease only that they prevent moderate symptoms which may be as mild as cough, or headache … A vaccine must significantly or entirely reduce deaths from Covid-19 … None list mortality as a critical endpoint.

The second surprise from these protocols is how mild the requirements for contracted Covid-19 symptoms are. A careful reading reveals that the minimum qualification for a case of Covid-19 is a positive PCR test and one or two mild symptoms. These include headache, fever, cough, or mild nausea. This is far from adequate. These vaccine trials are testing to prevent common cold symptoms.”

Did you catch that? The vaccines are not designed to prevent infection, but only to reduce possible symptoms. This is ultimately because there is no isolated, purified SARS-CoV-2 virus. Anyone who is assessed to be ‘infected’ (as judged by the highly flawed PCR test) may simply be so because the test picked up their own DNA or other RNA/viral sequences.

“It appears that all the pharmaceutical companies assume that the vaccine will never prevent infection. Their criteria for approval is the difference in symptoms between an infected control group and an infected vaccine group. They do not measure the difference between infection and noninfection as a primary motivation … Again we find that severe illness and death are only secondary objectives in these trials. None list the prevention of death and hospitalization as a critically important barrier.”

New Federal Court Set up to Handle COVID Vaccine Claims

Meanwhile, just as the NCVIA (National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act) was passed in the US in 1986 to shield Big Pharma from vaccine liability, there will now be a new court for COVID vaccine claims. Jon Rappoport reports the following:

“The simple truth is: the US government is anticipating many people will be filing claims for compensation, when their family members are harmed or killed by a new COVID vaccine … This new federal vaccine court for COVID will operate exactly like the present system for paying out claims for vaccine injury to children. Citizens have to jump through many absurd hoops and navigate all sorts of red tape, to try to squeeze money out of the federal government. The system is set up that way. It’s your basic bureaucratic nightmare.

The language that establishes the new COVID vaccine court is found in the Federal Register, 3/17/20, buried in section 14 of a document titled: Declaration Under the Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act for Medical Countermeasures Against COVID-19. Here is the relevant passage in that document:

Countermeasures Injury Compensation Program…Section 319F-4 of the PHS Act, 42 U.S.C. 247d-6e, authorizes the Countermeasures Injury Compensation Program (CICP) to provide benefits to eligible individuals who sustain a serious physical injury or die as a direct result of the administration or use of a Covered [COVID] Countermeasure [e.g., a vaccine]. Compensation under the CICP for an injury directly caused by a Covered Countermeasure is based on the requirements set forth in this Declaration, the administrative rules for the Program, and the statute. To show direct causation between a Covered Countermeasure and a serious physical injury, the statute requires ‘compelling, reliable, valid, medical and scientific evidence.’ The administrative rules for the Program further explain the necessary requirements for eligibility under the CICP…”

Final Thoughts

Even normal vaccines, which undergo extensive safety trials and take on average 7-20 years to bring to market, are inherently toxic and dangerous. This is all the more so for the coming COVID vaccines, which may be brought to market quickly under the FDA’s EUA (Emergency Use Authorization). We know the military will be heavily involved in both the US (Operation Warp Speed) and UK in the COVID vaccine rollout. We are on the verge of a worldwide catastrophe in terms of horrific side effects – and you can be sure that Big Pharma will deny, distract and obfuscate (“He’s not sick from the COVID vaccine, he’s sick from COVID”). We must be prepared for the COVID vaccine rollout (and the all the nanotech that comes with it) because it’s literally only weeks or months away. Stay informed and stay aware.


Makia Freeman is the editor of alternative media / independent news site The Freedom Articles, author of the book Cancer: The Lies, the Truth and the Solutions and senior researcher at Makia is on Steemit and Parler.






















The post COVID Vaccine Trials: Rigged Benchmarks and Horrible Side Effects appeared first on The Freedom Articles.

]]> 10
In June Study CDC Scientists Make 2 COVID Admissions that Destroy Official Narrative Tue, 27 Oct 2020 00:20:58 +0000 CDC (Center for Disease Control) scientists made some COVID admissions that totally destroy the official COVID narrative in a study published in June 2020 entitled Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 from Patient with Coronavirus Disease, United States. The interesting thing about this whole scamdemic is that when you dig deep enough, the truth is […]

The post In June Study CDC Scientists Make 2 COVID Admissions that Destroy Official Narrative appeared first on The Freedom Articles.

COVID admissions

In a June 2020 study, CDC scientists made 2 COVID admissions which destroy the official coronavirus narrative.

CDC (Center for Disease Control) scientists made some COVID admissions

that totally destroy the official COVID narrative in a study published in June 2020 entitled Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 from Patient with Coronavirus Disease, United States. The interesting thing about this whole scamdemic is that when you dig deep enough, the truth is out there – and it is admitted by official sources – however it does take a lot of persistence to cut through the propagandistic maze of disinfo. In this article, we’re going to take a look at the significance of what the CDC scientists revealed, namely that for their research involving the allegedly new virus SARS-CoV-2, they only used 37 base pairs from actual sample tissue and filled in the rest (around 30,000 base pairs) with computer generated sequences, i.e. they made it up! The other of the COVID admissions is equally as stunning: after testing they found that SARS-CoV-2 could not infect human tissue.

#1 COVID Admission: The Computer-Generated Frankenstein Virus: CDC Scientists Admit Only Using 37 Base Pairs from Real Tissue to Assemble SARS-CoV-2

In a previous article, I talked about how SARS-CoV-2 is a stitched-together, Frankenstein virus, because it is a computer-generated, digital, abstract creation, not a real living virus. It has never been properly purified and isolated so that it could be sequenced from end-to-end once derived from living tissue; instead, it’s just digitally assembled from a computer viral database. The CDC scientists state they took just 37 base pairs from a genome of 30,000 base pairs! That means that about 0.001% of the viral sequence is derived from actual living samples or real bodily tissue. Here is the quote:

“Whole-Genome Sequencing

We designed 37 pairs of nested PCRs spanning the genome on the basis of the coronavirus reference sequence (GenBank accession no. NC045512). We extracted nucleic acid from isolates and amplified by using the 37 individual nested PCRs.”

Interestingly enough, in the next paragraph, the CDC scientists say they used “quantitative PCR” for further analysis/construction, which goes against what Kary Mullis, the inventor of PCR, once said – namely that “quantitative PCR is an oxymoron” since PCR is inherently a qualitative technique not a quantitative one. I have covered how badly the PCR test is being misused throughout this entire COVID scamdemic in other articles such as this one. In his article Only Poisoned Monkey Kidney Cells ‘Grew’ the ‘Virus’ Dr. Thomas Cowan highlights this scientific fraud:

“… we find that rather than having isolated the virus and sequencing the genome from end to end, they found 37 base pairs from unpurified samples using PCR probes. This means they actually looked at 37 out of the approximately 30,000 of the base pairs that are claimed to be the genome of the intact virus. They then took these 37 segments and put them into a computer program, which filled in the rest of the base pairs.

To me, this computer-generation step constitutes scientific fraud. Here is an equivalency: A group of researchers claim to have found a unicorn because they found a piece of a hoof, a hair from a tail, and a snippet of a horn. They then add that information into a computer and program it to re-create the unicorn, and they then claim this computer re-creation is the real unicorn. Of course, they had never actually seen a unicorn so could not possibly have examined its genetic makeup to compare their samples with the actual unicorn’s hair, hooves and horn.”

Pure or true science attempts to prove whether something is so; hence true science has no room for politics, majority rules or consensus. Yet, according to Cowan, consensus was used to determine which digital SARS-CoV-2 model was the most real fake model:

“The researchers claim they decided which is the real genome of SARS-CoV-2 by “consensus,” sort of like a vote. Again, different computer programs will come up with different versions of the imaginary “unicorn,” so they come together as a group and decide which is the real imaginary unicorn.”

#2 COVID Admission: CDC Scientists Found that SARS-CoV-2 Didn’t Infect Human Tissue

A big part of the official story we were told was that COVID was a new, dangerous and unpredictable disease that was both fast-spreading and lethal. Well, it’s apparently not very lethal since the CDC scientists found that it couldn’t even infect human cells in vitro. They tested the ‘virus’ (not really, but solutions they claim contain samples of SARS-CoV-2) on 3 different types of human tissue cultures (human adenocarcinoma cells [A549], human liver cells [HUH 7.0] and human embryonic kidney cells [HEK-293T]). The ‘virus’ was not able to infect any of the 3 human tissue cultures. Here’s the quote:

“… we examined the capacity of SARS-CoV-2 to infect and replicate in several common primate and human cell lines, including human adenocarcinoma cells (A549), human liver cells (HUH7.0), and human embryonic kidney cells (HEK-293T), in addition to Vero E6 and Vero CCL81 cells. We also examined an available big brown bat kidney cell line (EFK3B) for SARS-CoV-2 replication capacity. Each cell line was inoculated at high multiplicity of infection and examined 24 h postinfection … No CPE was observed in any of the cell lines except in Vero cells, which grew to >107 PFU at 24 h postinfection. In contrast, HUH7.0 and 293T cells showed only modest viral replication, and A549 cells were incompatible with SARS-CoV-2 infection. These results are consistent with previous susceptibility findings for SARS-CoV and suggest other common culture systems, including MDCK, HeLa, HEP-2, MRC-5 cells, and embryonated eggs, are unlikely to support SARS-CoV-2 replication. In addition, SARS-CoV-2 did not replicate in bat EFK3B cells, which are susceptible to MERS-CoV. Together, the results indicate that SARS-CoV-2 maintains a similar profile to SARS-CoV in terms of susceptible cell lines.”

CPE stands for cytopathic effect or cytopathogenic effect and refers to structural changes in cells caused by viral invasion. No CPE was found in any of the human tissue cells, but only in the vero cells (animal cells, in this case monkey cells). The key takeaway from the above quote is that 2 cultures had only modest viral replication, the other tissue had none, and that other common human cultures are “unlikely to support SARS-CoV-2 replication” meaning SARS-CoV-2 will not infect them! So, even by the rules of their own game, SARS-CoV-2 is not an infectious agent for humans. Here’s Dr. Cowan’s analysis:

“What does this language actually mean, and why is it the most shocking statement of all from the virology community?  When virologists attempt to prove infection, they have three possible “hosts” or models on which they can test. The first is humans. Exposure to humans is generally not done for ethical reasons and has never been done with SARS-CoV-2 or any coronavirus.  The second possible host is animals. Forgetting for a moment that they never actually use purified virus when exposing animals, they do use solutions that they claim contain the virus. Exposure to animals has been done once with SARS-CoV-2, in an experiment that used mice. The researchers found that none of the wild (normal) mice got sick. In a group of genetically modified mice, a statistically insignificant number lost some fur. They experienced nothing like the illness called Covid 19.

The third method virologists use to prove infection and pathogenicity — the method they most rely on — is inoculation of solutions they say contain the virus onto a variety of tissue cultures. As I have pointed out many times, such inoculation has never been shown to kill (lyse) the tissue, unless the tissue is first starved and poisoned.

The shocking thing about the above quote is that using their own methods, the virologists found that solutions containing SARS-CoV-2 — even in high amounts — were NOT, I repeat NOT, infective to any of the three human tissue cultures they tested. In plain English, this means they proved, on their terms, that this “new coronavirus” is not infectious to human beings. It is ONLY infective to monkey kidney cells, and only then when you add two potent drugs (gentamicin and amphotericin), known to be toxic to kidneys, to the mix.

My friends, read this again and again. These virologists, published by the CDC, performed a clear proof, on their terms, showing that the SARS-CoV-2 virus is harmless to human beings. That is the only possible conclusion, but, unfortunately, this result is not even mentioned in their conclusion.”

These 2 COVID Admissions Sink the Official Narrative Even More

So there you have it: more scientific fraud in the form of these 2 COVID admissions, and yet more evidence showing there is no real virus, and whatever the ‘virus’ is, it certainly not anything to be worried about if you are a human – which I guess you probably are if you’re reading this. These COVID admissions go to show that the truth is often hidden in plain sight, and that people in positions of power must always be carefully scrutinized. We must apply critical thinking to everything that comes from official sources.

Hat tip to Sally Fallon Morrell and Dr. Thomas Cowan of the Weston A. Price Foundation.


Makia Freeman is the editor of alternative media / independent news site The Freedom Articles, author of the book Cancer: The Lies, the Truth and the Solutions and senior researcher at Makia is on Steemit and Parler.







The post In June Study CDC Scientists Make 2 COVID Admissions that Destroy Official Narrative appeared first on The Freedom Articles.

]]> 7
16 Glaring Parallels Between the 9/11 and COVID Ops Wed, 21 Oct 2020 22:54:34 +0000 There are numerous 9/11 COVID similarities to be seen and understood as the world goes ever deeper into Operation Coronavirus. Many nations around the world, including Canada and Australia, are making moves to roll out the next phase of the operation, which involves digital identities, biometrics and digital vaccine certificates (or immunity passports), just as […]

The post 16 Glaring Parallels Between the 9/11 and COVID Ops appeared first on The Freedom Articles.

9/11 COVID similarities

Take a close look at the 9/11 COVID similarities; there are glaring parallels between these 2 operations, both of which involve psychological and ritualistic trauma.

There are numerous 9/11 COVID similarities

to be seen and understood as the world goes ever deeper into Operation Coronavirus. Many nations around the world, including Canada and Australia, are making moves to roll out the next phase of the operation, which involves digital identities, biometrics and digital vaccine certificates (or immunity passports), just as Bill Gates foretold all those months ago. It is imperative that we all understand that this is a far-reaching operation or live exercise designed to fundamentally transform society in alignment with the goals of the New World Order (NWO). By comparing the current COVID op to the 9/11 op, we can discern the patterns and become wiser to the agenda, for there is a certain way that evil hijacks good. Below is a list of 16 different 9/11 COVID similarities that I have noticed, however there may well be many more.

1. MSM and Governments Amp Up the Fear with Incessant Coverage and Propaganda

The MSM (Mainstream Media) has barely focused on anything other than COVID since March, with the purpose of almost all the ‘news’ being to scare the living daylights out of people and render them into docile submission. Many of the initial projections turned out to be completely and utterly wrong. The Gates-owned WHO (World Health Organization) predicted the IFR (Infection Fatality Rate) would be 3.4%, when later a Stanford University study and the CDC put it at more like 0.1 – 0.26%; the Gates-funded Imperial College predicted 2 millions American would die when actually only around 225,000 have so far (and those official statistics are embarrassingly fake due to COVID death certificate fraud). Likewise, in the aftermath of 9/11, there was unending propaganda about how freedom itself was under attack by radical Islamic terrorism. People were first traumatized and then besieged with a slew of misinformation which disguised the true conspirators, shifted attention to fictitious enemies and fostered the desire in people to want to be saved (the basis for increased governmental control). One of the interesting 9/11 COVID similarities is the color-coded threat chart.

DHS color coded threat chart

hawaii covid color chart2. Governmental Reaction Kills Way More People than the Event Itself

In both cases, the governmental reaction is worse than the supposed threat itself, just as in Western Medicine, where frequently the cure is worse than the disease. Chemo, anyone? The official narrative of 9/11 tells us that around 3,000 Americans died from the event, however the 9/11 spawned the War on Terror, under whose auspices the US invaded Iraq, Afghanistan and later many other Middle Eastern nations, killing at least 1 million people in Iraq alone. When Operation Coronavirus began, we were told to lock down for 2 weeks to ‘flatten the curve’ however here we are 7+ months later and people are still walking around wearing masks and not getting too close. Meanwhile, the result of governmental lockdown policies has been increased stress, anxiety, depression, joblessness, poverty, crime and suicide. Many people and organizations (here, here and here) have predicted the lockdown will kill more people than it has supposedly saved.

3. No Investigation of Coincidences

The 9/11 false flag op was characterized by a stunning series of coincidences which were never investigated and which the authorities swept under the rug, such as passports magically surviving office fires and falling to the ground intact, a building crumbling of its own accord 8+ hours after planes had hit nearby buildings (but not it) and fighter jets failing to be scrambled from the nearest base. In the COVID op, it was quite an astonishing coincidence that Fauci via the NIH funded Chinese virology labs in Wuhan to the tune of $7.4 million (2 lots of $3.7 million) for gain of function research, or in plain English, weaponization of virus research. It was also rather coincidental that the US Military, Bill Gates and other NWO organizations and people were planning for this exact scenario years before it happened.

4. Introduction of a Fundamental New Paradigm (War on Terror vs. War on Bioterror)

As I covered in my March 2020 article The New War on Bioterror: Everyone is a Suspected or Asymptomatic Carrier, we are being steadily indoctrinated into a new paradigm of biosecurity, whereby the authorities hope to advance their agenda of control by appealing to the need for public safety against a new enemy. In the post-9/11 world, there was the War on Terror and the concocted enemy was bin Laden and radical Islamic terrorists; in the post-COVID world, there’s the War on Bioterror and the concocted enemy is an invisible virus. In both cases, we were told the enemy could be lurking anywhere and everywhere, and only increased governmental surveillance and control could save us.

5. 9/11 COVID Similarities: False Official Narratives

In both operations, the official narrative has more holes than a piece of Swiss cheese. In the 9/11 op, we were supposed to believe the terrorists managed to fly planes into buildings with such skill using maneuvers that even experienced pilots could not manage, while the laws of physics were suspended that day as jet fuel magically burnt through concrete and steel, despite the fact that jet fuel doesn’t have a high enough burning point to do so. In the COVID op, we are supposed to believe that the virus is literally everywhere, can be transmitted via cash, can live on surfaces of days or weeks and thrives on asymptomatic transmission when no other known virus has ever done so.

6. Foreknowledge

Why did BBC report Building 7 had fallen 30 minutes before it actually did? Why did San Francisco mayor Willie Brown and author Salmon Rushdie both get calls beforehand telling them not to board planes going to NYC? Why did the Chinese Government run a drill for a coronavirus outbreak 30 days before the Wuhan Military Games? Why did the US Government run or pass so many simulations, drills and laws that planned for the coronavirus?

7. Event Preceded by Exercises/Drills that “Went Live” or Eerily Mimicked What Later Happened

According to Kevin Ryan, NORAD practiced 28 hijacked events within 2 years of 9/11, 6 of which focused on hijackings within US and 1 which practiced interception of hijacked planes headed for the UN building in New York City. Webster Tarpley researched that there were 46 drills and exercises taking place on the day of 9/11! Meanwhile in Operation Coronavirus, in addition to things such as Dark Winter (2001), Atlantic Storm (2005), Clade X (2018), Crimson Contagion (2019), there was the now infamous Event 201 (October 2019) which simulated an actual coronavirus outbreak that comes from Brazil and enters the US to infect millions (see above link on simulations, drills and laws).

8. Insider Trading

9/11 was marked by massive amounts of insider trading. This study Initiation of the 9-11 Operation, with Evidence of Insider Trading Beforehand does a good job of exposing the details. Meanwhile before COVID struck the US, there were many politicians (especially senators) who bought or sold stock before the US economy crashed.

9. Suspicious Benefits to a Powerful Few

Isn’t it interesting how the big players seem to benefit the most from these catastrophes and crises? During 9/11, Halliburton, defense contractors, oil and gas companies and others invested in Iraq/Afghanistan to make a killing. During COVID, we learnt that certain billionaires increased their wealth by a whopping 27%. In both cases, the rich and powerful got more rich and powerful.

10. Intel Agency Control of Information

Manufactured crises like 9/11 and COVID open the door for private corporations linked to the MIC (Military Intelligence Complex) to gain a foothold in terms of greater access to our data. 9/11 was good business for surveillance companies; Peter Thiel’s CIA-initiated company Palantir manages the databases used by the CDC (in the US) and the NHS (in the UK) that are the basis of COVID decision-making.

11. 9/11 COVID Similarities: A Fictitious, All-Powerful and Elusive Enemy

Think about it for a minute: Al-Qaeda and SARS-CoV-2 can rarely be seen, can’t be easily stopped (or stopped at all), require great amount of time, money and focus to be defeated (more of the war mentality), and are a completely new kind of enemy (asymmetrical warfare and asymptomatic transmission). We were told that other human coronaviruses behave in a seasonal, highly predictable manner, but not SARS-CoV-2. It was somehow different. The FBI never formally charged bin Laden; meanwhile he looked different in every fake video they released. Bin Laden seemed to have more lives than the proverbial cat but in the end we were told to just believe that they had killed him and thrown his body away at sea; there was never any proof. Several alleged Middle Eastern hijackers turned up alive elsewhere. Compare these fictitious enemies to a virus has never been isolated and purified.

12. Junk Science

For the most part, science has sadly become a tool for moneyed interests to push their agenda. He who pays the piper calls the tune. There are many intellectual prostitutes in white coats who will find any result they are paid to find. Both operations are marked by junk or fraudulent science. In the case of 9/11, there is all the chicanery around the fall of all 3 buildings in NYC including the coverup by NIST which was well exposed earlier this year in the University of Alaska Fairbanks study, A Structural Reevaluation of the Collapse of World Trade Center 7. Professional architects, engineers and pilots have all declared that the official 9/11 narrative is not scientifically sound and in defiance of the laws of physics. Likewise, the official COVID narrative has thoroughly abused science by exploiting people’s ignorance of the nature of a virus and the nature of contagion and disease. It also used hyped and falsified numbers under the rubric of science to scare people, offered financial incentives for doctors and hospitals to inflate COVID cases/deaths, not to mention used the key deception of with the virus vs. from the virus to obfuscate the real cause of death in millions of people.

13. Censorship of Dissent

Another of the 9/11 COVID similarities is that both were marked by censorship or the suppression of evidence. In the COVID op, Google-owned YouTube has been deleting channels left, right and center, with CEO Susan Wojcicki announcing at one point that she would not allow any content with information contrary to the Gates-owned WHO! In the 9/11 op, the MSM carefully selected whom they wanted to interview, and heroes like William Rodriguez were initially welcomed but brushed aside when they refused to follow the script. Compare George Bush Jr.’s “Let us never tolerate outrageous conspiracy theories concerning the attacks of September the 11th” with the current propaganda that “You’re killing Grandma” if you step outside without a mask.

14. Denunciation of Deniers

The word denier has become something of a weaponized term in the last decade, been thrown against those who refuse to believe in certain narratives (e.g. climate change denier or climate denier for those who don’t buy the manmade global warming story). At the end of WW2, Hermann Goering admitted the game plan of leaders in any country: “Why of course the people don’t want war! … Naturally the common people don’t want war: neither in Russia, nor in England, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood … [but] the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peace makers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.” Another of the great 9/11 COVID similarities is the denunciation of deniers, the denunciation of anyone not following the governmental official narrative. In 9/11, it went something like this (“You’re unpatriotic and un-American if you don’t hate Al Qaeda and bin Laden”) while in COVID, it’s goes something like this (“You’re selfish and you’re endangering the community if you protest, don’t socially distance and don’t wear a mask”).

15. Introduction of a New Layer of Security State Bureaucracy

In both cases, a whole new layer of security state bureaucracy was introduced. In the 9/11 op, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) was created. In just a few years, this federal department quickly grew into one of the largest federal agencies, taking in tens of billions of taxpayer dollars each year ever since. The term “Homeland” hardly existed in the US before that. The DHS also spawned the infamous TSA, notorious for the 2-pronged option it gives travelers: radiation or molestation. Meanwhile, the COVID op has yet to spawn a new US federal agency, however it is undeniable that the pretext of COVID has given governments massive power to penetrate deeply into our lives.

16. Psychological and Ritualistic Trauma

The 9/11 op was very ritualistic; 2 small examples are the numerology (911 is the number to call in the US when there’s an emergency) and the echoes of Freemasonry (the WTC Twin Towers representing the Twin Pillars of Boaz and Joachim). Likewise, as I covered in the article Exposing the Occult Corona-Initiation Ritual, the entire length and breadth of Operation Coronavirus is steeped in ritual, including phases such as Lockdown and Quarantine (isolation), Rejection (hand-washing), Mask-Wearing (censorship, submission, dehumanization, reinforcing a false idea of danger, alternate persona) and Social Distancing (the New Normal). The 9/11 COVID similarities are striking, since in both cases the idea is to traumatize the public through fear, separate them from customary modes of functioning and break them down so they will accept a new way of being.

Final Thoughts on 9/11 COVID Similarities

To understand these 2 massive psychological operations is to understand the way the NWO Agenda advances in our world. There is a distinctive pattern to the darkness/unconsciousness in the way it deceives, betrays, tricks, distracts, obfuscates and manipulates. Ultimately, we know the endgame is to put people into such states of anxiety, stress and fear that they will accept any level of state security, corporatocratic surveillance, invasion of privacy and violation of their sovereign, unalienable, inherent, god-given rights. My hope is that articles such as these shine a light on the darkness and bring it to the surface to be exposed, so that the deception is no longer effective. The power of these false flag events and psy ops lies in their capacity to manipulate perception; once an awakened populace sees through it, their power evaporates.

Hat tip to Kevin Ryan.


Makia Freeman is the editor of alternative media / independent news site The Freedom Articles, author of the book Cancer: The Lies, the Truth and the Solutions and senior researcher at Makia is on Steemit and Parler.



























The post 16 Glaring Parallels Between the 9/11 and COVID Ops appeared first on The Freedom Articles.

]]> 9
Operation Coronavirus is Working Hand-in-Hand with the Nanotech Agenda Thu, 08 Oct 2020 02:15:39 +0000 The nanotech agenda – involving the placement of tiny sensors, devices and machines measured in nanometers inside the human body – is receiving a boost from the current fake pandemic which I have labeled Operation Coronavirus. My earlier article Hydrogel Biosensor: Implantable Nanotech to be Used in COVID Vaccines? discussed the possibility that the coming […]

The post Operation Coronavirus is Working Hand-in-Hand with the Nanotech Agenda appeared first on The Freedom Articles.

nanotech agenda

The nanotech agenda (human microchipping) is being forwarded by Operation Coronavirus, especially with the coming COVID vaccine.

The nanotech agenda –

involving the placement of tiny sensors, devices and machines measured in nanometers inside the human body – is receiving a boost from the current fake pandemic which I have labeled Operation Coronavirus. My earlier article Hydrogel Biosensor: Implantable Nanotech to be Used in COVID Vaccines? discussed the possibility that the coming COVID vaccines may incorporate nanotechnology funded by DARPA called hydrogel, a biosensor which would monitor your body as well as send and receive information to the 5G Smart Grid. However there is much, much more to the story. The NWO conspirators have not only been planning this scamdemic for decades, but also have been planning the nanotech agenda for a long time too; now, with the advent of COVID, the two agendas are merging, with sinister implications for humanity. This article will take a closer look at the nanotech agenda and the current state of nanotechnology inside existing products such as vaccines. The agenda is already far more advanced than many people realize.

2008 Paper Outlines Plan to Construct a Nanorobot Hardware Architecture

A 2008 research paper entitled Nanorobot Hardware Architecture for Medical Defense analyzes in fine detail how nanotech devices such as nanorobots could be used to for various purposes such as “medical defense” and “epidemic control.” It states that it provides details on an “integrated platform and hardware architecture for nanorobots application in epidemic control, which should enable real time in vivo prognosis of biohazard infection.” The idea is to place nanotech inside our bodies which communicates in real time with the Smart Grid (powered by 5G) to provide intimate information to the authorities about us. Wayne from Alchemical Tech Revolution does a great commentary here. Following are some quotes from the paper:

“Normally, for areas in public calamity or conflict zones, the absence of drinking water, any sort of fuel, electricity, and the lack of towers for network communication, including cable and wireless telephony, is a constant. In such a situation, the available infrastructure is far from ideal to enable a large scale medical laboratory with precise and fast analysis. For such aspect, nanorobots integrated with nanobiosensors can help to transmit real time information, using international mobile phones for wireless data transmission through satellite communication. In fact, nanorobots should mean an efficient and powerful clinical device to provide precious biomedical monitoring, both for soldiers as for civilian population.”

Notice how they admit that there is dual use (for military and civilians) which usually connotes a weapons system with another use. In this case, they are disguising the deeper purpose (embedded surveillance) with the superficial purpose (a medical application):

“Taking from the moment of infection, some contagious diseases may show the first symptoms after hours, a week, or longer time, like years or even decades. It means, for example, that when the public authorities noticed the infection from a contaminated person, showing external symptoms, a virus had enough time to spread itself through a circle of friends and workmates of the infected victim. Meantime, those mates were adversely driving the virus forward, and had started a catastrophic chain circle. The use of nanorobots with embedded nanodevices for real time epidemic control, as lab on a chip, can be useful to avoid serious contamination with large proportions.”

The above quote hypes the danger of contagion, and specifically a virus, as a reason for you to willingly submit to the nanotech agenda and get embedded with nanotechnology. It appeals to the concepts of contagion and germ theory, however especially since the COVID scamdemic began, a number of brave independent researchers and doctors are questioning these ideas, which reinforce the current Medical Industry’s business model of petrochemical pills and vaccines.

“We implemented a system simulation and architecture of nanorobots for sensing the bloodstream, targeting biochemical changes against pathological signals. Actual advances in wireless technologies, nanoelectronics devices, and their use in the implementation of nanorobots applied to epidemic control, illustrate what upcoming technologies can enable in terms of real time health monitoring. The approach for in vivo monitoring chemical concentrations should also apply to other.”

As Wayne says, this stuff is next level contact tracing. Forget an app on your phone; the plan is for in vivo (taking place in a living organism) surveillance. There are many significant quotes from the paper, but here is one last one:

“Frequencies ranging from 1 to 20MHz can be successfully used for biomedical applications without any damage.”

Is the implication that there could be damage if frequencies are higher than 20MHz, such as in the 30-100 GHz range of 5G?

2017 Study Shows Nanotech Contaminants Already Widely Present in Vaccines

The nanotech invasion is already here. It’s not a question of “will they place nanotech in vaccines” since they already have. This 2017 Italian study entitled New Quality-Control Investigations on Vaccines: Micro- and Nanocontamination details an astonishing array of nanocontaminants in vaccines, including particles made of lead, cadmium, cerium, iron, titanium, nickel, zirconium, hafnium, strontium, tungsten, gold, silver, platinum, antimony, bismuth and aluminum. The study (which analyzes 44 types of 15 traditional vaccines) states that these contaminants are “non biodegradable and non biocompatible”, that their inclusion is “not declared” and that their presence is “inexplicable.” It gives the benefit of the doubt to Big Pharma and its controllers when it concludes that “our hypothesis is that this contamination is unintentional, since it is probably due to polluted components or procedures of industrial processes (e.g. filtrations) used to produce vaccines, not investigated and not detected by the Producers. If our hypothesis is actually the case, a close inspection of the working places and the full knowledge of the whole procedure of vaccine preparation would probably allow to eliminate the problem.” Knowing the background of the human microchipping and nanotech agenda, I would suggest there is another way to see things.

The study reveals how these nanoparticles can interact with the body in negative ways and cause harmful effects:

“… investigations revealed that some particles are embedded in a biological substrate, probably proteins, endo-toxins and residues of bacteria. As soon as a particle comes in contact with proteic fluids, a nano-bio-interaction occurs and a “protein corona” is formed. The nano-bio-interaction generates a bigger-sized compound that is not biodegradable and can induce adverse effects, since it is not recognized as self by the body. Figure 5a-5f show examples of these nano-bio-interactions. Aggregates can be seen (stable composite entities) containing particles of Lead in Meningitec, of stainless steel (Iron, Chromium and Nickel) and of Copper, Zinc and Lead in Cervarix.”

“After being injected, those microparticles, nanoparticles and aggregates can stay around the injection site forming swellings and granulomas … But they can also be carried by the blood circulation, escaping any attempt to guess what will be their final destination … As happens with all foreign bodies, particularly that small, they induce an inflammatory reaction that is chronic because most of those particles cannot be degraded. Furthermore, the protein-corona effect … due to a nano-bio-interaction … can produce organic/inorganic composite particles capable of stimulating the immune system in an undesirable way … It is impossible not to add that particles the size often observed in vaccines can enter cell nuclei and interact with the DNA … “

“In some cases, e.g. as occurs with Iron and some Iron alloys, they can corrode and the corrosion products exert a toxicity affecting the tissues … “

So here is the question to ponder: are these so-called accidental and dangerous nanocontaminants just particles that deleteriously affect human health in numerous ways, or are they also nanosensors that can receive and transmit data to the Smart Grid?

nanotech COVID vaccineNanotechnology is at the Forefront of Cutting-Edge Vaccine Research

The nanotech agenda is closely connected to vaccines. For example, this 2019 study Nanoparticle-Based Vaccines Against Respiratory Viruses touts the advantages of nanotech vaccines:

“Conventional vaccines based on live-attenuated pathogens present a risk of reversion to pathogenic virulence while inactivated pathogen vaccines often lead to a weak immune response. Subunit vaccines were developed to overcome these issues. However, these vaccines may suffer from a limited immunogenicity and, in most cases, the protection induced is only partial. A new generation of vaccines based on nanoparticles has shown great potential to address most of the limitations of conventional and subunit vaccines. This is due to recent advances in chemical and biological engineering, which allow the design of nanoparticles with a precise control over the size, shape, functionality and surface properties, leading to enhanced antigen presentation and strong immunogenicity.”

This July 2020 study COVID-19 vaccine development and a potential nanomaterial path forward explains how there are many nanotech platforms that will be included in future vaccines:

Nanotechnology-based approaches offer enabling solutions to the delivery challenge by trafficking the vaccine to appropriate cellular populations and subcellular locations … Moderna’s mRNA vaccine is based on a lipid nanoparticle platform, but there are many other emerging nanotechnologies for delivery of nucleic acid vaccines … Nanotechnology platforms including cationic nanoemulsions, liposomes, dendrimers or polysaccharide particles have been employed for improving the stability and delivery of mRNA based vaccines.”

The coming Moderna COVID vaccine funded by NWO frontman and eugenicist Bill Gates is a new type of technology: an mRNA vaccine that uses nanotechnology. This goes for other COVID vaccines that are being developed. The COVID plandemic is being used as a pretext to rush forward even faster with nanotech vaccines, which ultimately accelerates the central NWO (New World Order) scheme: the human microchipping agenda. The nanotech agenda via COVID is on full display:

“Nanomaterials play an important role in all aspects of vaccine design, delivery and administration. Nanoparticles enable multivalent antigen presentation and stabilization of antigens upon administration, they can serve as adjuvants to boost the immune response, and they can act as carriers for the targeted delivery of antigens. Indeed, an mRNA vaccine delivered by a liposomal nanoparticle is amongst the candidates currently in clinical trials against SARS-CoV-2. While it remains a fact that no mRNA or DNA vaccine is currently approved for any disease, the delivery of nucleic acids requires some form of modification or a nanodevice to prevent degradation in the body, and liposomal devices have indeed already been approved for RNA delivery, albeit not yet for vaccines.”

Final Thoughts on the Accelerating Nanotech Agenda

This is it! It’s game on! All the things that many alternative researchers have been writing, talking and warning about for years are arriving. Operation Coronavirus is the gateway to bring in the New World Order. COVID has been the excuse offered by tyrants for just about every draconian restriction under the sun. Now, with the coming COVID vaccine, we know it will include some kind of nanotechnology, since as I have outlined above, there are a plethora of nanotechnology platforms being developed in addition to things like hydrogel. Various studies and the pharmaceutical companies themselves are openly stating that there will be nanotech COVID vaccines. With plans to make this vaccine widepsread, administed by the military (as admitted in both the US and the UK) and “as mandatory as possible” (according to Aussie PM Scott Morrison), time is running out for people to wake up to the nanotech agenda – before it’s too late.


Makia Freeman is the editor of alternative media / independent news site The Freedom Articles, author of the book Cancer: The Lies, the Truth and the Solutions and senior researcher at Makia is on Steemit and Parler.















The post Operation Coronavirus is Working Hand-in-Hand with the Nanotech Agenda appeared first on The Freedom Articles.

]]> 10
COVID Pushback: Courts Partially Cancel Executive Overreach in Several US States Tue, 06 Oct 2020 23:26:16 +0000 COVID pushback has been happening around the world in various forms. That is symptomatic of people seeing the truth, finding their sense of self-respect and finding the courage to stand up for their rights. Protests continue in many places, notably London (England) and Berlin (Germany) with David Icke and Robert F. Kennedy Jr. respectively giving […]

The post COVID Pushback: Courts Partially Cancel Executive Overreach in Several US States appeared first on The Freedom Articles.

COVID pushback

COVID pushback is occurring as courts cancel executive overreach in many US states. But is it enough given the agenda for a 2nd wave lockdown?

COVID pushback has been happening around the world

in various forms. That is symptomatic of people seeing the truth, finding their sense of self-respect and finding the courage to stand up for their rights. Protests continue in many places, notably London (England) and Berlin (Germany) with David Icke and Robert F. Kennedy Jr. respectively giving speeches (in Icke’s case several speeches at several protests) to crowds of tens of thousands of people. In other places such as Melbourne (Australia), which has strangely for a Western democracy descended into the depths of tyranny, not enough COVID pushback is happening; Melbournians are still hampered by severe restrictions and are even forbidden from protesting, with the Victorian State Government classifying it as “incitement.” Australia and New Zealand are hampered by the fact they don’t possess a Bill of Rights; in my eyes that is a far more pressing concern to rectify than any other political topic; however human rights are inherent and come from within, so that need be no deterrent for Aussies to get out on the street in massive numbers to show the authorities who really has the power. Meanwhile in the US, people in many states have now taken action. Below is a brief update of the situation in some states (note: this is not a comprehensive list).

Pennsylvania Governor’s Closing of Businesses and Restrictions on Gatherings Found to Have Been Unconstitutional

A pro-freedom ruling recently emerged from Pennsylvania. Federal Judge William Stickman IV ruled that the state-imposed restrictions on gatherings violated the 1st Amendment (which includes freedom of assembly) and the stay-at-home and business-closing orders violated the 14th Amendment (which includes due process and equal protection clauses). This article reports:

“Lyndsay Kensinger, the governor’s press secretary, says the Wolf administration is disappointed and will seek a stay of the decision and file an appeal. Kensinger said the court ruling is limited to the business closure order and the stay at home orders issued in March and were later suspended, as well as the indoor and outdoor gathering limitations. “This ruling does not impact any of the other mitigation orders currently in place including, but not limited to the targeted mitigation orders announced in July, mandatory telework, mandatory mask order, worker safety order, and the building safety order,” she said.”

The judge wrote:

“There is no question that this Country has faced, and will face, emergencies of every sort. But the solution to a national crisis can never be permitted to supersede the commitment to individual liberty that stands as the foundation of the American experiment.”

So overall, it is good news, despite being limited in scope. However in the overall scheme of the plandemic, it’s small potatoes, since it didn’t challenge other aspects of the unconstitutional orders, nor did it challenge the root of the problem: the very existence of a virus or pandemic at all. The report continues:

“This by no means doesn’t recognize that we have a virus and a pandemic and that have a public health issue that needs to be addressed,” Leslie Osche, Butler County Commissioner and commission chair, told Pittsburgh’s Action News 4. “We need to be self accountable, to continue to wear masks and take the necessary precautions that we’ve already been taking to mitigate the pandemic, the virus,” said Butler County Commissioner Kimberly Geyer, who serves as vice-chair of the commission.

So, a limited hangout for sure. Meanwhile in Wisconsin …

Wisconsin County Ordered to Re-Open Schools

This Epoch Times article Wisconsin Supreme Court Overrules County’s Order Allows Private Schools to Open reports that the Wisconsin Supreme Court ruled 4-3 against local health officials in Dane County (which includes the state capital Madison). Health officials were using Dane County Emergency Order #9 issued on August 21st 2020 to shut down schools. The court concluded that “local health officers do not appear to have statutory authority to do what the Order commands” i.e. to carry out the “broad closure of schools.”

Illinois Judge Limits Governor Power to 30 Days

An Illinois judge Mike McHaney from Clay County delivered from some great COVID pushback against the State Executive Branch months ago when he ruled that the governor couldn’t extend disaster proclamations beyond 30 days. In fact, the judge stated that any emergency powers stemming from the COVID-19 outbreak lapsed on April 8th 2020. Governor JB Pritzker ignored McHaney’s rulings and appealed them, however on August 14th, McHaney ordered Pritzker to appear in court to explain why he should not be held in contempt of court!

Michigan Supreme Court Declares Governor Had no Authority for COVID Restrictions After April 30th 2020

Just last week Michigan State Supreme Court Justice Stephen J. Markman wrote in the majority opinion that Governor Gretchen Whitmer had no authority after April 30th 2020 for COVID lockdown restrictions. Whitmer had been trying to argue she had authority under 2 laws (the Emergency Management Act from 1976 and the Emergency Powers of the Governor Act from 1945) but the courts rejected that claim:

“We conclude that the Governor lacked the authority to declare a ‘state of emergency’ or a ‘state of disaster’ under the EMA after April 30, 2020, on the basis of the COVID-19 pandemic. Furthermore, we conclude that the EPGA is in violation of the Constitution of our state because it purports to delegate to the executive branch the legislative powers of state government– including its plenary police powers– and to allow the exercise of such powers indefinitely.”

California County Votes to End COVID State of Emergency

In Placer County, California, a board of supervisors recently declared that they do no consider that there is a state of emergency due to COVID in their county. ActivistPost reports:

“Our case numbers are so low, it doesn’t warrant a shutdown,” said Placer County Board chairwoman Bonnie Gore. Placer county, located in the Sacramento area, has acquired a running tally of 3,325 Covid-19 cases since February, with a total of exactly 39 deaths. The United States Census Bureau counted the Placer population at 398,329 as of July 1, 2019, placing the overall infection rate around 0.008%. The World Health Organization believes that it is safe to reopen in areas with a testing positivity rate of less than 5%, positioning Placer county just under the mark at 4.5% as of August 29th. However, the move to end the most restrictive lockdown orders spurred public health officer Dr. Aimee Sisson to resign in protest.”

Ohio: COVID Lawsuit with the Biggest Implications

Hands down the most comprehensive and interesting lawsuit currently filed in the US relating to COVID pushback is this one from Ohio. It was filed on Sept. 2nd 2020 by attorney Thomas Renz on behalf on citizen rights group Ohio Stands Up! It is yet to be heard, however it will go into discovery. The suit goes for the throat so to speak when it comes to challenging the government’s illegal lockdown and unfounded proclamations of emergency. Here are some quotes from Renz and Robert Gargasz (another attorney also involved), who have promised they will release the extensive evidence that chronicles the case to the public to offer transparency and insight:

“We believe that the response to COVID-19 has been the greatest fraud ever perpetrated on the American public … The objective of this legal action is to force the state to honor the Constitution and to stop the lies, manipulation and fear-mongering intentionally being promoted by public health officials and elected officials … The State of Ohio has consistently lied to and manipulated its citizens from the earliest stages of this pandemic. We insist that this nonsense end, our rights be restored, and that the actual truth be shared … The entire U.S. economy was shut down based on fraudulent models that predicted 2.2 million American deaths. The State of Ohio violated the U.S. Constitution with an emergency declaration that ignores the fundamental rights of all Ohioans. As a result, millions of Ohioans are suffering financially, physically, and mentally.”

Canadian Vaccine Choice Group Launches Comprehensive COVID Lawsuit

Meanwhile other countries are either preparing or launching lawsuits too. Of particular interest is this one in Canada, filed by a group called Vaccine Choice Canada who hired lawyer Rooco Galati. The suit is 190 pages long and challenges the Canadian government’s entire reaction to COVID. Here is a summary of the case:

“[Vaccine Choice Canada] claims that the COVID-19 regulations violate Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms. According to the Vaccine Choice Canada lawsuit, the government-imposed shutdown of businesses to prevent the spread of COVID-19 was “extreme, unwarranted and unjustified.” Further, the group argues that the social distancing and self-isolation measures were “not scientific, nor medically based nor proven.” Vaccine Choice Canada also reportedly argues that requiring individuals to wear masks in some public spaces can cause “physical and psychological harm.” According to the Vaccine Choice Canada lawsuit, these measures violate various rights and freedoms guaranteed by the Charter, including the right of association; the right to life, liberty and security of the person; certain measures constitute unlawful search and seizure, and arbitrary detention by enforcement officers; and some COVID-19 measures violate the right to equality before and under the law. “The ‘pandemic’ is false, and the measures phony, designed and implemented for improper and ulterior purposes, at the behest of the [World Health Organization], controlled and directed by billionaire, corporate oligarchs,” the Vaccine Choice Canada lawsuit reportedly alleges.”

Other States and Countries Engaging in COVID Pushback

The Idaho legislature took some COVID pushback steps in August when the State House passed a resolution to end the coronavirus emergency declaration. It was a measure intended to end restrictions across the state that would also strip Idaho of eligibility for $117 million in emergency federal funds. Unfortunately it was not passed by the Idaho State Senate. Interestingly, some State politicians seemed to get the point while others did not:

“Rep. Steven Harris, R-Meridian and the sponsor of the resolution, said Little’s original declaration of emergency was intended to ensure that COVID-19 cases did not outstrip Idaho hospitals’ ability to care for patients. Hospital capacity has remained more than adequate since the pandemic began, Harris said, but the governor’s declaration and stay-home order caused “extensive collateral damage” to citizens. Rep. Christy Zito, R-Hammett, agreed during the debate that restrictions should be lifted, saying she was disturbed by some of the precautions related to the pandemic. “We are putting our children in plexiglass cages,” she said. “We are masking faces so those that are hearing-impaired feel lost and cannot function. We are masking faces so that children like my grandson, who is borderline autistic, is traumatized often by faces that he can’t see and relate to.” “It is time to return to normal. Not a new normal, to normal,” she added.”

However other lawmakers didn’t want to give up federal money:

“I’m very reluctant, given the economic straits we’re in now, to turn our noses up at $117 million that could be pivotal in pulling us out of this,” she said. Others disagreed. House Majority Leader Rep. Mike Moyle, R-Star, said that Idaho should not be relying on those federal funds anyway. “I refuse, when we talk about money, I refuse to sell my liberties for money,” he said. “I refuse to be blackmailed for money. And I refuse to sell my state and my blessings of my family and everything else for some federal freaking check.”

This highlights how Operation Coronavirus was pulled off around the world. Part of it was done with flat out bribery – with the NWO (new World Order) controllers using institutions that can print money out of thin air (World Bank, IMF, Federal Reserve, etc.) to pay nations and states to lockdown their populations and follow the program in exchange for funding. Belarusian President Aleksandr Lukashenko stated via Belarusian Telegraph Agency, BelTA, that the World Bank and IMF offered him a bribe of USD$940 million as ‘COVID Relief Aid.’ The proposed deal was that in exhcange for the money he would:

  • impose an “extreme lockdown on his people”
  • force them to wear face masks
  • impose very strict curfews
  • impose a police state
  • crash the economy

Lukashenko showed intestinal fortitude by refusing the offer however his comments are very revealing; they show one aspect of how this agenda is being rolled out worldwide. The theme of ‘paying for the COVID scamdemic’ is large, and extends also to the doctors and hospitals who were bribed to falsely inflate COVID cases, unnecessarily put patients on ventilators and fraudulently ascribe death to COVID on death certificates. It should be noted however that hospitals were put in this position because they were prevented from doing ‘normal business’ (like elective procedures) and had little choice; some have been on the verge of bankruptcy.

Final Thoughts on COVID Pushback

There was always going to be this kind of COVID pushback once people awoke to the agenda, however the wheels of the legal process grind slowly. If you know of any other cases, please post updates in the comments below. Although the above cases are mostly good news, there have been rulings which have upheld the Executive Branch power. Overall we must ask: are these and other lawsuits enough, given that the Northern Hemisphere is heading into winter, and the NWO conspirators have been programming people since the start of this scamdemic for a 2nd wave, a 2nd lockdown and even in Bill Gates’ own words “a Pandemic II“? The tyranny that has been happening in Melbourne is undoubtedly a trial run for what they want too attempt to pull off in the next few months in the Northern Hemisphere. Are enough people mentally prepared for an increase in the fear and propaganda?

There are many avenues to stand for freedom, and although the legal avenue can be effective, sometimes the courts are rigged and judges don’t want to rock the boat. The most powerful solution is when a critical mass of people in a certain area or region engage in peaceful mass non-compliance. That is what we must ultimately aim at, for then it becomes clear that the few cannot control the many unless the many willingly acquiesce, cooperate and obey.


Makia Freeman is the editor of alternative media / independent news site The Freedom Articles, author of the book Cancer: The Lies, the Truth and the Solutions and senior researcher at Makia is on Steemit and Parler.














The post COVID Pushback: Courts Partially Cancel Executive Overreach in Several US States appeared first on The Freedom Articles.

]]> 31
Your Man in the Public Gallery: Assange Hearing Day 13 Tue, 29 Sep 2020 22:23:20 +0000 The Assange hearing day 13 gave us the most emotionally charged moments yet at the Assange hearing, showed that strange and sharp twists in the story are still arriving at the Old Bailey, and brought into sharp focus some questions about the handling and validity of evidence, which I will address in comment. NICKY HAGER […]

The post Your Man in the Public Gallery: Assange Hearing Day 13 appeared first on The Freedom Articles.

assange hearing day 13

At one point in the Assange hearing day 13, Julian loudly declared, “I will not permit the testimony of a torture victim to be censored by this court!”

The Assange hearing day 13 gave us the most emotionally charged

moments yet at the Assange hearing, showed that strange and sharp twists in the story are still arriving at the Old Bailey, and brought into sharp focus some questions about the handling and validity of evidence, which I will address in comment.


The first witness of the day was Nicky Hager, the veteran New Zealand investigative journalist. Hager’s co-authored book “Hit and Run” detailed a disastrous New Zealand SAS raid in Afghanistan, “Operation Burnham”, that achieved nothing but the deaths of civilians, including a child. Hager was the object of much calumny and insult, and even of police raids on his home, but in July an official government report found that all the major facts of his book were correct, and the New Zealand military had run dangerously out of control:

“Ministers were not able to exercise the democratic control of the military. The military do not exist for their own purpose, they are meant to be controlled by their minister who is accountable to Parliament.”

Edward Fitzgerald took Hager through his evidence. Hager stated that journalists had a duty to serve the public, and that they could not do this without access to secret sources of classified information. This was even more necessary for the public good in time of war. Claims of harm are always made by governments against any such disclosures. It is always stated. Such claims had been frequently made against him throughout his career. No evidence had ever emerged to back up any of these claims that anybody had been harmed as a result of his journalism.

When Wikileaks had released the Afghan War Logs, they had been an invaluable source to journalists. They showed details of regular patrols, CIA financed local forces, aid and reconstruction ops, technical intelligence ops, special ops and psychological ops, among others. They had contributed much to his books on Afghanistan. Information marked as confidential is essential to public understanding of the war. He frequently used leaked material. You had to judge whether it was in the higher public interest to inform the public. Decisions of war and peace were of the very highest public interest. If the public were being misled about the conduct and course of the war, how could democratic choices be made?

Edward Fitzgerald then asked about the collateral murder video and what they revealed about the rules of engagement. Hager said that the Collateral Murder video had “the most profound effect throughout the world”. The publication of that video and the words “Look at those dead bastards” had changed world opinion on the subject of civilian casualties. In fact the Rules of Engagement had been changed to put more emphasis on avoiding civilian casualties, as a direct result.

In November 2010 Hager had travelled to the UK to join the Wikileaks team and had become involved in redacting and printing stories from the cables relating to Australasia. He was one of the local partners Wikileaks had brought in for the cables, expanding from the original media consortium that handled the Afghan and Iraqi war logs.

Wikileaks’ idea was a rigorous process of redaction and publication. They were going through the cables country by country. It was a careful and diligent process. Wikileaks were very serious and responsible about what they were doing. His abiding memory was sitting in a room with Wikileaks staff and other journalists, with everyone working for hours and hours in total silence, concentrated on going through the cables. Hager had been very pleased to see the level of care that was taken.

Edward Fitzgerald asked him about Julian Assange. Hager said he found him completely different to the media presentation of him. He was thoughtful, humorous and energetic. He dedicated himself to trying to make the world a better place, particularly in the post 9/11 climate of a reduction of citizen freedoms in the world. Assange had a vision that the digital age would enable a new kind of whistleblower which could correct the information imbalance between government and citizen. This was against a background of torture, rendition and war crimes being widely committed by western governments.

James Lewis QC then rose to cross-examine on behalf of the US government

Lewis Have you read the indictment and the extradition request?
Hager Yes.
Lewis What charges do you see there?
Hager I see a mish-mash. Some charges of publication, some of possession then other stuff added.
Lewis Assange is not charged with publishing the collateral murder video your evidence says so much about.
Hager You can’t look at the effect the Wikileaks revelations had on the world in that kind of neat and compartmentalised way. The cables, logs and all the rest affected the world as a whole.
Lewis Is Assange charged with publication of any of the documents you have relied on in your works?
Hager That would take me some research to find out, which he is charged with publishing and which with possession.
Lewis Have you ever paid a government official to give you secret information?
Hager No.
Lewis Have you ever hacked?
Hager No, probably. That depends how you define “hack”.
Lewis You have as a journalist merely been the passive recipient of official information. Presumably you have never done anything criminal to obtain government information?
Hager You said “passive”. That is not the way we work. Journalists not only actively work our sources. We go out and find our sources. The information might come in documents. It might come on a memory stick. In most cases our sources are breaking the law. Our duty is to help protect them from being caught. We actively help them cover their backs sometimes.
Lewis In your report on Operation Burnham you protected your sources. Would you knowingly put a source in danger?
Hager No, of course not. However…
Lewis No. Stop. You answered.

Edward Fitzgerald QC rose to object but found no support from the judge.

Lewis On 2 September 2011 the Guardian published an editorial article abhorring Wikileaks’ publishing of unredacted cables and stating that hundreds of lives had been put in danger. Do you agree with those statements?
Hager My information is that Wikileaks did not release the cables until others had published.
Lewis We say your understanding is wrong. On 25 August Wikileaks published 134,000 cables including some marked “strictly protect”. What is your opinion on that?
Hager I am not going to comment on a disputed fact. I do not personally know.
Lewis The book “Wikileaks: the Inside Story” by David Leigh and Luke Harding of the Guardian newspaper states that Assange “wished to release the whole lot sooner”. It also states that at a dinner at El Moro restaurant, Assange stated that if informants were killed, they had it coming to them. Would you care to comment?
Hager I know that there was great animosity between David Leigh and Julian Assange by the point that book was written. I would not regard that as a reliable source. I do not want to dignify that book by answering it.
Lewis Are you trying to assist the court or assist Assange? In a talk recorded at the Frontline Club, Assange stated that Wikileaks only had a duty to protect informants from “unjust” retribution, and that those who gave information to US forces for money or engaged in “truly traitorous” behaviour deserved their fate. Do you support that statement?
Hager No.
Lewis You say it would have been impossible to write your book without confidential material from Wikileaks. Did you need the names of informants?
Hager No.
Lewis The Operation Burnham report found at p.8 that, contrary to your assertions “New Zealand Defence Forces were not involved in planning preparation and execution”.
Hager What you have quoted does not relate to the main operations covered in the book. It only refers to something covered as a “minor footnote” in the book. Most of the findings of the book were confirmed.
Lewis The Official Report states of your book “Hit and Run was inaccurate in some respects”.
Hager We did not get everything right. But the major points were all true. “Civilian casualties confirmed. Death of child confirmed. Prisoner beaten up confirmed. Falsified reports confirmed.”
Lewis How many cables did you personally review?
Hager A few hundred. They were specifically cables relating to Australasia.
Lewis And what criteria did you use to make redactions?
Hager There were quite a few names marked “strictly protect”. This was not, in the context, for reasons of safety in the countries which I was working on. It was purely to avoid political embarrassment.
Lewis But how long did you work in London on the cables?
Hager It was several days, to do several hundred cables.
Lewis Did you show your statement to the defence in draft?
Hager Yes, I have always done this when I have submitted an affidavit.

[This is normal. Affidavits or statements from defence witnesses are normally drawn up and, if affidavits, taken under oath by the defence solicitors.]

Lewis Did the defence suggest to you that you should place the section on Rules of Engagement next to the Collateral Damage video?
Hager Yes. But I was very happy to do it, it made perfect sense to me.

Edward Fitzgerald QC then rose again for the re-examination.

Fitzgerald You were asked if you know what Assange is charged with. Do you know he is charged with obtaining and receiving all of the diplomatic cables, the Iraq war logs, the Afghan war logs, the rules of engagement, and the Guantanamo detainee assessments?
Hager Yes.
Fitzgerald And he could not have published any of them without first obtaining and receiving them? So the distinction as to which he is charged for publishing makes no difference to the liability of journalists like yourself to the Espionage Act for obtaining and receiving US classified information?
Hager Yes.
Fitzgerald You work with sources. That means the person who provides you with the information or material. And do you have a duty to protect that source?
Hager Yes.
Fitzgerald You were asked about the September 2011 publication of cables. What do you know about how that came about?
Hager I believed the Wikileaks people and witnessed their extreme seriousness in the redaction process to which they invited me in. I do not believe they suddenly changed their mind about it. This publication came about through a series of bad luck and unfortunate events, not by Wikileaks. But that nine month redaction process was not wasted. Wikileaks had at an early stage warned the US authorities and invited them to be part of the redaction process. Assange had stressed to US authorities the danger to those named in the report. While the US authorities had not got involved in redaction, they had started a massive exercise in warning those named in the reports that they might have been in danger, and helping those the most at risk to take measures to relocate. I think this is overlooked. Julian Assange bought those people nine months. I also believe that is the major part of the explanation why in the end there were no identifiable deaths and was no wholesale damage.
Fitzgerald What do you believe the bad luck to have been?
Hager I understand it was the publication of a password in the Leigh/Harding book, but I have no direct knowledge.
Fitzgerald On this book, you have said there was bad blood between Luke Harding, David Leigh and Julian Assange.
Hager Yes, I would not put much weight on that book as a source myself.

[I hope you will forgive me for adding personal knowledge here, but the bad blood was nothing to do with redaction and everything to do with money. Julian Assange was briefly the most famous man in the world for a while and had not yet been tarnished with the allegations arranged in Sweden. Rights to an Assange book on Wikileaks and a biography were potentially worth millions to the authors. Collaboration had been discussed with Leigh but Julian had decided against. The Guardian were furious. That is what really happened. It seems a good explanation of why they instead published a money-spinning book attacking Assange. It does not really explain why they published the password to the unredacted cable cache in that book.]

Fitzgerald Julian Assange stated at the Frontline Club that sources had to be protected from “unjust retribution”. Do you agree with that?
Hager Yes.
Fitzgerald He was trying to draw a distinction with categories who do not deserve protection. Informants who give false information for money, agents provocateurs, those who turn in innocents for personal motives. We have seen the press in the UK, for example, name certain informants in Northern Ireland who had played a bad part. What do you think of naming informants in those kind of circumstances?
Hager I don’t want to comment on Northern Ireland. It is all a very difficult topic.
Fitzgerald Could you comment further on the collateral murder video and the rules of engagement?
Hager The RoEs simply govern when soldiers can and cannot use force. They raise important questions. Are they correct? Do they minimise civilian casualties? Are they consistent with the laws of armed conflict?
Fitzgerald One charge related to receiving and obtaining the RoEs. Is that why you mentioned them?
Hager Yes. The soldiers always retain the base right of self-defence. There is no basis for claiming their publication poses a dire risk for the troops. It arguably leads to less conflict if people know when force will and will not be used.
Fitzgerald You affirm that when the defence asked you to put together the collateral murder video with the rules of engagement, you agreed purely on the basis that was correct and right in your own opinion?
Hager Yes.


The court then moved to its first witness with “read evidence”. It has been agreed that some witnesses whom the prosecution does not wish to cross examine will have their evidence “read” into the record without having to appear. After substantial discussions and disagreements between the lawyers this has been resolved to be a short summary or “gist” of their evidence. My reports then for this group of witnesses are the gist of a gist; in this case of the evidence of Jennifer Robinson.

Jennifer Robinson is a lawyer who has advised Julian Assange since 2010. She represented him in his Swedish legal issues. On 15 August 2017 he asked her to join him for a meeting in the Ecuadorean Embassy in London with US Congressman Dana Rohrabacher and an aide Charles Johnson. Rohrabacher had stated he was acting on behalf of President Donald Trump and would report back to Trump on his return to Washington.

Rohrabacher said that the “Russiagate” story was politically damaging to President Trump, was damaging to US interests and to US/Russian relations. It would therefore be very helpful if Julian would reveal the real source of the DNC leaks. This would be in the public interest.

Julian Assange had put the case for a full pardon for Chelsea Manning and for any indictment against himself as a publisher to be dropped on First Amendment grounds. Rohrabacher had said there was an obvious “win win solution” here and he would investigate “what might be possible to get him out.” Assange could reveal the DNC source in return for a “pardon, deal or arrangement”. Assange had however not named any source to him.


There had been three days of intense discussion between the counsel and the judge, with the United States government objecting bitterly to Mr El-Masri being heard. A compromise had been reached that he could give evidence provided he did not allege he was tortured by the US Government. However, when he came to give evidence, Mr El-Masri was strangely unable to connect by videolink, even though the defence team had been able to speak to him by video a few hours earlier. Technical staff in the court having been unable to resolve the (ahem) technical issue, rather than simply postpone his evidence until a videolink had been established – as had happened already with two other witnesses when quality issues arose – Judge Baraitser suddenly decided to raise again the issue of whether el-Masri’s evidence should be heard at all.

James Lewis QC for the US Government stated that they did not merely oppose his evidence of being tortured. They opposed the making of any claim that a Wikileaks-released cable showed that they had put pressure on the government of Germany not to arrest those allegedly concerned in his alleged extradition. The US Government had not pressurised the Government of Germany, Lewis said. Mark Summers QC for the defence said that the Supreme Chamber of the European Court in Strasbourg had already judged his claims to be true, and that the Wikileaks cable plainly and inarguably showed the US Government exerting pressure on Germany.

Judge Baraitser said she was not going to determine if the US had pressurised Germany or if el-Masri had been tortured. Those were not the questions before her. Mark Summers QC said that it went to the question of whether Wikileaks had performed a necessary act to prevent criminality by the US Government and enable justice. Lewis responded that it was unacceptable to the US government that allegations of torture should be made.

At this point, Julian Assange became very agitated. He stood up and declared very loudly:

“I will not permit the testimony of a torture victim to be censored by this court”

A great commotion broke out. Baraitser threatened to have Julian removed and have the hearing held in his absence. There was a break following which it was announced that el-Masri would not appear, but that the gist of his evidence would be read out, excluding detail of US torture or of US pressure on the government of Germany. Mark Summers QC started to read the evidence.

Khaled el-Masri, of Lebanese origin, had come to Germany in 1989 and was a German citizen. On 1 January 2004 after a holiday in Skopje he had been removed from a coach on the Macedonian border. He had been held incommunicado by Macedonian officials, ill-treated and beaten. On 23 July he had been taken to Skopje airport and handed over to CIA operatives. They had beaten, shackled, hooded and sodomised him. His clothes had been ripped off, he had been dressed in a diaper, shackled to the floor of an aircraft in a cruciform position, and rendered unconscious by an anaesthetic injection.

He awoke in what he eventually learned was Afghanistan. He was held incommunicado in a bare concrete cell with a bucket for a toilet. He was held for six months and interrogated throughout this period [details of torture excluded by the judge]. Eventually in June he was flown to Albania, driven blindfold up a remote mountain road and dumped. When he eventually got back to Germany, his home was deserted and his wife and children had left.

When he made his story public he was subject to vicious attacks on his character and his credibility and it was claimed he was inventing it. He believes the government sought to silence him. He sought a local lawyer and persisted, eventually getting in touch with Mr Goetz of public TV, who had proven his story to be true, traced the CIA agents involved to North Carolina and even interviewed some of them. As a result, Munich state prosecutors released arrest warrants for his CIA kidnappers, but these were never executed. When Wikileaks issued the cables the pressure that had been brought on the German government not to prosecute became plain. [The judge did not prevent Summers from saying this.] We therefore know the US blocked judicial investigation of a crime. The European Court of Human Rights had explicitly relied on the Wikileaks cables for part of its judgement in the case. The Grand Chamber confirmed that he had been beaten, hooded, shackled and sodomised.

There had been no accountability in the USA. The CIA Inspector-General had declined to take action over the case. The ECHR judgement and supporting documentation had been sent to the office of the US Attorney in the Eastern District of Virginia – precisely the same office that was now attempting to extradite Assange – and that office had declined to prosecute the CIA officers concerned.

A complaint had been made to the International Criminal Court including the ECHR judgement and the Wikileaks material. In March 2020 the ICC had announced it was opening an investigation. In response US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo had declared any non-US citizen who cooperated with that ICC investigation, including officers of the ICC, would be subject to financial and other sanctions.

Finally, el-Masri testified that Wikileaks’ publication had been essential to him in gaining acceptance of the truth of the crime and of the cover-up.

In fact, the impact of Mark Summers’ reading of el-Masri’s statement on the court was enormous. Summers has a real gift for conveying moral force and constrained righteous anger in his tone. I thought the testimony had a definite impression on Judge Baraitser; she showed signs not of discomfort or embarrassment, but of real emotional distress while she was listening intently. Subsequently, two different witnesses, each situated in separate sections of the court from me, both in separate and unprompted conversations with me, told me that they thought that el-Masri’s testimony had really gotten through to the judge. Vanessa Baraitser is after all only human, and this is the first time she has been forced to deal with what this case is actually about.


The United States had objected that Mr Yates’ evidence should not include description of the actual content of the Collateral Murder video. I could not hear or understand any rationale why Baraitser agreed to this, but she did so rule, and four times she interrupted Edward Fitzgerald QC while he was reading the “gist” of Yates’ statement, to tell him he must not mention the content of the video.

Edward Fitzgerald read out that Mr Yates was a highly experienced journalist who had been Bureau Chief for Reuters in Baghdad. Early on 12 July 2007 “loud wailing” broke out in their office and he learnt that Namir, a photographer, and Saeed, a driver, had been killed. Namir had left early to cover a reported conflict with militants. Yates could not work out what had happened. A minivan nearby had its front shattered; the US military had taken Namir’s two cameras and refused to release them. The report was thirteen killed and nine injured. There did not appear to be any evidence of a firefight at the scene.

Yates had attended a US military HQ briefing where he was told that a hostile group had been deploying Improvised Explosive Devices in the road. He was shown photographs of machine guns and RPGs allegedly collected from the scene. He was shown three minutes of the video. It showed [here Baraitser cut Fitzgerald off]. Yates had subsequently submitted a request to the US military to view the whole video, which had been denied. So had requests for the rules of engagement.

When Wikileaks released the Collateral Murder video, in the video Saeed was shown for three minutes crawling and trying to get up, while the Americans watching him remotely were saying “come on buddy, all you’ve got to do is pick up a weapon” so they could shoot him again. The Good Samaritan pulled up to help and the shots were seen destroying his windscreen and car. Edward Fitzgerald kept doggedly reading out bits of Yates’ testimony as Baraitser continually asked him to stop in a manner that was almost pleading.

Yates said that when he saw the video he immediately realised the US had lied to them about what happened. He also immediately wondered how much of that meeting at USHQ had been choreographed.

Something struck Yates very hard later. He had always blamed Namir for peering round the corner with his camera, which had been mistaken for a weapon and therefore caused him to be shot. It was Julian Assange who subsequently made the point that the order to kill Namir had been given before he had peered round the corner. He vividly recalled Assange saying “and if that’s within the RoEs, then the RoEs are wrong.” Yates was glad to absolve Namir but felt a terrible burden of guilt for having blamed him all the while for his own death.

Yates concluded that had it not been for Chelsea Manning and Julian Assange, the truth of what had happened to Namir and Saeed would never have been known. Thanks to Wikileaks, their deaths had a profound effect on public opinion.

James Lewis QC stated the American government had no questions but this did not imply the evidence was accepted.


Finally, we turned to the second half of Clair Dobbin’s cross-examination of Carey Shenkman on his testimony on the history of the Espionage Act. This may seem dull, but it has actually been extremely revealing in terms of revealing US government claims of the right to use the Espionage Act (1917) against any journalist, anywhere in the world, who obtains US classified information.

Dobbin opened part 2 by asking Shenkman whether he was seriously arguing that there existed any law that precluded the prosecution of a journalist under the Espionage Act for revealing national security information. Shenkman replied that the law had components; legislation, common law and the constitution, and that these interact. There is a very strong argument that the First Amendment does preclude such prosecution.

Dobbin asked whether any case established this beyond doubt. Shenkman replied that there had never been such a prosecution, so it had never come before the Supreme Court. Dobbin asked whether he accepted that in the New York Times case, the Supreme Court had said such an Espionage Act case could be brought. Shenkman replied that some of the judges had mentioned the possibility in their dicta, but that is not what they were ruling on and they had not heard any arguments before them on the issue.

Dobbin said that the judge in the Rosen case had stated that the New York Times case might have had a different outcome if pursued under the espionage act 79/3/e and such future prosecution was not precluded. Shenkman said the Rosen judgement was an outlier and did not refer to media publication. The Justice Department had decided no further action on Rosen. Shenkman referred her to a 2007 Harvard Law Review article on Rosen. It had been dropped because of First Amendment concerns.

Dobbin tried again and asked Shenkman whether he accepted that the judgement in Rosen found the interpretation of dicta in the New York Post case did not preclude prosecution. Shenkman, who seemed to be enjoying this, said the issue had not been briefed before the Supreme Court. And the Rosen judgement had not been carried through. Dobbin suggested this meant it was arguable both ways. Shenkman replied the Supreme Court judgement in NYT was about prior restraint.

Dobbin then asked Shenkman whether he accepted the fact that the vagueness objection to the Espionage Act had been rejected by the courts in whistleblower cases. Shenkman said there were many and sometimes contradictory cases in different appellate jurisdictions. But these were all cases involving government insiders not journalists.

Dobbin then asked why Shenkman’s witness statement did not make clear that the Espionage Act had been subject to judicial refinement. Shenkman replied that was because he did not think most academics would agree with that. It had been interpreted but not refined. Dobbin said that the effect of the interpretation had been to narrow its scope. She quoted the Rosen judgement again and the Morison judgement. They narrowed the scope to leak of official information that was damaging to the interests of the United States. This was an important new test. The Rosen judgement said this was “a clear safeguard against arbitrary enforcement.”

Shenkman replied that addresses only one particular aspect of the Espionage Act, the definition of national security information, and there had been whole books written on that. Quoting one line of one judgement really did not help. Other aspects were extremely broad. The main problem with the Act was the same legal standard is applied to all categories of recipient – the whistleblower, the publisher, the journalist, the newspaper seller and the reader could all be equally liable.

Dobbin then suggested the prosecution could not be political because it was the court that decides the definition of national security information. Shenkman replied that on the other hand it is the executive that decides what material is classified, who is prosecuted and on what charges. It was not just a matter of prosecution. The Espionage Act could be shown historically to have a chilling effect on important journalism.

Dobbin then asked Shenkman whether he agreed that the provisions under which Assange were tried had never been intended to apply to “classic espionage”. Shenkman said most authorities would reject the idea of a clear and singular intent. Dobbin said that in the Morison case the judgement had rejected the argument that the provision was limited to classic espionage. Shenkman rather wickedly agreed that yes, that judgement had indeed broadened the application of the act – as opposed to refining it. But other judgements were available. Besides, she had asked him about intent. What Congress intended in 1917 and what the Morison court decided were two different things. There had been numerous successful prosecutions of whistleblowers under Obama. Plainly the courts generally accepted that these provisions apply to government insiders. There had never been a prosecution of a journalist or publisher.

Dobbin, who is nothing if not persistent, asked Shenkman if he accepted that the Morison judgement says that only provision 79/4 applies to classic espionage. Shenkman replied that the Morison judgement was a single star in the night sky among myriad points of navigation through these laws. They then got in to discussion of the views of various professors on the subject.

Now I cede to very few in my interest in the details of this case, and certainly I absolutely appreciate the fundamental threat posed by the insistence on the general application of the Espionage Act against journalists as outlined by the prosecution, above all in the current political climate; but it was now late Friday afternoon after a very hard week and I have my limits. I decided to see how many verses of Shelley’s The Masque of Anarchy I could recall instead.

When my consciousness groped its way back to the courtroom, Dobbin was putting to Shenkman that the fact that numerous potential prosecutions had been dropped, just proved the act was used responsibly and properly. Shenkman said that was to ignore the chilling effect both in general and in specific threats to prosecute. Chilling caused papers costs, delays and even bankruptcies. President Roosevelt had used the threat of the Espionage Act to suppress independent black newspapers.

Dobbin suggested that in the instances where it had been decided not to prosecute due to the First Amendment, these cases had related to responsible major media titles. Shenkman replied that this was not true at all. Beacon Press, for example, which published the full Pentagon Papers, was a small religious organisation.

Dobbin said none of the past examples resembles Wikileaks. Shenkman again disagreed. There were many striking points of similarity in different cases. Dobbin replied that Wikileaks’ sole purpose and design was to source material from those entitled to receive it and give it to those not entitled to see it. It was solicitation on a mass scale. Shenkman said she was reaching for a distinction. Similarities to the Beacon Press and Amerasia cases were obvious.

Dobbin concluded that Shenkman’s opinion and evidence was “frivolous and nonsensical”.

Mark Summers then re-examined Shenkman. He referred to the Jack Anderson case. Anderson had published entire Top Secret documents, unredacted, in time of war. He had not been prosecuted under the Espionage Act on First Amendment grounds. Shenkman replied yes, and the documents he had published were particularly sensitive communications intelligence (intercepts).

Summers referred to sentences from judgements which Dobbin had invited Shenkman to accept as “uncontrovertible statements of the law” but which were anything but. In the Morison case he pointed out that the two other judges in the case had explicitly contradicted the very sentence Dobbin had quoted. Judge Wilkerson had stated “the First Amendment interest in informed national debate does not simply vanish at the mention of the words “national security””.

Summers said above all the US government now relied on the Rosen judgement. He asked what level of court that had been. Shenkman replied that it was a district court, the lowest level of US court. And the Justice Department had decided against proceeding with it. Finally Summers said that Shenkman had stated there had never been a prosecution, but there had been threats resulting in a chilling effect. What types of people had been threatened with prosecution under the Espionage Act for publishing? Shenkman stated that in every case it was political; opponents of the Presidency, minority groups, pacifists and dissidents.

That concluded the week.


There are numerous serious questions relating to the handling of evidence in this case. I should start by saying that the government of the United States had objected to almost all of the defence evidence. They want the defence witnesses ruled as either not expert (hence the sustained rudeness and attacks) or not relevant. Judge Baraitser had ruled that she will hear all the evidence, and decide only when she comes to judgement, what is and is not admissible.

Against that we then have her decision that the witnesses can only have half an hour of going through their statements before cross-examination. That is against a US government request that witness statements should not be heard before cross-examination at all. Theoretically Baraitser agreed to this, but she let in half an hour to “orient the witness”, which gets the basic facts out there. Baraitser rejected the defence arguments that statements should be read or explained at length by the witness in court, for the benefit of the public, on the basis that the statements are published. But they are not published. The Court does not publish them. It gives copies to journalists registered to cover the trial, but those journalists have no interest in publishing them. The first two days’ witness statements were published here, but for several days they stopped. They seem to have started again on Friday, but this is not satisfactory for the public.

Next we have the specific pieces of evidence that are banned on US objection, like the details of el-Masri’s torture or of the content of the Collateral Murder video. I can understand that it is true that this court is not judging if el-Masri was tortured – in fact that is now established by the ECHR. But plainly his story is relevant to Wikileaks’ defence of necessary publication to prevent crime and enable judicial process. The fact is that the USA wants to avoid the political embarrassment and media publicity of el-Masri’s torture and the events of the Collateral Murder video being detailed in court. Why an English court is complying in this censorship is beyond me.

I am deeply suspicious of the “breakdown” of the videolink making el-Masri’s evidence in person “technically impossible” after days in which the US government tried to block that evidence. I am also deeply suspicious of the strange fact that unlike other witnesses with video problems, there was no rescheduling. Video and sound quality has been deplorable for several defence witnesses. In a world where we have all got used to videocalls this last few months, the extraordinary failure of the court to operate everyday technology is a level of incompetence it is difficult quite to believe in.

Finally and more importantly, what constitutes evidence?

Lewis consistently and repeatedly quotes the words of Luke Harding and David Leigh to witnesses, more or less every day, yet Leigh and Harding are not in the witness box to be cross-examined on their words. As you know, I am absolutely furious that Lewis has been allowed to repeat Harding’s words about the conversation in the El Moro restaurant to witness after witness, but that John Goetz, who was actually part of the conversation and an eyewitness, was not permitted by the court to testify on the subject. That is absolutely ludicrous.

Finally, we have the affidavits submitted by Kromberg and Dwyer on behalf of the US government. These are apparently treated as “evidence”. Lewis specifically categorised Dwyer’s proof free assertion in Dywer’s affidavit that informants had been harmed, as “evidence” this had happened. But how can these affidavits be evidence if the authors cannot be cross-examined on them? One of the defence counsel told me on Friday that Kromberg will not be made available for cross-examination, as though they had just been told of that. It is not right that an affidavit full of highly dodgy statements and propositions should be accepted as evidence if the author cannot be challenged. The whole question of “evidence” in this case needs a fundamental rethink.

On another point, I was very pleased Nicky Hager testified under oath that in the cables he redacted “strictly protect” designation of names was used to prevent political embarrassment, as the prosecution has repeatedly claimed that the 134,000 unclassified and/or redacted cables in the original limited mass cable release by Wikileaks included names marked “strictly protect”. This is not a security classification. As someone who operated the near identical UK system for over 20 years and held the very highest levels of security clearance, and frequently in that period read American material, let me explain to you. Any material which contained the name of someone who would be at risk of death if published, or which would create real and acute danger to the national interest, would by very definition have been classified “Secret” or “Top Secret”, the latter generally relating to intelligence material. All of the Chelsea Manning material was at a level of classification below that.

Furthermore as Daniel Ellsberg pointed out, and I was very well used to, there exists separately to the classification a distribution system which limits who actually gets the material. The Manning material was unlimited in distribution and therefore available literally to tens of thousands of people. That again could not have happened if it contained the dangers now claimed.

“Strictly protect” is nothing to do with security classification, which is what protects national security information. As Hager said, its normal use is to prevent political embarrassment. As in Australasia, it is a term largely used to protect their secret political assets. Here is an example from a Wikileaks cable which I believe is one of those in the specific release which the prosecution is citing.

As you can see, nothing whatsoever to do with the safety of informants in Afghanistan. Much more to do with other objectives.

I am very glad Hager did raise the real use of “strictly protect”, because I have been waiting for the right moment to explain all that.

So that is my account of Friday, published on Monday. It is perhaps fortunate that normally I don’t have the luxury of time in publishing the reports. Otherwise they might all ramble on at this length.

The post Your Man in the Public Gallery: Assange Hearing Day 13 appeared first on The Freedom Articles.

]]> 1
Your Man in the Public Gallery: Assange Hearing Day 12 Tue, 29 Sep 2020 21:28:00 +0000 The Assange hearing day 12 was a less dramatic day, but marked by a brazen and persistent display of this US Government’s insistence that it has the right to prosecute any journalist and publication, anywhere in the world, for publication of US classified information. This explicitly underlay the entire line of questioning in the afternoon […]

The post Your Man in the Public Gallery: Assange Hearing Day 12 appeared first on The Freedom Articles.

assange hearing day 12

At the Assange hearing day 12, the defence witnesses included Professor John Sloboda of Iraq Body Count and Carey Shenkman testifying on the history of the Espionage Act of 1917.

The Assange hearing day 12 was a

less dramatic day, but marked by a brazen and persistent display of this US Government’s insistence that it has the right to prosecute any journalist and publication, anywhere in the world, for publication of US classified information. This explicitly underlay the entire line of questioning in the afternoon session.

The morning opened with Professor John Sloboda of Iraq Body Count. He is a Professor of Psychology and musicologist who founded Iraq Body Count together with Damit Hardagan, and was speaking to a joint statement by both of them.

Professor Sloboda stated that Iraq Body Count attempted to build a database of civilian deaths in Iraq based on compilation of credible published material. Their work had been recognised by the UN, EU and the Chilcot Inquiry. He stated that protection of the civilian population was the duty of parties at war or in occupation, and targeting of civilians was a war crime.

Wikileaks’ publication of the Iraqi War Logs had been the biggest single accession of material to the Iraq Body Count and added 15,000 more civilian deaths, plus provided extra detail on many deaths which were already recorded. The logs or Significant Activity Reports were daily patrol records, which recorded not only actions and consequent deaths the patrols were involved in, but also deaths which they came across.

After the publication of the Afghan war Logs, Iraq Body Count (IBC) had approached Wikileaks to be involved in the publication of the Iraq equivalent material. They thought they had accumulated a particular expertise which would be helpful. Julian Assange had been enthusiastic and had invited them to join the media consortium involved in handling the material.

There were 400,000 documents in the Iraq war logs. Assange had made very plain that great weight must be placed on document security and with careful redaction to prevent, in particular, names from being revealed which could identify individuals who might come to harm. It was however impossible to redact that volume of documents by hand. So Wikileaks had sought help in developing software that would help. IBC’s Hamit Dardagan had devised the software which solved the problem.

Essentially, this stripped the documents of any word not in the English dictionary. Thus arabic names were removed, for example. In addition other potential identifiers such as occupations were removed. A few things like key acronyms were added to the dictionary. The software was developed and tested on sample batches of telegrams until it worked well. Julian Assange was determined redaction should be effective and resisted pressure from media partners to speed up the process. Assange always meticulously insisted on redaction. On balance, they over-redacted for caution. Sloboda could only speak on the Iraq War Logs, but these were published by Wikileaks in a highly redacted form which was wholly appropriate.

Joel Smith then stood up to cross-examine for the US Government. I am sure Mr Smith is a lovely man. But sadly his looks are against him. You would certainly not enter an alleyway if he were anywhere nearby. The first time I saw him I presumed he was heading for the dock in court 11.

As is the standard prosecution methodology in this hearing, Mr Smith set out to trash the reputation of the witness. [I found this rather ironic, as Iraq Body Count has been rather good for the US Government. The idea that in the chaos of war every civilian death is reported somewhere in local media is obviously nonsense. Each time the Americans flattened Fallujah and everyone in it, there was not some little journalist writing up the names of the thousands of dead on a miraculously surviving broadband connection. Iraq Body Count is a good verifiable minimum number of civilian deaths, but no more, and its grandiose claims have led it to be used as propaganda for the “war wasn’t that bad” brigade. My own view is that you can usefully add a zero to their figures. But I digress.]

Smith established that Sloboda’s qualifications are in psychology and musicology, that he had no expertise in military intelligence, classification and declassification of documents or protection of intelligence sources. Smith also established that Sloboda did not hold a US security clearance (and thus was in illegal possession of the information from the viewpoint of the US government). Sloboda had been given full access to all 400,000 Iraq War Logs shortly after his initial meeting with Assange. They had signed a non-disclosure agreement with the International Committee of Investigative Journalists. Four people at IBC had access. There was no formal vetting process.

To give you an idea of this cross-examination:

Smith Are you aware of jigsaw identification?
Sloboda It is the process of providing pieces of information which can be added together to discover an identity.
Smith Were you aware of this risk in publishing?
Sloboda We were. As I have said, we redacted not just non-English words but occupations and other such words that might serve as a clue.
Smith When did you first speak to Julian Assange?
Sloboda About July 2010.
Smith The Afghan War logs were published in July 2010. How long after that did you meet Assange?
Sloboda Weeks.

Smith You talk of a responsible way of publishing. That would include not naming US informants?
Sloboda Yes.
Smith Your website attributes killings to different groups and factions within the state as well as some outside influences. That would indicate varied and multiple sources of danger to any US collaborators named in the documents.
Sloboda Yes.
Smith Your statement spoke of a steep learning curve from the Afghan war logs that had to be applied to the Iraq war logs. What does that mean?
Sloboda It means Wikileaks felt that mistakes were made in publishing the Afghan war logs that should not be repeated with the Iraq war logs.
Smith Those mistakes involved publication of names of sources, didn’t they?
Sloboda Possibly, yes. Or no. I don’t know. I had no involvement with the Afghan War logs.
Smith You were told there was time pressure to publish?
Sloboda Yes, I was told by Julian he was put under time pressure and I picked it up from other media partners.
Smith And it was IBC who came up with the software solution, not Assange?
Sloboda Yes.
Smith How long did it take to develop the software?
Sloboda A matter of weeks. It was designed and tested then refined and tested again and again. It was not ready by the original proposed publication date of the Iraq war logs, which is why the date was put back.
Smith Redaction then would remove all non-English words. But it would still leave vital clues to identities, like professions? They had to be edited by hand?
Sloboda No. I already said that professions were taken out. The software was written to do that.
Smith It would leave in buildings?
Sloboda No, other words like mosque were specifically removed by the software.
Smith But names which are also English words would be left in. Like Summers, for example.
Sloboda I don’t think there are any Iraqi names which are also English words.
Smith Dates, times, places?
Sloboda I don’t know.
Smith Street names?
Sloboda I don’t know.
[Sloboda was obviously disconcerted by Smith’s quickfire technique and had been rattled into firing back equally speedy and short answers. If you think about it a moment, Iraqi street names are generally not English words.]
Smith Vehicles?
Sloboda I don’t know.
Smith You said at a press conference that you had “merely scratched the surface” in looking at the 400,000 documents.
Sloboda Yes.
Smith You testified that Julian Assange shared your view that the Iraqi war logs should be published responsibly. But in a 2010 recorded interview at the Frontline Club, Mr Assange called it regrettable that informants were at risk, but said Wikileaks only had to avoid potential for unjust retribution; and those that had engaged in traitorous behaviour or had sold information ran their own risk. Can you comment?
Sloboda No. He never said anything like this to me.
Smith He never said he found the process of redaction disturbing?
Sloboda No, on the contrary. He said nothing at all like that to me. We had a complete meeting of minds on the importance of protection of individuals.
Smith Not all the logs related to civilian deaths?
Sloboda No. The logs put deaths in four categories. Civilian, host nation (Iraqi forces and police), friendly nation (coalition forces) and enemy. The logs did not always detail the actions in which deaths occurred. Sometimes the patrols were the cause, sometimes they detailed what they came across. We moved police deaths from the host nation to the civilian category.

[One of the problems I personally have with IBC’s approach is that they accepted US forces’ massive over-description of the dead as “hostile”. Obviously when US forces killed someone they had an incentive to list them as “hostile” and not “civilian”.]

Smith Are you aware that when the Iraq Significant Activity Reports (war logs) were released online in October 2010, they did in fact contain unredacted names of co-operating individuals?
Sloboda No, I am not aware of that.
Smith now read an affidavit from a new player [Dwyer?] which stated that the publication of the SAR’s put co-operating individuals in grave danger. Dwyer purported to reference two documents which contained names. Dwyer also stated that “military and diplomatic experts” confirmed individuals had been put in grave danger.
Smith How do you explain that?
Sloboda I have no knowledge. It’s just an assertion. I haven’t seen the documents referred to.
Smith Might this all be because Mr Assange “took a cavalier attitude to redaction”?
Sloboda No, definitely not. I saw the opposite.
Smith So why did it happen?
Sloboda I don’t know if it did happen. I haven’t seen the documents referred.

That ended Professor Sloboda’s evidence. He was not re-examined by the defence.

I have no idea who “Dwyer” – name as heard – is or what evidential value his affidavit might hold. It is a constant tactic of the prosecution to enter highly dubious information into the record by putting it to witnesses who have not heard of it. The context would suggest that “Dwyer” is a US government official. Given that he claimed to be quoting two documents he was alleging Wikileaks had published online, it is also not clear to me why those published documents were not produced to the court and to Professor Sloboda.

We now come to the afternoon session. I have a difficulty here. The next witness was Carey Shenkman, an academic lawyer in New York who has written a book on the history of the Espionage Act of 1917 and its use against journalists. Now, partly because Shenkman was a lawyer being examined by lawyers, at times his evidence included lots of case names being thrown around, the significance of which was not entirely clear to the layman. I often could not catch the names of the cases. Even if I produced a full transcript, large chunks of it would be impenetrable to those from a non-legal background – including me – without a week to research it. So if this next reporting is briefer and less satisfactory than usual, it is not the fault of Carey Shenkman.

This evidence was nonetheless extremely important because of the clear intent shown by the US government in cross examination to now interpret the Espionage Act in a manner that will enable them to prosecute journalists wholesale.

Shenkman began his evidence by explaining that the 1917 Espionage Act under which Assange was charged dates from the most repressive period in US history, when Woodrow Wilson had taken the US into the First World War against massive public opposition. It had been used to imprison those who campaigned against the war, particularly labour leaders. Wilson himself had characterised it as “the firm hand of stern repression”. Its drafting was extraordinarily broad and it was on its surface a weapon of political persecution.

The Pentagon Papers case had prompted Edgar and Schmidt to write a famous analysis of the Espionage Act published in the Colombia Law Review in 1973. It concluded that there was incredible confusion about the meaning and scope of the law and capacity of the government to use it. It gave enormous prosecutorial discretion on who to prosecute and depended on prosecutors behaving wisely and with restraint. There was no limit on strict liability. The third or fifth receiver in the chain of publication of classified information could be prosecuted, not just the journalist or publisher but the person who sells or even buys or reads the newspaper.

Shenkman went through three historic cases of potential criminal prosecution of media under the Espionage Act. All had involved direct Presidential interference and the active instigation of the Attorney General. All had been abandoned before the Grand Jury stage because the Justice Department had opposed proceeding. Their primary concern had always been how to distinguish media outlets. If you prosecuted one, you had to prosecute them all.

[An aside for my regular readers – that is a notion of fairness entirely absent from James Wolffe, Alex Prentice and the Crown Office in Scotland.]

The default position had become that the Espionage Act was used against the whistleblower but not against the publisher or journalist, even when the whistleblower had worked closely with the journalist. Obama had launched the largest ever campaign of prosecution of whistleblowers under the Espionage Act. He had not prosecuted any journalist for publishing the information they leaked.

Claire Dobbin then rose to cross-examine on behalf of the US Government, which evidently is not short of a penny or two to spend on multiple counsel. Mrs Dobbin looks a pleasant and unthreatening individual. It was therefore surprising that when she spoke, out boomed a voice that you would imagine as emanating from the offspring of Ian Paisley and Arlene Foster. This impression was of course reinforced by her going on to advocate for harsh measures of repression.

Ms Dobbin started by stating that Mr Shenkman had worked for Julian Assange. Shenkman clarified that he had worked in the firm of the great lawyer Michael Ratner, who represented Mr Assange. But that firm had been dissolved on Mr Ratner’s death in 2016 and Shenkman now worked on his own behalf. This all had no bearing on the history and use of the Espionage Act, on which he had been researching in collaboration with a well-established academic expert.

Dobbin than asked whether Shenkman was on Assange’s legal team. He replied no. Dobbin pointed to an article he had written with two others, of which the byline stated that Shenkman was a member of Julian Assange’s legal team. Shenkman replied he was not responsible for the byline. He was a part of the team only in the sense that he had done a limited amount of work in a very junior capacity for Michael Ratner, who represented Assange, that related to Assange. He was “plankton” in Ratner’s firm.

Dobbin said that the article had claimed that the UK was illegally detaining Assange in the Ecuadorean Embassy. Shenkman replied that was the view of the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, with which he concurred. Dobbin asked if he stood by that opinion. Shenkman stated that he did, but it bore no relationship to his research on the history of the Espionage Act on which he was giving evidence.

Dobbin asked whether, having written that article, he really believed he could give objective evidence as an expert witness. Shenkman said yes he could, on the history of use of the Espionage Act. It was five years since he had left the Ratner firm. Lawyers had all kinds of clients that very loosely related in one way or another to other work they did. They had to learn to put aside and be objective.

Dobbin said that the 2013 article stated that Assange’s extradition to the United States was almost certain. What was the basis of this claim? Shenkman replied that he had not been the main author of that article, with which three people were credited. He simply could not recall that phrase at this time or the thought behind it. He wished to testify on the history of the Espionage Act, of which he had just written the first historical study.

Dobbin asked Shenkman if he was giving evidence pro bono? He replied no, he was appearing as a paid expert witness to speak about the Espionage Act.

Dobbin said that the defence claimed that the Obama administration had taken the decision not to prosecute Assange. But successive court statements showed that an investigation was still ongoing (Dobbin took him through several of these, very slowly). If Assange had really believed the Obama administration had dropped the idea of prosecution, then why would he have stayed in the Embassy?

Shenkman replied that he was very confused why Dobbin would think he had any idea what Assange knew or thought at any moment in time. Why did she keep asking him questions about matters with which he had no connection at all and was not giving evidence?

But if she wanted his personal view, there had of course been ongoing investigations since 2010. It was standard Justice Department practice not to close off the possibility of future charges. But if Holder and Obama had wanted to prosecute, wouldn’t they have brought charges before they left office and got the kudos, rather than leave it for Trump?

Dobbin then asked a three part question that rather sapped my will to live. Shenkman sensibly ignored it and asked his own question instead. “Did I anticipate this indictment? No, I never thought we would see something as political as this. It is quite extraordinary. A lot of scholars are shocked.”

Dobbin now shifted ground to the meat of the government position. She invited Shenkman to agree with a variety of sentences cherry-picked from US court judgements over the years, all of which she purported to show an untrammelled right to put journalists in jail under the Espionage Act. She started with the Morison Case in the fourth appellate circuit and a quote to the effect that “a government employee who steals information is not entitled to use the First Amendment as a shield”. She invited Shenkman to agree. He declined to do so, stating that particular circumstances of each case must be taken into consideration and whistleblowing could not simply be characterised as stealing. Contrary opinions exist, including a recent 9th appellate circuit judgement over Snowden. So no, he did not agree. Besides Morison was not about a publisher. The Obama prosecutions showed the historic pattern of prosecuting the leaker not the publisher.

Dobbin then quoted a Supreme Court decision with a name I did not catch, and a quote to the effect that “the First Amendment cannot cover criminal conduct”. She then fired another case at him and another quote. She challenged him to disagree with the Supreme Court. Shenkman said the exercise she was engaged in was not valid. She was picking individual sentences from judgements in complex cases, which involved very different allegations. This present case was not about illegal wiretapping by the media like one she quoted, for example.

Dobbin then asked Shenkman whether unauthorised access to government databases is protected under the First Amendment. He replied that this was a highly contentious issue. There were, for example, a number of conflicting judgements in different appellate circuits about what constituted unauthorised access.
Dobbin asked if hacking a password hash would be unauthorised access. Shenkman replied this was not a simple question. In the present case, the evidence was the password was not needed to obtain documents. And could she define “hacking” in law? Dobbin said she was speaking in layman’s terms. Shenkman replied that she should not do that. We were in a court of law and he was expected to show extreme precision in his answers. She should meet the same standard in her questions.

Finally Dobbin unveiled her key point. Surely all these contentious points were therefore matters to be decided in the US courts after extradition? No, replied Shenkman. Political offences were a bar to extradition from the UK under UK law, and his evidence went to show that the decision to prosecute Assange under the Espionage Act was entirely political.

Mrs Dobbin will resume her cross examination of Mr Shenkman tomorrow.


I have two main points to make. The first is that Shenkman was sent a 180 page evidence bundle from the prosecution on the morning of his testimony, at 3am his time, before giving evidence at 9am. A proportion of this was entirely new material to him. He is then questioned on it. This keeps happening to every witness. On top of which, like almost every witness, his submitted statement addressed the first superseding indictment not the last minute second superseding indictment which introduces some entirely new offences. This is a ridiculous procedure.

My second is that, having been very critical of Judge Baraitser, it would be churlish of me not to note that there seems to be some definite change in her attitude to the case as the prosecution makes a complete horlicks of it. Whether this makes any long term difference I doubt. But it is pleasant to witness.

It is also fair to note that Baraitser has so far resisted strong US pressure to prevent the defence witnesses being heard at all. She has decided to hear all the evidence before deciding what is and is not admissible, against the prosecution desire that almost all the defence witnesses are excluded as irrelevant or unqualified. As she will make that decision when considering her judgement, that is why the prosecution spend so much time attacking the witnesses ad hominem rather than addressing their actual evidence. That may well be a mistake.

The post Your Man in the Public Gallery: Assange Hearing Day 12 appeared first on The Freedom Articles.

]]> 1
SARS-CoV-2: The Stitched Together, Frankenstein Virus Fri, 25 Sep 2020 07:23:38 +0000 SARS-CoV-2 is a stitched together entity that so far appears to exist only in theoretical viral databases rather than in real life. The deeper one goes down the COVID rabbit hole, the more bizarre and surreal the scamdemic becomes, and the more obvious it becomes that the New World Order (NWO) conspirators have conjured up […]

The post SARS-CoV-2: The Stitched Together, Frankenstein Virus appeared first on The Freedom Articles.


With SARS-CoV-2 never isolated, it’s a theoretical virus existing only in a database. There are many COVID scams operating simultaneously.

SARS-CoV-2 is a stitched together entity

that so far appears to exist only in theoretical viral databases rather than in real life. The deeper one goes down the COVID rabbit hole, the more bizarre and surreal the scamdemic becomes, and the more obvious it becomes that the New World Order (NWO) conspirators have conjured up a giant magic trick out of nothing. Well, perhaps not nothing; it would be more accurate to say they are demonizing humanity itself and turning every person into ‘the enemy’, as I alluded to in an earlier article The Eerie Similarities Between the Coronavirus and Climate Change Hoaxes. In that piece I talked about how the NWO is following the Club Of Rome directive to make mankind itself the enemy, and in the case of corona, they are doing that by re-diagnosing and re-classifying part of our immune system as a pathogen (see the article Deep Down the Virus Rabbit Hole – Question Everything for the background on exosomes). It is accurate to say that the dreaded SARS-CoV-2 is, in fact, a stitched-together Frankenstein virus containing sequences of human DNA.

The Max Igan-Andrew Kaufman Interview

Dr. Andrew Kaufman has done a tremendous job and fantastic public service ever since the beginning ot the coronavirus scamdemic by stepping out and speaking out loudly against the insanity. I have listened to many of his interviews, however this one with Max Igan (The Crowhouse) stands out, because Kaufman breaks down how the testing works in a way I have not heard anyone else do. He actually reveals how the sequences, and indeed entire SARS-CoV-2 viral genome (the standard against which they are testing people), is itself just a stitched-together construct made of up of all sorts of different sequences – including human DNA sequences! This is yet another reason why it is unsurprising that there are so many positive test results, since they are testing people’s DNA and matching the results against a standard which already includes human DNA. There is a false positive pandemic, not a viral pandemic. Here are Kaufman’s words verbatim:

“The PCR test … doesn’t for a virus at all. What that tests for is a sequence of RNA, which is genetic material. And the way they obtain that, is also they take the impure sample, basically like the lung fluid in this case from some people who are sick, or possibly a throat swab, and they amplify short little sequences, and sequences that they are specifically looking for mostly because they have this library of gene sequences of viruses. But the thing is if you go back, they’ve always characterized them this way. So they’ve never once had an intact virus particle, and then sliced it open, and taken the RNA out, and done a sequence from end to end. That’s never been done. What they do instead is they take this impure sample, and they look for specific sequences that they’ve pre-identified as being viral in nature, from this database. And then what they’re doing is amplifying these short little sequences, maybe 150-250 base pairs, and they’re splicing them together into this one long strand of 30,000, which they say is the viral genome, but it’s actually just this Frankenstein type of assembly of all these little pieces, that we don’t even have any proof [are] related. They could even come from different types of cells or different creatures. And when there’s gaps, they’re basically using sequences that they get from that database of other viruses that are also put together in this Frankenstein-type way, and they sew all those together and say that this is the genome sequence of this virus. And that’s the procedure. They’re testing for something from that but we don’t really know what it is, except it’s most likely our own sequences. So that’s why there’s so many positive results, because they are essentially testing our own genetic sequences.”

Max Igan replies:

“This is crazy. This is not unlike Tim [he actually means Neil – Ed.] Ferguson with his computer models from Imperial College. You get the data out of the model that you put into the model, and with what you’re describing there, they’re getting the test results based on what they’re putting it, the material they’re putting in there. This is crazy! How could you even see this as any type of test [unintelligible] … It doesn’t make sense at all. This is what they [based] the entire world lockdown on … This is unbelievable when you explain it like that!”

The Emperor Has No SARS-CoV-2 Clothes

When it comes to computers and programming, you get out what you put in. There’s no such thing as a neutral algorithm or piece of code, because it reflects the creators’ preferences and purposes. Despite the promises of the transhumanists, computers lack a soul and consciousness, so their advice can only ever be as good as the data and programming that created them. NWO frontman Bill Gates funded places like the Imperial College and Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation (IHME), so they are naturally going to produce results favorable to the NWO agenda. Likewise, the PCR tests are based on taking a DNA sample and matching it to a gold standard of what the virus already is, however due to the fact SARS-CoV-2 fails Koch’s postulates and has never been isolated and purified, there is no true gold standard (an actual virus) but instead a surrogate gold standard (an abstract digitally created database virus).

COVID Positives are Not Cases; Asymptomatic People are Not Sick!

Operation Coronavirus is a tightly woven, interconnected web of scams, much like a set of Russian dolls, where the outer layer contains a series of successive inner layers until you get to the core. Another aspect of the scam which has been well exposed by doctors such as Dr. Lee Merritt and Dr. Tim O’Shea is the deliberate fusing of the terms ‘positive’, ‘infection’ and ‘case’. According to Merritt, since ancient times, a case referred to someone who was demonstrably sick. An ill person. Medically speaking, it never, ever referred to someone who was asymptomatic or who had no symptoms of illness. However in the COVID scamdemic, the term has been hijacked and re-defined to include anyone who tests positive with the highly flawed COVID PCR test. As Merritt emphatically states, “That is not epidemiology. That’s fraud.”

Dr. Tim O’Shea reveals that fully 99% of COVID positives never get sick. Even of those who do, only 1% of them requires any treatment whatsoever. We have known this for a long time, especially since Iceland tested 1% of its population months ago, and found of those who were positive, about half had very mild symptoms, and the other half had no symptoms whatsoever. Of course they didn’t – they tested positive in a test that used human DNA sequences (and God knows what else) as part of its benchmark standard for a supposed new virus!

SARS-CoV-2: The Hoax of Asymptomatic Transmission

Maria Van Kerkhove, head of the WHO Emerging Diseases and Zoonosis unit, confessed months ago (before the backtrack) that asymptomatic transmission of COVID was “very rare.” Other official sources have admitted that asymptomatic spread is not the major driver of coronavirus infection, e.g. when Fauci admitted that “asymptomatic transmission has never been the driver of outbreaks” and that “an epidemic is not driven by asymptomatic carriers.” Remember, this is at its heart a psychological operation. The NWO controllers orchestrating this plandemic are trying to erode your self-trust, self-confidence and self-knowledge. They are attempting to trick you into thinking that you can’t possibly know if you are healthy; you can’t feel your own body and the fact you have no pains, aches or symptoms. You could still be contagious! You have to rely on something outside of yourself (COVID PCR tests, antibody tests, drugs, vaccines), whether it’s Big Pharma or Big Government, for your health and safety. This, like all the other NWO agendas, is a battle of perception and a form of mind control.

Final Thoughts

The takeaway from this is that the NWO controllers orchestrating Operation Coronavirus have taken a normal part of our immune system and classified it as a virus or pathogen. Then, they are appointing their minions to go around and test everyone, knowing the tests are testing for sequences of human DNA itself, rendering them meaningless and leading to a barrage of false positives. Consequently, people are being stripped of freedom and their rights based on faulty tests and fraudulent re-definition of medical terms like cases – when they are not even sick, and even if they were, when the governmental has absolutely no right to violate them in this way. Ultimately, there is still no proof that SARS-CoV-2 is a real world virus, not just some Frankenstein  theoretical virus existing only in a database.


Makia Freeman is the editor of alternative media / independent news site The Freedom Articles, author of the book Cancer: The Lies, the Truth and the Solutions and senior researcher at Makia is on Steemit and Parler.












The post SARS-CoV-2: The Stitched Together, Frankenstein Virus appeared first on The Freedom Articles.

]]> 18
Your Man in the Public Gallery: Assange Hearing Day 11 Wed, 23 Sep 2020 22:58:53 +0000 At the Assange hearing day 11, yet another shocking example of abuse of court procedure unfolded. James Lewis QC for the prosecution had been permitted gratuitously to read to two previous witnesses with zero connection to this claim, an extract from a book by Luke Harding and David Leigh in which Harding claims that at […]

The post Your Man in the Public Gallery: Assange Hearing Day 11 appeared first on The Freedom Articles.

assange hearing day 11

The Assange hearing day 11 featured German journalist John Goetz and famous Pentagon Papers whistleblower Dan Ellsberg.

At the Assange hearing day 11,

yet another shocking example of abuse of court procedure unfolded. James Lewis QC for the prosecution had been permitted gratuitously to read to two previous witnesses with zero connection to this claim, an extract from a book by Luke Harding and David Leigh in which Harding claims that at a dinner at El Moro Restaurant Julian Assange had stated he did not care if US informants were killed, because they were traitors who deserved what was coming to them.

This morning giving evidence was John Goetz, now Chief Investigations Editor of NDR (German public TV), then of Der Spiegel. Goetz was one of the four people at that dinner. He was ready and willing to testify that Julian said no such thing and Luke Harding is (not unusually) lying. Goetz was not permitted by Judge Baraitser to testify on this point, even though two witnesses who were not present had previously been asked to testify on it.

Baraitser’s legal rationale was this. It was not in his written evidence statement (submitted before Lewis had raised the question with other witnesses) so Goetz was only permitted to contradict Lewis’s deliberate introduction of a lie if Lewis asked him. Lewis refused to ask the one witness who was actually present what had happened, because Lewis knew the lie he is propagating would be exposed.

This is my report of Lewis putting the alleged conversation to Clive Stafford Smith, who knew nothing about it:

Lewis then took Stafford Smith to a passage in the book “Wikileaks; Inside Julian Assange’s War on Secrecy”, in which Luke Harding stated that he and David Leigh were most concerned to protect the names of informants, but Julian Assange had stated that Afghan informants were traitors who merited retribution. “They were informants, so if they got killed they had it coming.” Lewis tried several times to draw Stafford Smith into this, but Stafford Smith repeatedly said he understood these alleged facts were under dispute and he had no personal knowledge.

This is my report of James Lewis putting the same quote to Prof Mark Feldstein, who had absolutely no connection to the event:

Lewis then read out again the same quote from the Leigh/Harding book he had put to Stafford Smith, stating that Julian Assange had said the Afghan informants would deserve their fate.

James Lewis QC knew that these witnesses had absolutely no connection to this conversation, and he put it to them purely to get the lie into the court record and into public discourse. James Lewis QC also knows that Goetz was present on the occasion described. The Harding book specifies the exact date and location of the dinner and that it included two German journalists, and Goetz was one of them.

It is plainly contrary to natural justice that a participant in an event introduced into the proceedings should not be allowed to tell the truth about it when those with no connection are, tendentiously, invited to. Whatever the rules of evidence may say, Baraitser and Lewis have here contrived between them a blatant abuse of process. It is a further example of the egregious injustices of this process.

If that does not make you angry, try this. Daniel Ellsberg was to give evidence this afternoon. Edward Fitzgerald QC applied for his videolink evidence to be heard at 3.15pm which is 07.15am in California where Dan lives. Baraitser insisted it could not be put back beyond 2.30 pm, thus forcing an 89 year old man to give evidence at 6.30am. Simply stunning.

As it happens, when Dan is 108 and on his death bed he will still be able to outwit James Lewis QC while reading Moby Dick and playing the ukelele, but the continual and cynical lack of concern for the defence just keeps punching you in the face.

John Goetz was the first witness this morning. Senior Investigations Editor at NDR since 2011, he was at Der Spiegel from 2007-11. He had published a series of articles on German involvement in the Afghan War, including one on a bombing raid on Kunduz which massacred civilians, for which he had won Germany’s highest journalism award. In June 2010 he went to London to meet with Wikileaks and the Guardian to work on the Afghan War Logs.

In a series of meetings in “the bunker” at the Guardian with the NYT and the other major media partners, the partnership was formed whereby all would pool effort in researching the Afghan War Logs but each party would choose and publish his own stories. This cooperative venture between five major news organisations – normally rivals – was unique at the time.

Goetz had been struck by what seemed to him Julian Assange’s obsession with the security of the material. He insisted everything was encrypted and strict protocols were in place for handling the material. This had been new territory for the journalists. The New York Times was tasked with liaison with the White House, the Department of Defence and State Department on questions of handling the material.

Asked by Mark Summers to characterise the Afghan War Logs, Goetz said that they were fascinating first-hand material giving low level reports on actual operations. This was eye witness material which sometimes lacked the larger view. There was abundant first-hand evidence of war crimes. He had worked with Nick Davies of the Guardian on the Task Force 373 story.

Julian Assange had been most concerned to find the names in the papers. He spent a lot of time working out technical ways to identify names in the tens of thousands of documents. Mark Summers asked if he had been looking for the names for the purpose of redaction, and Goetz confirmed it was for redaction. He had interviewed Assange on the harm minimisation programme of the operation.

On behalf of the group Eric Schmitt of the NYT had been speaking to the White House and he had sent an email identifying 15,000 documents the White House did not want published to prevent harm to individuals or to American interests. It was agreed not to publish these documents and they were not published. Summers asked Goetz if he was aware of any names that slipped through, and he replied not.

Goetz was not so involved for family reasons when the consortium went through the same process with the Iraq war logs. But he knew that when a large number of these were released in the USA under a FOIA request, it was seen that Wikileaks had redacted those they released more heavily than the Department of Defense did. Goetz recalled an email from David Leigh of the Guardian stating that publication of some stories was delayed because of the amount of time Wikileaks were devoting to the redaction process to get rid of the “bad stuff”.

Summers then turned to the investigation of Khaled el-Masri. Goetz stated that back in 2005–6 when in his first stint at NDR he had looked into what seemed at the time the extraordinary claims of German citizen el-Masri, who stated that he had been kidnapped in Skopje, flown shackled and hooded around the world, subjected to constant beatings and torture, eventually ending up in what he believed to be a US detention facility in Afghanistan. At the time his claims had seemed difficult to believe.

[If I might interject a personal note here, this is around the time I myself blew the whistle on the torture programme, as a UK ambassador. I was effectively called a liar by then Foreign Secretary Jack Straw to parliament who described the extraordinary rendition programme as a “conspiracy theory”. I know how hard it was to be believed then.]

Goetz’s investigations had shown the story to be true. Using rendition flight logs and hotel records, he had even managed to track the actual perpetrators to North Carolina, and had spoken to some of them there. Enough evidence was produced for arrest warrants against 13 American agents or soldiers to be issued in Munich. Summers asked Goetz whether they were arrested. He replied that no, to their surprise, nothing was done to deliver the arrest warrant to the USA.

Then when the Wikileaks diplomatic cables were released, they had been able to see the pressure brought on the German government not to deliver the arrest warrant. The US had told Germany that to do so would have serious repercussions for the US/German relationship.

Summers asked if Goetz was involved in working through the cables for Der Spiegel. Goetz replied he was. In addition to the main media partners, Wikileaks had brought in a second phase of local media partners in the third countries involved, who might better be able both to redact and to know what were the important stories for a local audience. This had introduced some delays which were frustrating for Goetz.

Summers asked how thorough the process of redaction was. Goetz said that the original strict protocols remained in place and he did not know of anybody who had come to any harm. The State Department was actively engaged in the process. P J Crowley and others would call and request redactions and omissions. These were made. Eventually though a decision was taken by the US Government to withdraw cooperation.

Baraitser issued a time warning.

Summers then asked about events leading to the publishing of the unredacted cables. Goetz said this was a complicated process. It started when Luke Harding and David Leigh published a book in February 2011 containing the password to the online cache of encrypted cables. This was discussed on various mirroring sites, and eventual publication of the full cache by Cryptome after Der Freitag became involved. Cryptome was at that time very well known and an important source for journalists.

Summers then asked about the breakdown of relationships between Wikileaks and the Guardian. It was at this point that Baraitser ruled that Summers was not allowed to ask about what happened at the dinner he attended at El Moro restaurant. Summers made a formal request, as Lewis had introduced the subject with other witnesses who unlike Goetz had not been there. Lewis objected, and Baraitser said no.

James Lewis QC then cross-examined for the US Government and went straight to the publication of unredacted cables by Wikileaks in August and September 2011. Goetz referred to his earlier evidence on the releasing of the password, and said that Cryptome published first. Lewis countered that on 29 August 2011 Wikileaks had released 133,877 cables together with a statement that this was done “in accordance with Wikileaks’ commitment to maximising impact and making information available to all”. This was two days before Cryptome published.

A rather chaotic period ensued. Julian cried out from the dock that this was a misquote. He was warned he would be excluded from court by Baraitser. It turned out it was a misquote, and what I give above is the corrected version. There was then some rather confused questioning between Goetz and Lewis, of which the upshot was that those were unclassified and/or redacted cables (a quarter of the cache). Goetz said he could not comment to Lewis’s suggestion that some had names marked “strictly protect”.

Lewis suggested that after the collaboration, the material was just dumped. Goetz said no. Wikileaks had invested a lot of time, money and staff resources in the programme and from detailed discussions he knew they intended it to continue to roll out for at least another year. Then Cryptome had published.

Lewis quoted from a Guardian article of 1 September in which the original media partners, including Der Spiegel, condemned the release of the unredacted documents. He asked Goetz whether the 15,000 withheld cables had also been “dumped”? Goetz replied they were not cables, they were Afghan war logs, and no, not to his knowledge.

Lewis then said there was evidence that called Assange thoughtful, humorous and energetic. Did Goetz agree? He said yes. Lewis then quoted Christine Assange on what a good father her son was, and invited Goetz to comment. Goetz replied he was in no position to know.
[It is hard to explain this somewhat sinister finishing questioning. Possibly to counter psychiatric evidence?]

In re-examination by Mark Summers, Goetz stated that while the cables redaction process was going on, no names at risk had been published. To his knowledge, nobody had ever been harmed as a result of publication. He knew from his close involvement that Assange had tried very hard to prevent the publication of the unredacted cables. He had pleaded with Der Freitag.

In the afternoon, the witness was Dan Ellsberg, doyen of whistleblowers. Born in Chicago in 1931, he was educated at Harvard and Cambridge. He served in the Marines from 1954–7, and from 1964–5 was Special Assistant to the US Secretary of Defence. He was then involved in the making of an official classified 47-volume report entitled History of Decision Making in Vietnam.

Ellsberg briefly explained that the report showed that the war in Vietnam had been both continued in the knowledge that it could not be won. It showed that both the public and Congress had repeatedly been lied to. He had leaked the report to lawmakers and then the public as The Pentagon Papers. This had resulted in the famous case on prior restraint on publication. There had also been a less well-known criminal case against him personally under the Espionage Act. This had been dismissed with prejudice by the court.

Asked by Edward Fitzgerald to comment on the Wikileaks/Manning publication on Afghanistan, Ellsberg replied that he saw extremely strong parallels with his own case. These papers had the capability of informing the public of the progress of the war and the limited possibility that it could be brought to a successful conclusion at all. The Afghan War Logs showed operational-level information not a wider view, but the effect was similar. He strongly identified with both the source and the process of publication.

Fitzgerald then asked Ellsberg whether Assange held political opinions relevant to this publication. Ellsberg said it was absurd for the prosecution to argue otherwise. He had himself been motivated by his political views in his publication and Assange’s views were very similar. He had held very interesting discussions with Assange and felt a great affinity with him. They both believed that there was a great lack of transparency to the public over government decisions. The public were fed much information that was false.

When the public had so little genuine information and were fed so much false information, real democracy was not possible. An example was the Iraq War, clearly an illegal war of aggression in breach of the UN charter, sold on lies to the public.

The Afghan War Logs were similar to low-level reports Ellsberg had himself written in Vietnam. It was the same thing; the invasion and occupation of a foreign country against the wishes of the majority of its population. That could only bring defeat or endless conflict: 19 years so far. The war logs had exposed a pattern of war crimes: torture, assassination and death squads. The one thing that had changed since Vietnam was that these things were now so normalised they were classified below Top Secret.

All the Pentagon Papers were Top Secret. None of the Wikileaks documents were. They were not just below Top Secret, they had no restricted distribution classifications. This meant that by definition there should be nothing genuinely sensitive, and certainly not life-endangering, in papers of this classification.

Fitzgerald asked him about the Collateral Murder video. Ellsberg stated that it definitely showed murder, including the deliberate machine gunning of a wounded and unarmed civilian. That it was murder was undoubted. The dubious word was “collateral”, which implies accidental. What was truly shocking about it was the Pentagon reaction that these war crimes were within the Rules of Engagement. Which permitted murder.

Edward Fitzgerald asked whether Ellsberg was allowed to put forward the question of intention at his trial. He replied no, the distribution of classified material outside those designated to receive it was an offence of strict liability under the 1917 Espionage Act. This was absolutely inappropriate to trials of whistleblowers. “I did not get a fair trial and nor have recent whistleblowers in the USA. Julian Assange could not get a fair trial.”

Cross-examining for the US Government, James Lewis QC asked Ellsberg to confirm that at the time he copied the Pentagon Papers he was working for the Rand Corporation. He said yes. Lewis said that Assange was not being prosecuted for publication of the Collateral Murder video. Ellsberg said that the Collateral Murder video was essential to an understanding of the Rules of Engagement. Lewis countered that Assange was not being charged for publication of the Rules of Engagement. He was only being charged for publication of unredacted names of those who might come to harm.

Ellsberg replied that he had read the superseding indictment and that Assange was being charged with obtaining, receiving and possession of material including the Rules of Engagement and the Collateral Murder video, and all the documents. On publishing, he was only charged with the names. Lewis said the other charges related to conspiracy with Chelsea Manning. Ellsberg replied “Yes. They are still charges.”

Ellsberg quoted US Assistant Attorney Gordon Kromberg stating that prosecution was for documents up to Secret level containing the names of those “who risked their lives and freedom while helping the USA”. Lewis contrasted this with Ellsberg “when you published the Pentagon Papers you were very careful what you gave to the media”. Ellsberg replied that he withheld three or four volumes not to cause difficulties to diplomatic efforts to end the war.

Lewis suggested he was protecting individuals. Ellsberg said no; if he released those documents, the US government might have used it as an excuse to exit diplomacy and continue the war. Lewis asked if there were names in the Pentagon Papers that would risk harm to them. Ellsberg replied yes. In one case, a clandestine CIA agent was named, involved in the CIA assassination of a major Vietnamese politician. He was a personal friend of Ellsberg and Ellsberg had thought hard about it, but had left him in.

Lewis asked Ellsberg whether he had read the article “Why Wikileaks is Not the Pentagon Papers” by Floyd Abrams, who had represented the New York Times in the Pentagon Papers case. Ellsberg replied he had read several articles like this by Abrams. He did not know Abrams. He had only been involved in the civil case, not the criminal one. He had seen him once, at an awards ceremony long after.

Lewis said that Abrams had written that Ellsberg had withheld four volumes, whereas “can anyone doubt” that Assange would have published all of them? Ellsberg replied he disagreed, Abrams had never had one minute of discussion with him or Assange. “He does not understand my motives at all in his article”. The position he outlines is widely held by those who want to criticise Julian Assange, Chelsea Manning and Edward Snowden while pretending to be liberal.

What he writes is simply untrue. Julian Assange withheld 15,000 files. He went through a long, hard process of redaction. He requested help from both the State Department and Department of Defence on redaction. I have no doubt Julian would have removed the volumes as I did, in my place. He had no intention to name names.

Ten years later, the US Government has still not been able to name one single individual who was actually harmed by the Wikileaks releases. I was shocked that Kromberg should make that allegation while offering no evidence. As nobody was hurt, clearly the risk was never as high as they claimed – as indeed the document classification would tell you.

They said exactly the same of me. They said CIA agents and those helping the USA would be hurt. “They said I would have blood on my hands.”

There now followed an extraordinary “question” from James Lewis QC who was permitted to read out about 11 paragraphs from various locations in one of Kromberg’s rambling affidavits, in which Kromberg said that as a result of Wikileaks publication, some US sources had had to leave their homeland, go into hiding, or change their names, in a number of countries, including Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, Syria, Libya, China and Ethiopia. Some individuals in Afghanistan and Iraq had subsequently disappeared. The Taliban were on record as saying that those who cooperated with US forces would be killed. One Ethiopian journalist was forced to flee Ethiopia after being named as a US source. The US Embassy in China reported threats had been made against some of their named Chinese sources. Wikileaks material was found in the possessions of Osama Bin Laden after he was shot. Lewis asked in a furious voice “How can you possibly, honestly say that nobody was harmed?”
Ellsberg With all these people who felt they were in danger, of course I am sorry it was inconvenient for them, and that is regrettable. But was any one of them actually physically harmed? Did one of them actually suffer the claimed physical consequences?
Lewis You call it regrettable that people were put at risk. Is it your position that there was absolutely no harm caused by the publication of the names of these individuals?
Ellsberg Assange’s actions are absolutely antithetical to the notion that he deliberately published these names. Had hundreds been harmed, that would count against the great good done by publication of the information. No evidence is produced that any actual harm came to them. But his has to be put in the context of the policies which Assange was trying to change, invasions that led to 37 million refugees and 1 million deaths. Of course some people could not be located again in a war that killed a million people and displaced 37 million. The government is extremely hypocritical to pretend a concern for them against their general contempt for Middle Eastern lives. They had even refused to help redact the names. This is a pretence at concern.
Lewis What about the disappeared? Is it not common sense that some had been forced to disappear or flee under another name?
Ellsberg It does not seem to me that that small percentage of those named who may have been murdered or fled, can necessarily be attributed as a result of Wikileaks, when they are in among more than 1 million who have been murdered and 37 million who have fled.

Lewis then asked Ellsberg if it was true he had held an encrypted back up copy of the Manning material for Assange. Ellsberg replied it was; it had subsequently been physically destroyed.

In re-examination, Fitzgerald took Ellsberg to a passage in the Kromberg affidavit which stated that the US Government could not positively attribute any death to the Wikileaks material. Ellsberg said that was his understanding, and had been said at the Manning trial. He was shocked. It was just like Iraqi WMD. He had at first been inclined to believe the government on Iraqi WMD, just as he had first been inclined to believe the government on deaths caused by Wikileaks releases. In both cases it had proved they were making it up.


The court heard a great deal more truth than it could handle today, and great effort was put into excluding more truth. The US Government succeeded in preventing John Goetz eyewitness contradicting their promulgation of Luke Harding’s lie about what Assange said at El Moro. The US Government also objected, successfully so far, to Khaled el-Masri’s giving evidence on the grounds that he will allege he was tortured in the USA. Given that the European Court of Human Rights and the German courts had both found el-Masri’s story to be true, only in the wacky world of Lewis and Baraitser could it be considered wrong for him to tell the truth in court.

Please share this article by every means at your disposal as all of us reporting this truthfully are suffering extreme social media shadow banning and other suppression.

The post Your Man in the Public Gallery: Assange Hearing Day 11 appeared first on The Freedom Articles.

]]> 1