How The Obama Era Department Of Justice Is Funding Left Wing Liberal Lunatics To Further Their Own Political Agenda.


Ideas have consequences. In 2013, during the preliminary investigation for the
book, Extortion GAI researchers detected a pattern of federal lawsuits and settlements
brought by a newly created office within the Civil Rights Division of the DOJ. Assistant
Attorney General Tom Perez made the DOJ’s intentions clear in his January 14, 2010 speech to the Rainbow PUSH Coalition – Annual Wall Street Conference.

Mr. Perez stated: “Fair lending is a top priority for the Civil Rights Division, and I have taken a number of critical steps to ensure that we put our best forward. I have hired a Special Counsel for Fair Lending to spearhead our efforts. We are also establishing a
dedicated Fair Lending unit within the Division’s Housing Section. The unit will root
out lending discrimination in all forms.”

In remarks at the Brookings Institution Perez stated:
The establishment of the Fair Lending Unit, with dedicated attorneys, economists,
investigators, support staff and a Special Counsel for Fair Lending, ensure that fair
lending issues receive immediate attention and high priority.
The unit already has 50 matters open, including 18 investigations. We have
identified large, mid-size and small lenders as targets of enforcement efforts and
those targets include national, regional and local actors.

What Mr. Perez did not say in these comments was that millions of dollars would
eventually be handed over, no strings attached, to activist nonprofits.
The DOJ began to file lawsuits against financial institutions based on evidence of
unfair lending practices. With the threat of protracted litigation and bad press looming, the DOJ extracted settlements before trial. These technically voluntary settlement agreements, referred to as “consent orders,” usually established a settlement fund to service claims made by victims of the defendant’s alleged illegal behavior. More often than not, the consent order specified that unclaimed funds were to be distributed to a qualified organization as approved by the Department of Justice. Moreover, many of the settlements called for large sums of money to be paid toward educational efforts, often provided by these same qualified organizations.

The DOJ filed pleadings in each case that used essentially identical language for each
complaint and settlement. This assembly line approach uses what is sometimes referred to in the legal profession as “cookbook pleadings” – those not designed for actual litigation, but intended merely to provide a basis for the settlement and payment of money. Seldom was the actual complaint filed more than a month prior to filing the consent order and occasionally within days.

A consent order, sometimes referred to as a “consent judgment” or a “consent decree,” is an order or judgment by the court where the parties have previously agreed to the settlement terms and provisions. Another feature of the consent decree is that the court
will maintain jurisdiction of the matter to supervise the implementation of the decree. The filing of the complaint serves to invoke the jurisdiction of the court.

These institutions spend a vast sum of money advertising each year. A case of this
nature could have a devastating impact for any bank deemed racist. As the Wall Street
Journal reported, “The lenders quickly settled these cases rather than run the reputational risk of being called racist in court.”63 When contacted by the DOJ, often a target financial institution would want to reach a number and shut the process down as soon as possible, as one bank put it, “to avoid contested litigation.” Because the entire negotiation process occurs in the context of litigation, the internal communications of a party remain confidential protected by attorney client privilege. Thus, the public and Congress are provided very little information regarding the nature and process of the negotiations between the parties. In other words, the DOJ effectively silences the target institution without any form of congressional oversight or public scrutiny. Courts were either unaware of this mechanism of disbursement or did not comment in their review of the proposed consent orders.

The agreements were reached prior to filing the proposed order and the parties both had legal representation. A settlement in court is technically reached by the parties freely and voluntarily unless there is evidence to suggest otherwise. The congressional
testimony of Paul Larkin, Senior Research Fellow at the Heritage Foundation in 2015
denounced the court’s limited participation in the process:

What aggravates this problem even more is that you have these sorts of settlements
gradually coming into wider and wider…Why is that a problem? Because oftentimes
there is no judicial involvement whatsoever. These agreements often are a means of
disposing not of charges or a lawsuit that has already filed. They are a means often of disposing of charges or a lawsuit before any are filed. So there is no judicial
involvement whatsoever. You have an agreement entirely between the lawyers for
the United States and the lawyers for other parties. And in this agreement they are
trying to engage in what is for all intents and purposes a sham transaction to avoid
depositing all of the money that is due to the taxpayers of the United States into the
account that the Treasury maintains, that Congress thereafter can decide how it will
be spent.

In all of the cases we reviewed in the course of our research, the court simply
accepted the proposed order, with one noted exception. In United States of America v.
Citizens Republic Bancorp, Inc. and Citizens Bank, the defendant bank gave the court reason to believe that something was amiss and the court took quite a different approach. The defendant objected to the claims made by the DOJ in the pleadings which the defendant had not seen until after the terms of settlement had been established. This anomaly opened up the process and demonstrated the pressure placed on a target institution by the federal government and its incentive to settle.

The DOJ had alleged that the defendants, Citizens Republic Bancorp, Inc. and
Citizens Bank, had engaged in a pattern of conduct violating the Fair Housing Act and the
Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA). The proposed Agreed Order imposed a much smaller contribution amount to the settlement fund, but incorporated several of the same elements in its terms as have been seen in other consent orders for other cases.

This proposed order required that the Defendant “enter a partnership” with the City of Detroit to set up a fund in the amount of $1.625 million and provide grants to homeowners to enhance neighborhood stability and revitalization. The program was to be administered by the city or its “designated partner.” The proposed order also required the Defendant to ensure that the Defendant’s lending products and services in the Detroit area were marketed in majority-black census tracts. It also required that the bank hire two Community Development Leaders to focus primarily on generating residential mortgage loans in the “majority-black census tracts of Wayne County” as well as to facilitate the bank’s grant program.

It instated a separate fund in the amount of $400,000 with one half of that fund devoted to advertising and marketing in these same neighborhoods. The consent order required that the other half be spent on consumer education in order to sponsor programs offered by community or governmental organizations engaged in fair lending work.

Furthermore, the proposed order required that the Defendant make $1.5 million available for loan subsidies via a “special financing program” for residents in Wayne County. If the funds were not fully expended, the remaining amount was to be donated to a nonprofit housing organization in the City of Detroit or to such other organization involved with community reinvestment in the City of Detroit.

In its response to the DOJ’s Motion For Entry of Proposed Agreed Order, the Defendant described the process by which the DOJ pursued the settlement.69 It became apparent that the motivation for these banks was to settle rather than resist the claims of the DOJ.

The Defendant bank explained that it was not aware of the precise nature of the
charges until the complaint was filed. The Defendant stated:

The precise articulation of the Department’s claim was not made available to
Citizens until the Department provided Citizens with a copy of the Complaint
after it was filed with the Court on May 5, 2011. Citizens disputes the factual
and legal basis for the claim presented, and, to the extent permitted, has
included in the proposed “Agreed Order” as Part III, the “Position of Citizens
Bank” that describes its actual conduct and performance.

It went on to illuminate some of Bancorp’s considerations in reaching a settlement:
Nonetheless, threatened litigation by the Department imposes a substantial
financial burden on Citizens, particularly in the context of current economic
conditions. Thus, Citizens entered into negotiations with the Department in
an effort to avoid contested litigation. The only option afforded by the Department to avoid contested litigation was the filing of a complaint and the simultaneous presentation of an “Agreed Order.”

The Defendant further stated: Citizens pursued the negotiations to avoid the cost and burden of litigation…. The important point for Citizens is that the voluntary resolution will put the matter to rest, through entry of the Agreed Order. Then the Defendant bank reiterated their reasons for entering into settlements over litigation, which had little to do with culpability:

Perhaps there are some inconsistencies here because Citizens continues to
deny a factual or legal basis for the claim, but agrees to take certain action to
resolve the claim of the Department. But it is not uncommon for businesses
facing the prospect of very expensive litigation against the government to
seek a way to avoid the cost. If reasonable business objectives can be met,
Citizens prefers settlement to the alternative of expensive litigation, and
indeed would prefer to use the bank’s resources to assist the City of Detroit
in its continued efforts to stabilize housing conditions in the City. The bank
currently faces economic challenges that further favor settlement over
litigation.

When faced with the prospect of extended litigation, expense, and bad publicity,
many targeted institutions choose to settle rather than resist the questionable and
disputable claims brought by the DOJ.

On May 24, 2011, the Court issued a scathing order denying approval of the
proposed consent order. The Court had its own reasons for refusing to approve
the consent order.

The Court noted: In reviewing the Agreed Order, it (1) fails to define terms; (2) lacks completeness; (3) contains superfluous clauses; (4) lacks clarity; and (5) is void of provisions for the Court to effectively oversee the parties’ obligations under the Agreed Order during its anticipated term.

Others, in the banking industry, have criticized the DOJ practices that have
resulted in these settlements.…there is a troubling lack of transparency with the DOJ’s growing fair lending actions. DOJ’s unprecedented actions and the legal theory upon which they are based are shrouded in secrecy, as targeted banks are forced to enter into
confidentiality agreements. Community banks work hard to comply with laws and regulations and consistently seek information and guidance on how to implement applicable rules in this ever-changing lending and regulatory environment. By requiring banks to enter into confidentiality agreements regarding the investigations, enforcement and settlement agreements, DOJ is thwarting banks’ ability to assess and refine, if necessary, their policies or practices to ensure compliance with fair lending laws.

This approach is counter to the intent of well-functioning fair lending laws.
Mr. Perez and the newly created Fair Lending Unit in the Housing and Civil
Enforcement Section of the DOJ had a different take on the Citizens case. In his estimation this had been a cooperative effort to right wrongs recognized by all.

He states:
Both Citizens and Midwest worked collaboratively with the Department to develop
these creative solutions, and were eager to find solutions that allow them to remedy
the harm done while also reaching new customers.

Toward the end of his remarks Mr. Perez addressed concerns that he had gleaned
from “…listening sessions we have conducted with industry stakeholders.” Among those
concerns were “transparency” in the DOJ processes; promptness of decisions by the DOJ
because “the cloud of uncertainty that looms during the pendency of an investigation can take a toll” and uncertainty regarding the legal theories that the DOJ was using. Mr. Perez described an “…unprecedented level of collaboration and coordination between DOJ and its partner agencies.”

The banking industry was concerned about the “harmful and inappropriate fair lending actions” of the DOJ, as expressed in a letter addressed to Eric Holder. The Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs United States Senate made this observation: …the DOJ used the settlement process to achieve policy goals—including the
distribution of hundreds of millions of dollars from private companies to third-party
housing counseling groups—that would not have been possible in litigation. In other words, the DOJ used the threat of litigation—and the corresponding financial and reputational costs—to cause banks to take actions that a court would not have
ordered them to do. (emphasis added)

Even as early as 2010, some members of Congress had begun to take notice that all was not right in the new administration’s Justice Department.

 

Congress Takes Notice

ScreenHunter_2657 Jun. 27 21.16

See  entire 115 page Government Accountability Institute report here: FOLLOW THE MONEY: HOW THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE FUNDS PROGRESSIVE ACTIVISTS

Related Article:

HEADLINE JUNE 27, 2017: Hidden Government Forcing Taxpayers To Finance Their Own Destruction

Peter Schweizer‘s Government Accountability Institute issued a report in October 2016, “Follow the Money: How the Department of Justice Funds Progressive Activists,” that detailed the stunning amount of money the DoJ has been awarding to left-wing groups. Under Eric Holder’s DoJ, financial institutions paid an unprecedented $110 billion in fines, much of which came in through out-of-court settlements.

Many of the cases were based on tenuous grounds, such as “disparate impact” which assumes racism based solely on the proportion of loans awarded to minorities. According to the report, “The DOJ used the threat of litigation—and the corresponding financial and reputational costs—to cause banks to take actions that a court would not have ordered them to do.”

We are still trying to figure out where it all went. But we do have some ideas. As with Obama’s corrupt green energy subsidies, it seems apparent that Holder’s DoJ extorted huge sums from banks specifically to funnel money to political allies. Schweizer documents how the DoJ flagrantly misused this money:

See full article here: Hidden Government Forcing Taxpayers To Finance Their Own Destruction

holder the dept of just us

The Battle of Athens, Tennessee 1946 Restored the Rule of Law by using The Second Amendment.


The Battle of Athens

1-2 AUGUST 1946

  • Those who took up arms in Athens, Tennessee:
  • wanted honest elections, a cornerstone of our Constitutional order;
  • had repeatedly tried to get Federal or State election monitors;
  • used armed force so as to minimize harm to the law-breakers;
  • showed little malice to the defeated law-breakers;
  • restored lawful government.

The Battle of Athens clearly shows:

  • how Americans can and should lawfully use armed force;
  • why the Rule of Law requires unrestricted access to firearms;
  • how civilians with military-type firearms can beat the forces of “law and order”.

GE DIGITAL CAMERA

I. Introduction: 

On 2 August 1946, some Americans, brutalized by their county government, used armed force to overturn it. These Americans wanted honest, open elections. For years they had asked for state or Federal election monitors to prevent vote fraud — forged ballots, secret ballot counts, and intimidation by armed sheriff’s deputies — by the local political boss. They got no help.

These Americans’ absolute refusal to knuckle-under had been hardened by service in World War II. Having fought to free other countries from murderous regimes, they rejected vicious abuse by their county government. These Americans had a choice. Their state’s Constitution – Article 1, Section 26 – recorded their right to keep and bear arms for the common defense. Few “gun control” laws had been enacted.

II. The Setting 

These Americans were Tennesseeans of McMinn County, located between Chattanooga and Knoxville, in Eastern Tennessee. The two main towns were Athens and Etowah. McMinn Countians had long been independent political thinkers.

They also had long accepted bribe-taking by politicians and/or the Sheriff to overlook illicit whiskey-making and gambling; financed the sheriff’s department from fines – usually for speeding or public drunkenness – which promoted false arrests;put up with voting fraud by both Democrats and Republicans.

Tennessee State law barred voting fraud:

  • ballot boxes had to be shown to be empty before voting;
  • poll-watchers had to be allowed;
  • armed law enforcement officers were barred from polling places;
  • ballots had to be counted where any voter could watch.

III. The Circumstances

The Great Depression had ravaged McMinn County. Drought broke many farmers; workforces shrank. The wealthy Cantrell family, of Etowah, backed Franklin Delano Roosevelt in the 1932 election, hoping New Deal programs would revive the local economy and help Democrats to replace Republicans in the county government. So it proved.

Paul Cantrell was elected Sheriff in the 1936, 1938, and 1940 elections, but by slim margins. The Sheriff was the key County official. Cantrell was elected to the State Senate in 1942 and 1944; his chief deputy, Pat Mansfield, was elected sheriff. In 1946, Paul Cantrell again sought the Sheriff’s office.

IV. World War II Ends; Paul Cantrell’s Troubles Begin

At end-1945, some 3,000 battle-hardened veterans returned to McMinn County. Sheriff Mansfield’s deputies had brutalized many in McMinn County; the GIs held Cantrell politically responsible for Mansfield’s doings. Early in 1946, some newly-returned ex-GIs decided:

  • to challenge Cantrell politically;
  • to offer an all ex-GI, non-partisan ticket;
  • to promise a fraud-free election.
  • In ads and speeches the GI candidates promised:
  • an honest ballot count;
  • reform of county government.

At a rally, a GI speaker said, “‘The principals that we fought for in this past war do not exist in McMinn County. We fought for democracy because we believe in democracy but not the form we live under in this county.'” (Daily Post-Athenian, 17 June 1946, p. 1).

At end-July 1946, 159 McMinn County GIs petitioned the FBI to send election monitors. There was no response. The Department of Justice had not responded to McMinn Countians’ complaints of election fraud in 1940, 1942, and 1944.

V. From Ballots to Bullets

The election was held on 1 August. To intimidate voters, Mansfield brought in some 200 armed “deputies”. GI poll-watchers were beaten almost at once. At about 3 p.m., Tom Gillespie, an African-American voter, was told by a Sheriff’s deputy, “‘Nigger, you can’t vote here today!!'”. Despite being beaten, Gillespie persisted; the enraged deputy shot him. The gunshot drew a crowd. Rumors spread that Gillespie had been “shot in the back”; he later recovered. (C. Stephen Byrum, The Battle of Athens; Paidia Productions, Chattanooga TN, 1987; pp. 155-57).

Other deputies detained ex-GI poll-watchers in a polling place, as that made the ballot count “public”. A crowd gathered. Sheriff Mansfield told his deputies to disperse the crowd. When the two ex-GIs smashed a big window and escaped, the crowd surged forward. “The deputies, with guns drawn, formed a tight half-circle around the front of the polling place. One deputy, “his gun raised high …shouted: ‘You sons-of-bitches cross this street and I’ll kill you!'” (Byrum, p. 165).

Mansfield took the ballot boxes to the jail for counting. The deputies seemed to fear immediate attack, by the “people who had just liberated Europe and the South Pacific from two of the most powerful war machines in human history.” (Byrum, pp. 168-69).

Short of firearms and ammunition, the GIs scoured the county to find them. By borrowing keys to the National Guard and State Guard Armories, they got three M-1 rifles, five .45 semi-automatic pistols, and 24 British Enfield rifles. The armories were nearly empty after the war’s end.

By eight p.m., a group of GIs and “local boys” headed for the jail to get the ballot boxes. They occupied high ground facing the jail but left the back door unguarded to give the jail’s defenders an easy way out.

VI. The Battle of Athens

Three GIs – alerting passersby to danger – were fired on from the jail. Two GIs were wounded. Other GIs returned fire. Those inside the jail mainly used pistols; they also had a “tommy gun” (a .45 caliber Thompson sub-machine gun).

Firing subsided after 30 minutes: ammunition ran low and night had fallen. Thick brick walls shielded those inside the jail. Absent radios, the GIs’ rifle fire was un-coordinated. “From the hillside, fire rose and fell in disorganized cascades. More than anything else, people were simply ‘shooting at the jail’.” (Byrum, p. 189).

Several who ventured into “no man’s land”, the street in front of the jail, were wounded. One man inside the jail was badly hurt; he recovered. Most sheriff’s deputies wanted to hunker down and await rescue. Governor McCord mobilized the State Guard, perhaps to scare the GIs into withdrawing. The State Guard never went to Athens. McCord may have feared that Guard units filled with ex-GIs might not fire on other ex-GIs.

At about 2 a.m. on 2 August, the GIs forced the issue. Men from Meigs county threw dynamite sticks and damaged the jail’s porch. The panicked deputies surrendered. GIs quickly secured the building. Paul Cantrell faded into the night, almost having been shot by a GI who knew him, but whose .45 pistol had jammed. Mansfield’s deputies were kept overnight in jail for their own safety. Calm soon returned: the GIs posted guards. The rifles borrowed from the armory were cleaned and returned before sun-up.

VII. The Aftermath: Restoring Democracy in McMinn County

In five precincts free of vote fraud, the GI candidate for Sheriff, Knox Henry, won 1,168 votes to Cantrell’s 789. Other GI candidates won by similar margins.

The GIs did not hate Cantrell. They only wanted honest government. On 2 August, a town meeting set up a three-man governing committee. The regular police having fled, six men were chosen to police Athens; a dozen GIs were sent to police Etowah. In addition, “Individual citizens were called upon to form patrols or guard groups, often led by a GI. …To their credit, however, there is not a single mention of an abuse of power on their behalf.” (Byrum, p. 220).

Once the GI candidates’ victory had been certified, they cleaned-up county government:

  • the jail was fixed;
  • newly-elected officials accepted a $5,000 pay limit;
  • Mansfield supporters who resigned, were replaced.

The general election on 5 November passed quietly. McMinn Countians, having restored the Rule of Law, returned to their daily lives. Pat Mansfield moved back to Georgia. Paul Cantrell set up an auto dealership in Etowah. “Almost everyone who knew Cantrell in the years after the ‘Battle’ agree that he was not bitter about what had happened.” (Byrum, pp. 232-33; see also New York Times, 9 August 1946, p. 8).

VIII. The Outsiders’ Response

The Battle of Athens made national headlines. Most outsiders’ reports had the errors usual in coverage of large-scale, night-time events. A New York Times editorialist on 3 August savaged the GIs, who:

“…quite obviously – though we hope erroneously – felt that there was no city, county, or State agency to whom they could turn for justice.

… “There is a warning for all of us in the occurrence…and above all a warning for the veterans of McMinn County, who also violated a fundamental principle of democracy when they arrogated to themselves the right of law enforcement for which they had no election mandate. Corruption, when and where it exists, demands reform, and even in the most corrupt and boss-ridden communities there are peaceful means by which reform can be achieved. But there is no substitute, in a democracy, for orderly process.” (NYT, 3 Aug 1946, p. 14.)

The editorialist did not see:

  • McMinn Countians’ many appeals for outside help;
  • some ruthless people only respect force;
  • that it was wrong to equate use of force by evil-doers (Cantrell and Mansfield) with the righteous (the GIs).

The New York Times:

  • never saw that Cantrell and Mansfield’s wholesale election fraud, enforced at gun-point, trampled the Rule of Law;
  • feared citizens’ restoring the Rule of Law by armed force.

Other outsiders, e.g., Time and Newsweek, agreed. (See Time, 12 August 1946, p. 20; Newsweek, 12 Aug 1946, p. 31 and 9 September 1946, p. 38).

The 79th Congress adjourned on 2 August 1946, when the Battle of Athens ended. However, Representative John Jennings, Jr., from Tennessee decried:

  • McMinn County’s sorry situation under Cantrell and Mansfield;
  • the Justice Department’s repeated failures to help the McMinn Countians.

Jennings was delighted that “…at long last decency and honesty, liberty and law have returned to the fine county of McMinn…”. (Congressional Record, House; U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C., 1946; Appendix, Volume 92, Part 13, p. A4870.)

IX. The Lessons of Athens

Those who took up arms in Athens, Tennessee:

  • wanted honest elections, a cornerstone of our Constitutional order;
  • had repeatedly tried to get Federal or State election monitors;
  • used armed force so as to minimize harm to the law-breakers;
  • showed little malice to the defeated law-breakers;
  • restored lawful government.

The Battle of Athens clearly shows:

  • how Americans can and should lawfully use armed force;
  • why the Rule of Law requires unrestricted access to firearms;
  • how civilians with military-type firearms can beat the forces of “law and order”.

Dictators believe that public order is more important than the Rule of Law. However, Americans reject this idea. Criminals can exploit for selfish ends, the use armed force to restore the Rule of Law. But brutal political repression – as practiced by Cantrell and Mansfield – is lethal to many. An individual criminal can harm a handful of people. Governments alone can brutalize thousands, or millions.

Since 1915, officials of seven governments “gone bad” have committed genocide, murdering at least 56 million persons, including millions of children. “Gun control” clears the way for genocide by giving governments “gone bad” far greater freedom to commit mass murder.

Law-abiding McMinn Countians won the Battle of Athens because they were not hamstrung by “gun control”. McMinn Countians showed us when citizens can and should use armed force to support the Rule of Law. We are all in their debt.

This is a bare bones summary of a major report in JPFO’s Firearms Sentinel (January 1995). To learn how the gutsy people of Athens, Tennessee did the Framers of the Constitution proud, send $3 to JPFO, 2872 South Wentworth Avenue; Milwaukee, WI 53207; and request the January 1995 Firearms Sentinel. This document is from: chiliast@ideasign.com (A.K. Pritchard)


Press reports on the Battle of Athens and Chronology — From contemporary sources.

X. Videos

Source: http://www.constitution.org/mil/tn/batathen.htm

A COMPREHENSIVE LIST OF 53 PEOPLE WHO COMPRISE THE CLINTON BODY COUNT


Most people can go their whole life without experiencing a mysterious murder or strange suicide of a friend or co-worker. That being said, below is a comprehensive list of 53 mysterious deaths connected to the nefarious Bill and Hilary Clinton.
clinton body count
1 – James McDougal – Clinton’s convicted Whitewater partner died of an apparent heart attack, while in solitary confinement. He was a key witness in Ken Starr’s investigation.
2 – Mary Mahoney – A former White House intern was murdered July 1997 at a Starbucks Coffee Shop in Georgetown. The murder happened just after she was to go public with her story of sexual harassment in the White House.
3 – Vince Foster – Former white House councilor, and colleague of Hillary Clinton at Little Rock’s Rose Law firm. Died of a gunshot wound to the head, ruled a suicide.
4 – Ron Brown – Secretary of Commerce and former DNC Chairman. Reported to have died by impact in a plane crash. A pathologist close to the investigation reported that there was a hole in the top of Brown’s skull resembling a gunshot wound. At the time of his death Brown was being investigated, and spoke publicly of his willingness to cut a deal with prosecutors.
5 – C. Victor Raiser II and Montgomery Raiser, Major players in the Clinton fund raising organization died in a private plane crash in July 1992.
6 – Paul Tulley – Democratic National Committee Political Director found dead in a hotel room in Little Rock, September 1992… Described by Clinton as a “Dear friend and trusted advisor.”
7- Ed Willey – Clinton fund raiser, found dead November 1993 deep in the woods in VA of a gunshot wound to the head. Ruled a suicide. Ed Willey died on the same day his wife Kathleen Willey claimed Bill Clinton groped her in the oval office in the White House. Ed Willey was involved in several Clinton fund raising events.
8 – Jerry Parks – Head of Clinton’s gubernatorial security team in Little Rock. Gunned down in his car at a deserted intersection outside Little Rock. Park’s son said his father was building a dossier on Clinton. He allegedly threatened to reveal this information. After he died the files were mysteriously removed from his house.
9 – James Bunch – Died from a gunshot suicide. It was reported that he had a “Black Book” of people which contained names of influential people who visited prostitutes in Texas and Arkansas.
10 – James Wilson – Was found dead in May 1993 from an apparent hanging suicide. He was reported to have ties to Whitewater.
11- Kathy Ferguson, ex-wife of Arkansas Trooper Danny Ferguson, was found dead in May 1994, in her living room with a gunshot to her head. It was ruled a suicide even though there were several packed suitcases, as if she were going somewhere. Danny Ferguson was a co-defendant along with Bill Clinton in the Paula Jones lawsuit. Kathy Ferguson was a possible corroborating witness for Paula Jones.
12 – Bill Shelton – Arkansas State Trooper and fiancee of Kathy Ferguson. Critical of the suicide ruling of his fiancee, he was found dead in June, 1994 of a gunshot wound also ruled a suicide at the grave site of his fiancee.
13 – Gandy Baugh – Attorney for Clinton’s friend Dan Lassater, died by jumping out a window of a tall building January, 1994. His client was a convicted drug distributor.
14 – Florence Martin – Accountant & sub-contractor for the CIA, was related to the Barry Seal Mena Airport drug smuggling case. He died of three gunshot wounds.
15 – Suzanne Coleman – Reportedly had an affair with Clinton when he was Arkansas Attorney General. Died of a gunshot wound to the back of the head, ruled a suicide. Was pregnant at the time of her death.
16 – Paula Grober – Clinton’s speech interpreter for the deaf from 1978 until her death December 9, 1992. She died in a one car accident.
17 – Danny Casolaro – Investigative reporter. Investigating Mena Airport and Arkansas Development Finance Authority. He slit his wrists, apparently, in the middle of his investigation.
18 – Paul Wilcher – Attorney investigating corruption at Mena Airport with Casolaro and the 1980 “October Surprise” was found dead on a toilet June 22, 1993 in his Washington DC apartment. Had delivered a report to Janet Reno three weeks before his death
19 – Jon Parnell Walker – Whitewater investigator for Resolution Trust Corp. Jumped to his death from his Arlington, Virginia apartment balcony August15, 1993. He was investigating the Morgan Guarantee scandal.
20 – Barbara Wise – Commerce Department staffer. Worked closely with Ron Brown and John Huang. Cause of death unknown. Died November 29, 1996. Her bruised, nude body was found locked in her office at the Department of Commerce.
21- Charles Meissner – Assistant Secretary of Commerce who gave John Huang special security clearance, died shortly thereafter in a small plane crash.
22 – Dr. Stanley Heard – Chairman of the National Chiropractic Health Care Advisory Committee, died with his attorney Steve Dickson in a small plane crash. Dr. Heard, in addition to serving on Clinton’s advisory council personally treated Clinton’s mother, stepfather and brother.
23 – Barry Seal – Drug running pilot out of Mena, Arkansas, death was no accident.
24 – Johnny Lawhorn Jr. – Mechanic, found a check made out to Bill Clinton in the trunk of a car left at his repair shop. He was found dead after his car had hit a utility pole.
25 – Stanley Huggins – Investigated Madison Guarantee. His death was a purported suicide and his report was never released.
26- Hershell Friday – Attorney and Clinton fund raiser died March 1, 1994 when his plane exploded.
27 – Kevin Ives and Don Henry – Known as “The boys on the track” case. Reports say the boys may have stumbled upon the Mena Arkansas airport drug operation. A controversial case, the initial report of death said, due to falling asleep on railroad tracks. Later reports claim the two boys had been slain before being placed on the tracks. Many linked to the case died before their testimony could come before a Grand Jury.
THE FOLLOWING PERSONS HAD INFORMATION ON THE IVES/HENRY CASE:
28 – Keith Coney – Died when his motorcycle slammed into the back of a truck, July 1988.
29 – Keith McMaskle – Died stabbed 113 times, Nov, 1988
30 – Gregory Collins – Died from a gunshot wound January 1989.
31 – Jeff Rhodes – He was shot, mutilated and found burned in a trash dump in April 1989.
33 – James Milan – Found decapitated. However, the Coroner ruled his death was due to “natural causes.”
34 – Jordan Kettleson – Was found shot to death in the front seat of his pickup truck in June 1990.
35 – Richard Winters – A suspect in the Ives / Henry deaths. He was killed in a set-up robbery July 1989.
THE FOLLOWING CLINTON BODYGUARDS ARE DEAD: 36 – Major William S. Barkley Jr. 37 – Captain Scott J. Reynolds 38 – Sgt. Brian Hanley 39 – Sgt. Tim Sabel 40 – Major General William Robertson 41 – Col. William Densberger 42 – Col. Robert Kelly 43 – Spec. Gary Rhodes 44 – Steve Willis 45 – Robert Williams 46 – Conway LeBleu 47 – Todd McKeehan
48 -World-renowned “space economist” Molly Macauly was brutally murdered in Baltimore park.
49-John Ashe- The former President of the UN General Assembly was awaiting trial on bribery charges when he turned up dead in June, apparently having crushed his own windpipe while lifting weights in his home…
50-Victor Thorn-Prominent CLINTON Critic VICTOR THORN Found Dead Of Apparent Suicide On His Birthday
51-Seth Rich-Still No Clues in Murder of DNC’s Seth Rich, As Conspiracy Theories Thicken
52- Joe Montano-Filipino American activist and aide to Sen. Kaine, dies at 47
53- Shawn Lucas-Death of DNC Lawsuit Processor Shawn Lucas Adds to Seth Rich Conspiracy Theories
HILL AND HUMA I DONT UNDERSTAND I THOUGHT WE KILLED EVERYONE

Judge Openly LAUGHS At Bundy Ranch Defendants Rights


We have CORRUPT federal judges. Everyone, please read this and realize this is happening in America right now. You may find yourselves one day in the same type of kangaroo court. I’m sickened by this.
By Shari Dovale
what you allow the government do to others they will do to you
Judge Gloria Navarro made a mockery of the judicial system today.

The first Bunkerville trial is underway in Las Vegas, Nevada. The prosecution has had over five weeks to present their case. Now that the defense is ready to put on their case, Judge Gloria Navarro has shut them down.

Out of the entire witness list, there is one witness, other than the defendants, that she will allow to testify. Garrett Frenner was a witness to the slaughter of the Bundy cattle. However, Judge Navarro will not allow him to testify to those events. The prosecutors and the FBI spent a couple of hours harassing this man, threatening him with prosecution if he dared to testify. She has made it clear that he can ONLY testify to which of the defendants he saw with guns.

Every witness that the defense tried to proffer today was questioned by the Judge. She stressed to each one of them that she was ready to have them removed from the courtroom in handcuffs, if she thinks they are committing perjury.

Judge Navarro then backed up the prosecution when they threatened witnesses by naming them as “UNindicted Co-conspirators”. Navarro allowed this bullying, and took part in it herself.

buny remind me again who pointed guns at who

After the intimidation of their witness, the defense believes he has been compromised and stated they are unsure of calling him as a witness. This made Eric Parker so distraught and upset that they have no witnesses for their defense that he broke down and cried in the courtroom. This, of course, made his wife and supporters cry as well.

Judge Navarro showed no sympathy. Reports are that she actually laughed out loud at their distress. The prosecutors also laughed and joked at the defense. She continued to reiterate that they have no rights as defendants.

Navarro also stated in the courtroom that no one is guaranteed their first amendment rights or their second amendment rights. Additionally, she told everyone that there is Never a time when anyone is allowed to defend themselves against a Law Enforcement Officer, even if they caught him breaking into their home. If he even sees a gun near them, they are guilty of assaulting him.

The defense had plans to call numerous witnesses, including Carole Bundy, Shawna Cox, Michele Fiore and more. Judge Navarro refused to allow them to testify because she feels their testimony might risk her jury to nullify.

blm sent 200 thugs to ranch over turtles

Jury Nullification is her worst fear. She continues to tell the defense that she will not allow them to put on any defense that might sway her jury to nullify. This includes any information of why these men came to Bunkerville, the abuses of the BLM agents, and more.

Judge Navarro is quoted as saying, “The risk of jury nullification… for the jurors to hear about different defense witnesses, that can’t happen!” Navarro mentioned this at least three times during the day.

When the defense team attempted to object, she shut them down again, saying “Don’t bother to object.” as she intendeds to side with the prosecution each time.

And she carried through with this threat, not allowing the defense any leeway at all.

Dan Love was the Special Agent in Charge of the operation in Bunkerville, and his testimony was the main evidence in front of the Grand Jury. However, because he is under investigation for abuses, Judge Navarro has ruled his testimony is irrelevant and will not allow him to be called to testify.

Eric Parker has now decided that he has no choice but to testify. He may very well be the only witness in the defense case. This case could end up in the jury’s hands as early as tomorrow.

The heavy-handed judge has ruled these men do not deserve the right to defend themselves.

BLM JAIL BONANZA COWBOYS