Showing posts with label DOJ. Show all posts
Showing posts with label DOJ. Show all posts

Wednesday, June 21, 2023

Utah Allows China To Operate Intelligence Centers Despite DOJ Warning

Utah has experienced its own China-related espionage case, but despite Utah DOJ's Warning Utah Officials continue to allow PLA/CCP et al to hide in Salt Lake's Chinese Civic Center.


Secret Police station in New York City on behalf of the Chinese government.

In April of 2020 Utah U.S. Attorney John W. Huber shared highlights of the Department of Justice’s China Initiative with law enforcement agents and officers, private sector business representatives, university officials, and others at a Salt Lake City Security Webinar. The U.S. Department of Homeland Security and the FBI sponsored the webinar.

Huber’s remarks focused on the economic and national security threats China poses to the United States and the importance of defending the country against these efforts. And, despite the AP Report of an FBI Investigation of China's influence peddling amongst Utah governing/elite, China continues to operate their Secret Surveillance/Police Force right here under our noses! (Est. 2017). These forces are not just involved in China interests but locating immigrant's from the "homeland" but especially elderly assimilated immigrants as a target of repatriation.

Utah Republican Rep. Chris Stewart, a member of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, said, “These centers aren’t there to help people get a business license or help resolve a domestic dispute,”  “They’re here to pressure, to use coercion and to use malicious influence.”  It appears those who populate Utah's positions of influence have forgotten history all together because "cozying up" to  the despotic Communist Regime of XI/Mao/Marx and the like will get Utahan's the same!



Daily Caller published an article June 17, 2023 that further outlines the truth behind the Department of Justice' Warning, much outlined in a 2016 Report to the U.S./China Economic and Security Review Commission, a 567 page report, (pg 303).  The DC article is posted below.

"A Chinese intelligence agency quietly operates “service centers” in seven American cities, all of which have had contact with Beijing’s national police authority, according to state media reports and government records reviewed by the Daily Caller News Foundation (DCNF).

The Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) United Front Work Department (UFWD) — which at least one U.S. government commission has characterized as a “Chinese intelligence service” — operates so-called “Overseas Chinese Service Centers” (OCSCs) that are housed within various U.S.-based nonprofits. OCSCs were ostensibly set up to promote Chinese culture and assist Chinese citizens living abroad, according to Chinese government records.

State media reports, Chinese government records and social media posts show that during a 2018 trip to China, U.S.-based OCSC representatives met with Ministry of Public Security (MPS) officials. During the meeting, state security officials demonstrated how they’re leveraging new technology to conduct “cross-border remote justice services” overseas.

MPS is China’s national police authority and has been referred to as “China’s FBI” by China experts. The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) says MPS also conducts covert “intelligence and national security operations far beyond China’s borders,” including “illicit, transnational repression schemes” on U.S. soil. (RELATED: Dem Rep Frequently Met With Alleged Chinese Police Station Director Arrested By The FBI, Photos Show)

In April 2023, the DOJ charged two men for allegedly opening a secret police station in New York on behalf of MPS in order to “monitor and intimidate dissidents” and others critical of China.

There’s no evidence U.S.-based service centers operate as, or house, secret police stations, and the DOJ has yet to mention these entities in any statements or legal filings. Nonetheless, OCSCs’ association with China’s United Front system and contact with MPS raised red flags for legal and intelligence experts.

“The national security threat is real,” Will Mackie, a career federal prosecutor and former trial attorney for the counterintelligence section of the DOJ’s National Security Division, told the DCNF.

“Simply put, we should know which foreign government agents — including ‘unofficial’ actors — are operating in our country for whatever reason,” Mackie said, adding that American nonprofits performing Chinese governmental duties is “inconsistent” with diplomatic protocol, if not “illegal.”

After an extensive review of Chinese government and state-run media reports, the DCNF identified OCSC branches in San Francisco, California; Houston, Texas; Omaha, Nebraska; St. Paul, Minnesota; Salt Lake City, Utah; St. Louis, Missouri and Charlotte, North Carolina.

GOP lawmakers expressed serious concern over OCSCs operating within the U.S.

“These centers aren’t there to help people get a business license or help resolve a domestic dispute,” Utah Republican Rep. Chris Stewart, a member of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, told the DCNF. “They’re here to pressure, to use coercion and to use malicious influence.”

Tennessee Republican Sen. Marsha Blackburn told the DCNF it was a “direct violation of our nation’s sovereignty” for the CCP to “set up shop on our soil to threaten, surveil and kidnap Chinese American citizens with a dissenting opinion.”

‘Eight Great Plans’

The “service centers” are at the heart of a larger CCP global influence strategy known as “The Eight Great Plans For Benefiting Overseas Chinese,” which was first announced during a 2014 speech by Qiu Yuanping, then the director of the Chinese government’s Overseas Chinese Affairs Office.

According to Chinese government documents and reports from China experts, the UFWD took control of the Overseas Chinese Affairs Office in 2018. The U.S.-China Economic Security and Review Commission describes the UFWD as the CCP organ “responsible for coordinating [foreign and domestic] influence operations” as well as a “Chinese intelligence service.”

UFWD’s “overseas Chinese work” aims to “co-opt ethnic Chinese individuals and communities living outside China, while a number of other key affiliated organizations guided by China’s broader United Front strategy conduct influence operations targeting foreign actors and states,” according to the commission.

The Overseas Chinese Affairs Office Director Chen Xu also serves as the UFWD’s deputy director, according to the Chinese government. Qiaowang reported Chen Xu spoke at a conference held in Beijing in May that included OCSC officials from around the world. The conference was jointly sponsored by the Overseas Chinese Affairs Office and the All-China Federation of Returned Overseas Chinese, a key united front group, according to China experts.

“In the next five years, relying on overseas Chinese organizations that have the public’s trust, we will guide and support the construction of Overseas Chinese Service Centers in cities where overseas Chinese are concentrated and where there’s an urgent need for constructing harmonious overseas Chinese communities,” Qiu Yuanping said in her 2014 speech.

Shortly thereafter, the Overseas Chinese Affairs Office provided the initial funding to establish OCSC branches around the world and tasked them with a variety of seemingly mundane duties in support of China’s foreign ministry, according to Chinese state-run media and government reports. Duties range from processing Chinese passport and travel permit applications to so-called “consular protection” activities that include emergency, medical and disaster response work, according to reports.



Despite this directive, a Chinese Embassy spokesperson told the DCNF that the centers are simply formed by “warm-hearted” volunteers and have no “affiliation with any Chinese government agency.”

Since 2014, OCSCs have expanded to at least 60 locations worldwide, according to multiple reports from Qiaowang, a Chinese news service that acts as a propaganda arm for the Overseas Chinese Affairs Office.

Qiaowang reports also reveal the Overseas Chinese Affairs Office’s efforts to establish service centers in at least seven U.S. cities.

In September 2014, the Overseas Chinese Affairs Office held the first of four annual awards ceremonies in Beijing for OCSC branches, according to Qiaowang. During the ceremony, the Chinese American Association of Commerce in San Francisco, California was announced as the first U.S. OCSC branch, Qiaowang reported.

The Overseas Chinese Affairs Office announced in 2015 the Chinese Civic Center in Houston, Texas, would also house an OCSC, a Chinese state-run media outlet reported. Qiu Yuanping personally attended the grand opening of the Houston OCSC in February 2016, according to the Chinese government.

In September 2016, the Overseas Chinese Affairs Office unveiled more OCSC locations, including one in Omaha, Nebraska, Qiaowang reported. The Omaha OCSC is housed within the Nebraska Chinese Association, according to Qiaowang.

The Overseas Chinese Affairs Office also announced the Chinese American Association of Minnesota in St. Paul would house an OCSC branch in 2016. The group’s co-director received a commemorative plaque in October 2016, according to Qiaowang.

In September 2017, the Overseas Chinese Affairs Office announced the final batch of service centers, including one in Salt Lake City, Utah, according to Qiaowang. The Salt Lake City OCSC is located within the Utah Chinese Civic Center, according to the group’s website. The Utah Chinese Civic Center’s website also states that it hosts an OCSC that’s “licensed” by the Overseas Chinese Affairs Office.

The Overseas Chinese Affairs Office also established an OCSC in St. Louis, Missouri, according to Qiaowang. The St. Louis service center is located within the Chinese Education and Culture Center, and a top Chinese consulate official from Chicago attended the branch’s opening ceremony, according to the consulate’s website.

The final U.S. OCSC location announced during the 2017 ceremony was in Charlotte, North Carolina, according to Qiaowang. The Charlotte OCSC is housed within the Carolinas Chinese Chamber of Commerce, according to a report from Qiaowang.

The Chinese American Association of Commerce, the Chinese Civic Center in Utah, the Chinese American Association of Minnesota and the St. Louis Chinese Education and Culture Center did not respond to multiple requests for comment.

A receptionist at Houston’s Chinese Civic Center confirmed the organization hosted a “Chinese service center” in a phone call with the DCNF. Similarly, a woman who only identified herself as an “associate” of the Nebraska Chinese Association confirmed the organization housed a “Chinese center” while speaking with the DCNF.

When the DCNF called the Carolinas Chinese Chamber of Commerce, a man who identified himself as a “founding member” of the Charlotte “Chinese service center” answered the phone. He confirmed the service center was housed within the Charlotte-based nonprofit.

‘Overseas Chinese Police Contact Points’

Chinese government records and state-run media reports reveal that U.S.-based OCSC representatives met with officials from China’s Ministry of Public Security. The FBI has accused the ministry of conducting “transnational repression” schemes in the U.S. targeting Chinese dissidents and human rights activists.

MPS’ most notorious transnational repression scheme is operation Fox Hunt. The operation uses “unsanctioned, unilateral and illegal practices, including coercion, extortion and intimidation” to “forcibly repatriate” alleged Chinese criminals living overseas, according to a 2020 DOJ complaint.

Between 2014 and 2018, the Overseas Chinese Affairs Office sponsored a series of China trips for OCSC officials, according to Chinese government and state-run media reports. During these visits, participants frequently discussed how OCSC branches could assist Chinese law enforcement while abroad.

The Overseas Chinese Affairs Office convened an OCSC conference in Beijing in January 2018 that featured multiple work meetings across China focused on international law enforcement, according to multiple Chinese state media reports.

Representatives from all seven of the U.S.-based OCSCs attended the Beijing conference, according to multiple reports from the conference and photos reviewed by the DCNF.

In Beijing, the Overseas Chinese Affairs Office head Qiu Yuanping announced that improving “legal services” and developing an “online platform” would be among her organization’s annual goals, Qiaowang reported.

On the third day of the conference, OCSC representatives traveled to Zhejiang province and met with MPS officials at a police station that serves as the nerve center for multiple “Overseas Chinese Police Contact Points” around the world. Representatives from all seven U.S.-based OCSCs visited the Zhejiang police station, according to state media reports and government social media posts.

During the visit, OCSC officials posed for photos with uniformed MPS officers and participated in a series of demonstrations of an MPS-developed “internet + law enforcement” platform. The MPS platform provides “cross-border remote justice services for overseas Chinese,” according to China News Service and Qiaowang reports.



In one demonstration, the Zhejiang police station used the MPS platform to contact “special duty police officers” in Milan, Italy, according to Chinese government social media posts. These “special duty police officers” then delivered a report on their operations to the Overseas Chinese Affairs Office.

Following the video call, an Overseas Chinese Affairs Office official instructed OCSC representatives “to learn” from the police station’s “model” in order to “better provide for the well-being of overseas Chinese,” according to a Chinese government social media post.

The OCSC delegation also visited an “Extraterritorial Video Trial Court” specializing in domestic affairs, according to the Zhejiang court’s social media account. OCSC representatives participated in an international video call with the court’s “Overseas Chinese Police Contact Point” in France, according to a report from a United Front organization.

During this call, police contact point officials in France — several of whom belong to an OCSC in Paris — explained how they used MPS technology to remotely handle legal matters such as divorces and property disputes, according to the United Front group.

The “Extraterritorial Video Trial Court” had “tried” 77 international cases and mediated 18 disputes using the virtual MPS platform, according to a January 2018 social media post from the court. The post did not elaborate on the specifics of any litigation or the enforcement of any international legal judgments.

After the court call, an Overseas Chinese Affairs Office official leading the OCSC delegation called on attendees to learn from the court’s experience and build a global internet legal service to realize “the Chinese people’s dream,” the court reported.

It’s unknown whether or not U.S. service centers now utilize any of the technology showcased during their visit with MPS officials, but details of the trip alarmed national security experts who spoke with the DCNF.

“This is the internationalization of monitoring and control,” said Steve Yates, former deputy national security adviser to former vice president Dick Cheney. “An organized government effort to extend sovereign government operations internationally — and to use charitable and affinity organizations as the cover through which to engage in espionage and police activity — crosses a pretty significant line.”

Chinese government and state-run media reports indicate that OCSC branches outside the U.S. often perform law enforcement functions, including by serving as MPS “Overseas Chinese Police Contact Points” and conducting “armed patrols” in a number of countries, such as South Africa.

Several OCSC branches outside the U.S. also house MPS police stations from Fuzhou province, such as Dublin, Ireland’s OCSC, according to its social media account. The Dublin OCSC said its office is designed to assist Chinese nationals with government services, including issuing overseas ID card renewals and conducting physical exams for driver’s licenses.

There is, however, no evidence that U.S.-based service centers host MPS police stations like the one the FBI raided in New York City last year.

Texas Republic Rep. Morgan Luttrell, who is a member of the Subcommittee on Intelligence and Special Operations, characterized the OCSC program as a “serious national security threat.”

“As the Chinese government uses every tool at its disposal to infiltrate the U.S. and grow its influence on the global stage, we must take bold action to counter the CCP’s malign activity,” Luttrell told the DCNF."

 


Click the Photo to Watch the Video.



You May Also Like:






Links:
https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/former-defense-intelligence-officer-pleads-guilty-attempted-espionage
https://jamestown.org/program/chinas-evolving-perspectives-on-network-warfare-lessons-from-the-science-of-military-strategy/
https://www.justice.gov/usao-ut/pr/utah-us-attorney-highlights-doj-china-initiative-during-remarks-salt-lake-city-security
https://agenda21truth.blogspot.com/2023/03/china-finds-unlikely-friend-in-utah-ap.html
https://apnews.com/article/chinese-government-justice-department-new-york-police-transnational-repression-05624126f8e6cb00cf9ae3cb01767fa1
https://dailycaller.com/2023/06/17/china-intelligence-service-centers-ccp/
https://www.uscc.gov/sites/default/files/annual_reports/2016%20Annual%20Report%20to%20Congress.pdf
https://www.bitchute.com/video/gZRJfUM95hji/

Wednesday, October 10, 2018

Evidence Congress Approval Of Using Propaganda On The American People In Bundy Ranch & Beyond -The Smith Mundt Act

FOIA Exposes FBI Using The U.S. Information and Educational Exchange Act of 1948 Popularly Known As The Smith Mundt Act In High Profile Cases Like Bundy Ranch To Manipulate Public Opinion, Control The Narrative & Entrap Americans.

 

 


On October 5, 2018 The Reporters Committee For Freedom Of The Press Released information regarding a FOIA Request they submitted in conjunction with their law suit regarding undercover impersonation of members of the media.  The Federal Bureau Of Investigations released a portion of the record requested by the RCFP outlining the agencies guidelines for impersonating members of the news media which reveal that the practice requires high level approval from the Justice Department and the FBI.  During the Bundy Ranch Trials it was revealed that a fake documentary crew garnered interviews with several of the Defendants in the three cases where they asked the protestors inflammatory questions about the Bureau Of Land Management who played a pivotal roll in the Stand Off, offering interviewees liquor and candy to excess, ultimately capturing interviews by those they had intoxicated which resulted in what is equivalent to life sentences for two of the defendants.  The article released by RCFP references the phony film crew, Longbow Productions and specific others who obtained this high government approval, it states in part:

"Newly public Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) documents outline for the first time the specifics of the agency's guidelines for impersonating members of the news media in undercover activities and operations. The records detail, among other things, that such activities require high-level approval from within the FBI and Justice Department. The FBI released the guidelines after the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit when the agency failed to respond to a request for records about its impersonation of documentary filmmakers, specifically. Additionally, records recently released in connection with a separate FOIA lawsuit filed by the Reporters Committee show that the FBI has engaged in the impersonation of documentary filmmakers on a number of occasions, though questions remain as to just how frequently the FBI relies on this tactic.
The FBI has engaged in the undercover impersonation of members of the news media for decades, but controversy surrounding the practice was amplified in 2015 after it was revealed that the agency created a fake news article attributed to the Associated Press (AP) during the course of its June 2007 investigation of a student suspected of sending bomb threats to his high school outside Seattle, Washington. The revelation sparked an outcry from the press and public, including inquiries from high-ranking members of Congress who expressed concern that the impersonation of journalists undermines the credibility and independence of those reporting on matters of significant public importance.

In defense of the practice, then-FBI Director James Comey submitted a letter to the editor to The New York Times acknowledging the tactic and stating that the FBI's impersonation of an AP journalist in the Seattle investigation "was proper and appropriate[.]" The controversy also led the Justice Department's Office of the Inspector General to investigate the FBI's use of media impersonation in the Seattle investigation. In September 2016, the office issued a formal report noting that the FBI had prepared new guidelines setting forth "approval levels for sensitive circumstances specifically in situations in which [FBI] employees represent, pose, or claim to be members of the news media or a documentary film crew."

The guidelines obtained by the Reporters Committee detail that approval process: The relevant FBI field office must submit an application to the Undercover Review Committee at FBI headquarters and it must be approved by the FBI Deputy Director after consultation  with the Deputy Attorney General. The guidelines do not provide any criteria the FBI Deputy Director and/or the Deputy Attorney General must consider when approving these undercover activities.

The guidelines also define an "undercover activity" as any investigative activity involving the use of an assumed identity by an undercover employee, and an "undercover operation" as one that involves a "series of related undercover activities" — defined as five or more substantive contacts by an undercover employee with the individuals under investigation — over a period of time.

Though the FBI has repeatedly disclosed that its agents have impersonated members of the news media to further their investigations, important questions remain about how often this practice is used. Reporters Committee attorneys are currently involved in two matters seeking more information about the FBI's use of media impersonation.

The Reporters Committee scored an important victory late last year when the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia held that the FBI had failed to sufficiently search for records responsive to FOIA requests made by the Reporters Committee and the AP. The case is currently on remand to the district court, where the FBI has produced records that make clear that the FBI has engaged in the impersonation of members of the news media — including documentary filmmakers — in criminal investigations on multiple occasions. In released emails, FBI employees question whether the agency's new policies regarding impersonation of members of the news media "apply only to future [undercover operations], or apply retroactively to ongoing [undercover operations] that have already been approved with the documentary film crew scenario?" Similarly, another released email notes the existence of "a number of communications to HQ components and the field in 2016 regarding the use of 'documentary' and similar type scenarios in undercover operations."

Most recently, the Reporters Committee sued the Justice Department and the FBI after the agencies failed to respond to a FOIA request for records related to the FBI's impersonation of documentary filmmakers. The Reporters Committee filed the FOIA request after it was revealed in court that FBI agents posed as filmmakers in order to interview suspects as part of its investigation into a 2014 armed standoff between the Bureau of Land Management and supporters of cattle rancher Cliven Bundy, and used "professional credentials, websites and business cards" to lend their fake documentary film company — Longbow Productions — the appearance of authenticity.

In response to part of that FOIA request, the FBI has asserted what is known as a "Glomar" response, refusing to confirm or deny the existence of records related to other instances in which it has impersonated documentary filmmakers during the course of its investigations. In support of its argument, in a recent filing the FBI went so far as to argue that disclosing these records "would allow criminals to judge whether they should completely avoid any contacts with documentary film crews, rendering the investigative technique ineffective."

In response, the Reporters Committee argued that this is precisely the  reason why disclosure of information regarding FBI media impersonation is so important: this tactic has a chilling effect on journalists and documentary filmmakers, and sources are less likely to speak candidly to members of the news media if they think that the journalist is an agent of the government. Further, the Reporters Committee argues that the FBI cannot issue a Glomar response in this case because its practice of media impersonation is already well-known to the public and the FBI has already officially acknowledged the existence of these records — two standards the court will consider in evaluating whether the FBI's Glomar response to part of the FOIA request was appropriate.

Along with the legal arguments in the case, the Reporters Committee submitted signed affidavits from two documentary filmmakers — David Byars and Abby Ellis — who explained how the FBI's use of media impersonation has made it more difficult for them to do their jobs. 

In particular, Ellis believes that "the FBI's impersonation of a documentary film crew could have put [her] in danger," and that "the FBI's use of that tactic continues to jeopardize [her] safety, and the safety of other, real investigative filmmakers."

The FBI has until Oct. 12 to respond to the Reporters Committee’s arguments".


This case is evidence that the program to propagandize the people is WELL underway and does not protect the American People's right to a free press!  As Reporters Committee For A Free Press states, this covert program is making it difficult for documentary film makers and reporters alike to obtain access to the people to report "the news" because it has made the American People fearful of entrapment and prosecution.  This is only one of many cases, and it is my opinion that not only was it employed in the Bundy Ranch case but also in the Malhuer Refuge event in Burns Oregon, Harney County, in one case in particular with whom I will call the master of ceremonies, although not the only instance.

The American People deserve to have their right to a free press protected, not exploited to their detriment.  We must be vigilant to expose these government lies and manipulations whenever, and wherever found.

Click the Photo to Watch the Video.


Links:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smith%E2%80%93Mundt_Act
http://www.smithmundt.com/about/
https://www.congress.gov/bill/112th-congress/house-bill/5736 
https://www.rcfp.org/browse-media-law-resources/news/fbi-records-shed-light-agencys-impersonation-journalists-and-documen
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glomar_response
https://agenda21truth.blogspot.com/p/blog-page.html
https://agenda21truth.blogspot.com/p/oregon-standup-trial-coverage.html
https://famguardian.org/Subjects/Politics/ThomasJefferson/jeff1600.htm
https://www.bitchute.com/video/8iy2VDLiTYXP/
https://theintercept.com/2017/05/16/the-bizarre-story-behind-the-fbis-fake-documentary-about-the-bundy-family/
 
 

Wednesday, December 13, 2017

DOJ Myhre & Navarro Scramble Amid DHS Whistle-blower Reports War Against Bundy Ranch

DHS Whistle-blower information re-surfaces amid week long recess declared by Judge Gloria Navarro to allow Steve Myhre and his team to regroup after over 40 violations and firing of Government Investigator.

There is a resurgence of disgust and outrage as an unnamed Department Of Homeland Security Investigator's leaked report resurfaces along with added information that Dan Love Agent In Charge during the Bundy Ranch Standoff along with other government agencies, including the Military, compiled a "hit list" to carry out after the Standoff had ended in April 2014.  It is being reported that there are photographs of this list with other evidence that confirms this and other tactics to be used against the Bundy Family and their supporters.  It all began with a DHS Investigator leaking information of the government tactics and plans to Doug Hagmann to Steve Quayle in an email.

 

 

"At 1750 hours ET, I was contacted by my source within the Department of Homeland Security regarding the current situation at the Bundy Ranch. To put it bluntly, the people are being hoodwinked into believing that the situation is being resolved. It is not. It is a strategic de-escalation to fool the public. This source stated that the retreat of the BLM agents and the release of the cattle was actually crafted as a potential plan yesterday (Friday, 11 April 2014) based on the following:


1. A military assessment of satellite and drone surveillance imagery of the “patriot resistance". Drones under the control of the U.S. military were in use, taking real-time photographic images of not just the activity at the ranch, but "identifying the protesters", any arms and any supplies they might have or be carrying. “Mission accomplished.”
2. Real-time communication intercepts between patriots on-site and their off-site support;
3. Active monitoring of internet traffic regarding the coverage of events at ranch;
4. The monitoring of real-time video from the scene.


This source stated that a response by the patriot movement was anticipated, although exceeded their expectations. Although this was a real operation, they also ran this as a test case for future government operations once they saw the response. They were also actively managing the media, in some cases threatening to cut off White House access to anyone covering the event.


Despite this, the coverage by the alternative media began to create a public relations problem that was not easily managed. Note the lack of acknowledgment by the White House regarding this event. They are intentionally framing it as a state issue, despite the fact that all federal response has been and continues to be from the White House. There is a reason for this – a reason that has not been identified in any of the public reports to date. I will explain in further detail in a follow-up report on Sunday, after this source attends [redacted] to obtain more specific information about future federal operations. Regardless, according to this source, the government will take back ‘their land’ as they must to fulfill international obligations. It was never about grazing rights or anything other than (1) “securing clear title” to the land, and (2) further demonizing any patriotic resistance. It is my understanding, based on the information from this source, that it is a critical task to create a situation that will also advance their agenda of gun control and confiscation.


A more detailed report will follow on Sunday, 13 April 2014, with additional and much more specific information about their inside plans and future operations.  PLEASE MAKE THIS VIRAL!"

This information confirms much of what Americans on the ground were reporting on the scene in real time.  This also confirms what many of us have known for a long time, that the stand that took place in Oregon in 2016 was a continuation of this government plot to kill and silence the Americans who took a stand there.  This confirms what I have been saying all along, "LaVoy was assassinated by the government and its operatives/Mercenaries".  Like Shawna Cox reported, "[they] wanted us all dead"!  Information on what other evidence is being leaked to the Defense in the current Nevada trial is still only being put out in somewhat cryptic fashion at this writing, but we are expecting more will be made public soon.  It was reported that Steve Myhre fired an Investigator on his team regarding the Bundy Trial currently underway.  It is assumed that this is one of, now several, DHS Whistleblowers.  We know that these Whistleblowers have approached Defense Attorney's in this case.  This only confirms that "they were at war with us, before we were at war with them".  One thing is for sure, all of these people in government and their operatives need to be held accountable and all still employed within the government must be terminated!

 

Early Reports On New Information

 

Learn More About The Current Trial Of Tier #1 Defendants at this link

 

Twitter Feed of @DHSWhistler

 

 

Now BLM Whistle-blower Mounts Allegations Of Misconduct.

 

 

Click the Photo to Watch the Video.

 

Links:

http://agenda21truth.blogspot.com/p/oregon-standup-trial-coverage.html

http://agenda21truth.blogspot.com/p/judge-gloria-navarrodoj-third-times.html

https://twitter.com/DHSwhistler

http://agenda21truth.blogspot.com/2017/12/blm-whistleblower-larry-wooten-seeks.html