Organizer Faces Terrorism Charge ...
... Thank you so much and love to you all.
Jeremy and Bruno moved quickly to confront Vice-President Biden with the nano-thermite scientific paper...
Thank you so much brother.
I feel that I should say more here, but I am so tired right now. I need to catch up on my sleep. Thanks to all the great people in this movement. I truly feel the love.
there are a lot of critical things going on in the world right now. Clearly this is one of the most important things happening. I hope that everyone will do what they can to benefit the people involved here by whatever means available to them. To me, it's a big story. Bruno, please consider giving me the honor sometime of coming to talk to you for a few minutes with my video camera pumping to start making presentations about all this for 911 Truther Cyberzine and my 911Blogger.com blog here.
Yes, you would do well to get with Bruno on this. You seem to know just what to do and where to go in this truth movement. Good luck on your never-ending efforts! People like you and Bruno inspire me and give me the courage to keep going. The 911 movement needs a big heart to make it's way through the troubled waters of this present-day world. Again, good luck and thankyou.
come on! You might give me a seizure talking like that! It could be fatal!
I am with you in the struggle!!
Alex talks with Bruno Bruhweiler, the We Are Change LA organizer who was charged with making a terrorist threat for facial expressions a judge considered inappropriate during a civil hearing for another WACLA member. Pastor Lindsey Williams returns to talk with Alex about the BP oil gusher. On June 10, Williams told the Alex Jones Show that toxic gases coming from the BP oil gusher pose a threat to residents of the Gulf States. Alex also covers the latest breaking news and takes your calls.
Bruno is Guest TODAY at Infowars
F THEM! They cannot get away with this - we must flex our influence and get this the full on media attention that this non-"incident" deserves, because this is not Nazi Germany or Fascist Italy, and the people they are with us in DROVES. Let's use the Internet here and social networking to hang THEM out to dry for the OBVIOUS injustice here, this is a disgrace and an outrage!
Let's use it, not only to full advantage, but also to help Bruno, not just in terms of his legal defence, but as a juggernaut for our rights as free people entitled to the right to protest and make noise, and change the world. It's out right! Don't cave here, I smell a LAWSUIT, and a lot of indignation from a lot of corners of the Internet over this, regardless of what the people might think about or what their views are on 9/11. This is about freedom. They cannot get away with this.
Document the heck out of it and get it up on the net circling in any and every sphere you can, it's so blatant, and makes a strong statement about what America is or may be coming to, unless they can be stopped, dead in their tracks, due to public outrage, and historical outrage, in the living spirit of the founding fathers themselves!
P.S. Thank you Bruno, it's an honour and a privilegde. And THIS thing, this thing could be, if handled right, one of the best things to happen to our movement in a long time, it's right there, where the rubber hits the road, and they do not have anything on you, and you will probably eventually sue and WIN your suit. Let's take a very confident stand here, given the actual circumstances. Another judge with laugh at this, seeing the absurdity. Get a good lawyer to help deliver you a good judge when this comes up.
May God almighty be with you, and with us, over this absurd injustice, which does everyone an injustice, at the most fundamental level.
Too bad you cannot take something like this to the Supreme Court! That would be cool..!
So I empathathize and commiserate with you, but I also congratulate you for this great gift from the PTB - they always F these things up and then it backfires on them every damn time, I do not see why this time is any different..
But this is IT folks, here we go, let's win another one in honour of all the many victims of 9/11, which certainly includes everyone of us at some level, in this case, very close to home.
We can really push this thing very far, so far flung in fact that they will pray themselves that they can just take it all back..!
You are right there friend, at the very leading edge of the tip of the spearhead, but do not be afraid, because if you are pursecuted for the sake of what is right and just, and true and free, then my God you are free indeed, so in a way don't forget to rejoice, quietly, about this, wherever possible, that's my recommendation. No fear only faith.
We win yet again! Yawn.. (just kidding I feel for ya, just asking you to look at it within the largest possible context and recognize how truly STRONG your position is, relative to what actaully occured). Hurray for Bruno!!!
Just think this whole thing through very very carefully, and you'll come out of it smelling like roses - be cunning and harmless, and make damn sure you WIN this thing BIG TIME, and maybe even get to sue over it, once the charges are thrown right out the window.
Then let the whole thing become an internet phenom.
This really tests our mettle as a "movement" of people, of concerned citizens. Chipping in and making sure you have a good defence fund is number one priority. I will give what little I can right now, in two days when my Visa has room again..
We rock! You rock Bruno. Don't worry, this will come out alright I can feel it, at the deepest level.
Yeah you can feel the love and we can too! : )
Bruno is one of my favorite people I have met here at 911blogger. I hadn't heard any posts from him and I had worried that he had been banned here, along with Adam Syed, Adam Ruff, Stefan and the others. Bruno is very courageous, even here he is often voted down as he speaks his truth.
And Robert Rice, you have spoken truly and warmly of this true human being that is Bruno. Thankyou for your inspiring thoughts as always.
Thank you so much. I know that this is inconvenient for all of us, and I wish it never happened. Thank you to everyone around the world for your amazing and generous support.
I am sorry to hear that some of my favorite people on 911blogger have been banned. That is very discouraging.
Love and peace to you all,
If 911blogger is going to censor or ban people, it should be done openly and transparently, not silently in the middle of the night like a Stalinist purge. At least four people were silenced within 24 hours and none of them were pointed to an offending post which violated any blogger rules.
After a week of polite inquiries and no answers, Adam Syed and Adam Ruff exposed the farce on Kevin Barrett's show.
It is a sad situation. Bruno, I and many others are saddened to hear of your very difficult ordeal. Please take heart and know we are with you in this ongoing struggle.
Announced that he is a "Revisionist" on a program that opened with "The Jews did 9/11" and ended promoting "Revisionism". This is exactly what the government wants; tying the TM to Holocaust denial and anti-Semitism. The vast majority of the public sees Holocaust denial and Revisionism as the same thing. This is either incredibly stupid media savvy or . . . . . .
Do you think this is a good idea?
Before he appeared on Kevin Barrett's show. You are making false statements about two banned users!
The "Israel" portion of the show revolved around the interview with Alan Hart, in which Hart espoused his view that the title of "prime suspect" in 9/11 go to the Israeli intelligence networks, particularly the Mossad. This is not a claim of "The Jews did 9/11". Just as claiming that the CIA orchestrated 9/11 is hardly saying "The USA did 9/11".
Also, the other banned users have not even mentioned the Holocaust revisionism, so this excuse cannot be used on them.
I have been accused of "ongoing off-topic complaints", and yet none of the moderators care to address the questions as to why these ongoing bannings are happening. And it looks to be an attempt to keep out any open discussion on the Pentagon CIT evidence or possible Mossad involvement.
Adam was tolerated far longer than he should have been. He kept repeating the same arguments that had been rejected time and time again. He admits to using sock puppets and then accuses Blogger of using them. The whole program was trashing CIT detractors while complaining about the ad hominem attacks on CIT. This is hypocrisy with chutzpah. Adam often misstated what people said and then attacked them using that misinformation. Like Craig, Adam is fostering acrimony and infighting.
CIT's claim that the NoC flight path proves flyover is false as I have noted in my Summary and analysis. Address the facts I have listed and keep your opinion of me to yourself.
I was incorrect in saying that the program started with 'The Jews did it". At the beginning of the program Kevin talks about his interview with Alan Heart and says that Heart said: "Where there may have been some kind of Arab or Muslim plot afoot at some point it was taken over by the Israeli Mossad which executed the operation killing nearly 3,000 Americans." which is basically the same thing in the eyes of the general public.
Intended or not, this is psy-ops. The government has been trying to tie the TM to anti-Semitism Holocaust denial. Kevin and Adam are doing just that. The public at large makes no distinction between Revisionism and Holocaust denial.
These thinly veiled versions of "The Jews did it" and "Holocaust denial" are the same as calling "Creationism" "Intelligent design". No one is buying it.
Here's the text from the last part of the program:
Kevin: I know that, Adam, you have actually been one of the people in the 911Truth Movement to raise questions about whether there's actually anything to this debate on the scope on the Holocaust and so on. I did have a show about that a while back.
Adam: Yes, I heard it, great.
Kevin: Yea, and then I of course, I don't have any, I'm not absolutely convinced of anything on that particular issue, in fact, frankly, I've tried, I've listened to the people who have been arguing that the Holocaust wasn't nearly as big as it's been claimed and they haven't proved their case to me yet.
Adam: Let's put it this way, lampshades and soap or not, there's no doubt, or gas chambers or not, there's no doubt that untold, extremely large numbers of people were forced out of their homes and uprooted from their communities against their will.
* * * * *
We are in an information war and perception is everything. Questioning the Holocaust or saying the Israeli Mossad is responsible for 9/11 turns the Sun Tzu principle of pitting your strengths against your enemy's weaknesses on its head.
Basically the same thing? I don't believe the general public thinks this. I think, for the most part, the general public is oblivious and barely even recognizes that Israel is a Jewish state. And lets say Israel DID sponsor the attacks on 9/11...downplaying the truth because there might be a bunch of dip shits who confuse "Israeli Mossad Did It" with "The Jews Did It' seems irresponsible considering that Muslims / Arabs are being slaughtered because of a very real racist myth that is overwhelmingly embraced by the general public.
The truth is that there ARE NOT Jew Haters everywhere and there IS NOT 'thinly veiled' Jew hate being intertwined into 911 Truth as you suggest. This stufff has to stop sooner or later. It's suffocating the search for answers while at the same time obscuring a very blatant racist slaughter of Muslims in Iraq and Afghanistan and elsewhere.
I realize this is probably way off topic so I apologize to the author of this blog. Hopefully this discussion can be continued elsewhere where it's on topic.
The topic of this thread is: WeAreChangeLA Organizer Faces Terrorism Charge
Any additional posts in this thread not related to this topic will be removed, and may result in user moderation.
This policy of keeping discussion on topic applies to all threads, and is clearly stated in the rules: http://911blogger.com/rules
This is a classic example of how 911blogger seems to be framing the debate: allow people to make false statements against banned users, and the banned users can't respond.
LillyAnn is quite correct that Sarns made false statements about TWO banned users: Kevin Barrett and Adam Syed. She is correct that Sarns misrepresented Barrett's rhetoric. Speaking of the possibility of Israeli involvement is HARDLY the same thing as declaring that "The Jews Did 9/11!!" And Barrett was speaking specifically of an interview he conducted with one of the BBC's most preeminent Middle East reporters, during which the role of possible Israeli intelligence agency involvement was discussed.
In fact, Barrett is an extremely bright scholar and is very careful to never conflate Israeli criminals with "The Jews." Why Sarns would choose to frame Barrett as claiming "the Jews did 9/11" is anyone's guess, but it's certainly irresponsible.
With regard to Syed: I challenge anyone to show me where he "announced" he is a "revisionist." Toward the end of the show, the conversation did steer toward the direction of the Holocaust with regard to the fact that Barrett hosted a debate about a month ago with the author of a book for which Syed wrote an Amazon review. That book, "Debating the Holocaust," examines the revisionist controversy in depth, and indeed, in that book's introduction and first chapter, the author disavows the notion that the holocaust "didn't happen" or is some kind of Zionist "hoax."
Indeed if you listened to the Barrett episode, you'd hear that Barrett very firmly said: "I'm not convinced that the Revisionists have made their case."
Whether Syed believes they've made their case or not is his business, but Cincinnati 9/11 Truth has a very active weekly TV show in addition to regular street actions, and I don't think you're going to find Syed standing on a street corner any time soon holding a big sign saying "Holocaust Truth NOW!"
Finally, if we zoom out of the trees and look at the entire forest, Syed is not the only one to have been banned here without explanation. We also have Stefan, OneSliceShort, Adam Ruff. At least. None of those people have uttered a word about the Holocaust. Who knows who else has been quietly censored, especially since one of the moderators here, loose nuke, says he will not comment on individual cases. So we're all just left guessing who has been excluded - for whatever reasons - and who hasn't, hardly a situation involving accountability and transparency. The comments section the past few weeks has been rather quiet compared to several months ago.
Here's a constructive situation that would clear the air considerably here: The moderators should publish a list of everyone who has been banned here or placed in a moderation queue - and the reasons why - but my guess is that that exercise in accountability and transparency would expose the true bias at this site, a bias now evident to anyone who is careful enough to pay attention to the undercurrent of censorship that has invaded what was once the premier source of 9/11 information.
Assuming no such accounting will be forthcoming, I think it's time for a new, uncensored, accountable website that will bring us ALL the 9/11 news and research - not just what the moderators here deem is "politically correct" - whatever that means.
You are correct. I was banned from this website for more then a year. I wrote many e-mails to moderators, wrote and posted an open letter and never got a response. Only over a year or two later did someone finally reply to me although no reason was ever given for my banning and people I talked to thought I just 'stopped posting'. Only recently did LeftWright look at my case and content and concluded I should be allowed to post. Although, no reason for the banning was ever found
Right. Secretly moderating the discussion and restricting 'certain' users has created distrust and suspicion. And rightfully so. It's freaking shady. I'm surprised a 'truth' website would even consider this type of behavior let alone enact it as policy as 911Blogger moderators have for the past few years.
Remember, Reprehensor was the first to purge 911Blogger.com of 'certain users' back in 2006 or 2007. The policy seems to have continued to this day.
For anyone unfamiliar with the reasons behind the 'purge' jpass is talking about, see this:
Responding to Libel.
Do websites that offer the public the privilege of commenting on articles posted generally take the time to explain the reasons behind every- or any- instance of moderation/banning? If anyone is wondering why someone, or someone's comments get moderated/banned here, review the rules, and review the entire comment history of people who've been banned- while some of the worst comments may have been removed from public view, generally there's enough others left up so the public can see the pattern- if they wish to:
911blogger is doing it's best to publicize credible information re: 9/11 and things related, as well as providing a forum for people to engage in civil, responsible discussion. No one is getting paid or making a profit from 911blogger. 911blogger does consider the feedback users provide on how things are being run, but, ultimately, it's a private website, the people running it are taking responsibility for how it's being run, and those who don't like it are free to go elsewhere- it's a big internet.
"Do websites that offer the public the privilege of commenting on articles posted generally take the time to explain the reasons behind every- or any- instance of moderation/banning?"
Transparency and openness would benefit 911Blogger.com and 911 Truth. It creates trust which many find lacking here. I know that might seem like an insult but it's not. It's the truth. Secretly banning and moderating people is shady. And who cares whether or not other websites do it that way? I certainly don't.
Let's say there was a bias here at 911Blogger.com. Let's say, theoretically, that 911Blogger.com had been infiltrated by people who wanted to hide the truth about 9/11/2001 attacks. How could anyone ever know? Secret bannings and moderation mean the moderators are the only ones who know what, when, and why specific information and users are being restricted and deleted from the conversation.
This discussion itself is a prime example of the distrust that secret moderation and bannings bring to the table. The notion that a group of moderators thumb trough all contributions in order to 'ok' them for community consumption seems a bit much to me. I participate in many websites and the 911Blogger is the only one that has to 'ok' my contributions before they are posted.
There is a lack of transparency. No one knows what is being restricted, no one knows who is being restricted and no one knows even THAT things are being restricted because it's not transparent. It's hidden from view.
I have long pointed out the lack of transparency on this site, and has gone so far as openly demand a list of banned users in order to deduce any consistent patterns - and I'm not talking about abusive behaviour or insults: plenty of those are posted and remain on this site, and I've talked to people who've been put in a moderation queue and/or banned who never made any abusive postings at all, so clearly there are other reasons (possibly personal and/or political) why the discussion is being controlled so tightly this way.
Of course, no such list of banned users will ever be forthcoming, but loosenuke is at least honest when he writes "ultimately, it's a private website" - that's right, as opposed to a publicly accountable, openly transparent clearinghouse for 9/11 information and debate, which is just what I and others have called for - as far too many intelligent voices and viewpoints have been silenced on this blog, which still seems to be thought of as a primary source of news for many, although the readership is certainly shrinking, as more and more people realize how little we know about the people running it, their backgrounds, and their agendas.
Naturally, once there arrives a suitably "publicly accountable, openly transparent, clearinghouse for 9/11 information and debate", you certainly won't be reading about it here LOL!
For a site that you say is so tyrannically ban-happy and secretive, it sure allows a lot of criticism of its policies to be posted here! It seems that if all your accusations were true, we wouldn't have the pleasure of reading your ridiculous words. I have plenty of problems with the way this site is run but it does seem to me that they are doing their best to be fair. Considering the highly dubious quality of the many posts you make each day, I'd say if anything they're erring in your favor. Your complaints got John Bursill put on moderation. I've had a post removed and received a warning. But you don't see us whining about it here. We're intelligent and decent enough to realize that it's not our site and if we wish to exercise the privilege of posting here then we play by the site owners' rules. Is someone forcing you to keep posting here?
Having done moderation myself before, I basically realized that the sooner you block those users who are shifting a discussion from a 9/11 topic to a diatribe about the moderation policies, the better.
Discussions about moderation policies or incidents need to be contained or they very quickly disrupt threads and become a magnet for disruptors to attack moderators en masse. It's a common tactic, whether people realize they're doing it or not.
Three-year-olds in preschool get three chances and then a time out. It's very simple. Millions of three-year-olds do it every day. You can too. There's nothing suspicious or unusual about being warned and then being taken out of the playground if you don't understand or can't respect the rules of socializing with others in a public community environment.
I don't agree with time-outs for three-year olds or people of any age! Funny, I had just recently sent a post on the Flight 175 Impossible Speed Thread in response to Robert Rice's voted down comments mentioning this very ugly idea that many people use, of time-outs. I find that in dealing with people of all ages that staying open, accepting and being willing to listen and understand is much more effective as well as being compassionate. .
Blogger might do well to be more allowing of honest discussion, and way less censoring.
Treating fellow truth seekers like children is exactly what we don't need. That's what is going on now and it doesn't work. We don't need authorities, we need open and transparent ways to communicate without meddlers interfering at various unknown times...dictating what is 'ok' for consumption. We're adults, not children. The rules here are simple and don't require this 100% user moderation by a group of over-worked moderators.
Obviously some things need to be moderated. and users will be banned. But you don't throw every single user into moderation just because some goof-ball hates Jews or thinks space-beams stationed on the moon zapped the towers to dust. You handle that by on a case by case. It's a paranoid myth that there are Jew haters, No-Planers, Space Beamers and Reptilinoid Theorists at every corner...all just waiting for an opportunity to post their marginalized, obvious bullshit.. This myth is used to justify these goofy moderation practices that sow distrust.
And how ridiculous is it that the moderators who have the power to ban users seem to be locked into important debate with the very users they end up banning? It gives the appearance that moderators are abusing their powers to control the outcome of contentious debates over very important information.
BTW....I've been really busy so I apologize for not returning your recent message to me. I will soon.
New thread for discussion of moderation at 911blogger
Comment threads sometimes naturally veer slightly off topic, but now over a dozen off-topic comments have been posted about moderation. Enough; if you have something you want to say about this, post it at the thread above; additional comments in this thread on the topic of moderation will be removed.
Sorry for getting off topic. I apologized to the author in a reply to "Chris Sarns" above. Thanks for starting a new thread.
Were you "tortured" and what does that mean in the title of the video posted earlier..? What does that mean, or is it an overstatement or a mischaracterization of some kind..? Can you please clarify that for us, thanks.
The OP seems to be a copy/paste of this June 16 post: http://garkopedia.info/?p=224
The following are quoted from this June 2 post: http://garkopedia.info/?p=171
"Bruno Bruhwiler and Katy Kurtzman and several other (i believe 5) people from We Are Change LA were in court to support a friend who was trying to have a judgement dropped."
"Bruno was making various facial expressions of displeasure at the judge and he was admonished that if he did not cease doing this then he would be asked to leave the court. Bruno acknowledged the communication from the judge but continued to show his displeasure with his facial expressions. At which time the judge repeated himself and had Bruno removed.
Bruno went peacefully. He was then talked to in a closed room. He was not being detained at this time but when he came out he was in handcuffs under the charge of threatening the officers which is a charge that Bruno denies.
As a student of Tim Turner and UCC sovereignty teachings he refused to identify himself.
He was put into a cold room. So cold that he got hyperthermia and passed out! When he came to he was asked his name but he refused to answer. So he got the treatment two other times and then the third time he said that the name on his bracelet was Bruno."
"It is then reported by the court that Bruno appeared and pled not guilty. But Bruno says he did not “appear” and did not plead. There are 6 witnesses that confirm his statement and that the statement from the court is a lie.
The charges against Bruno are felony threat, felony resisting arrest,felony resisting arrest 2 and misdemeanor contempt of court even though he was never told that he was in contempt of court by the judge.
Although none of this was 911 truth related, a bad result on this case could look very bad for 911 truth as a movement because one of these charges is a terrorism level felony charge! That means there could be headlines saying 911 truther convicted on terrorism charges which would be very bad…. and all because Bruno silently expressed his displeasure with the fraudulent ramrodding of the judge acting as plaintiff and then refused to recognize the authority to arrest him under a fraudulent legal system."
"The Sheriff’s literally TORTURED Bruno until he lost consciousness twice, in order to try and gain jurisdiction."
"Bruno and Dustin discovered today that the court recorded minutes differ wildly from what witnesses recall. "
Apparently because of the Terrorist Threat and Felony Resisting Arrest charges, as well as being referred to as 'crazy' and in need of 'psyche meds' I was treated as a 'special inmate' and kept in shackles and solidarity isolation. They kept me in Room #6 for hours on end where the frigid air was blasted. Anybody who has been in jail knows that its cold, I have been there on more than one occasion, but this is like nothing I have ever experienced. Eventually, I lost all my body heat. When they took the shackles off, I pulled my arms through my sleeves and pulled my shirt over the bridge of my nose. One officer continuously opened the window in the door and called me crazy guy. I got so cold that my legs, arms, shoulders began convulsing uncontrollably. Not shivering... convulsing. I had never experienced that in my life. I passed out. A couple of times, the same officer opened the door and yelled at me, bringing me back to consciousness, only to leave me convulsing and to pass out again. Finally, he opened the door and yelled at me, and another officer shackled me again, led me into a cage in the courtroom, and I stood there shivering...
Is there any kind of video or sound recording of the arrest? LAPD is very rednecky and this is the worst example. Courage, Bruno.
yes Bruno is terrifiying the 911 traitors. Imagine that the truth comes out. Horrible for the evid doers ! They may be indicted for mass murder, waging a war on an innocent courtry, stealing Iraki petrole, etc Bush is probably preparing his suit cases to escape to his huge range in Paraguay. The Bush gang have what to be worried.
It should not be Bruno in prison but Bush and company.
but are still treading lightly afraid that too much commotion will awaken the great snoozing unwashed unread unthinking masses that doze on as they cram in the macdonalds and beer and hollywood smutz. if these leviathan DOES WAKE UP...... well there aren't very many of the others, are there? try everything you can TO WAKE THEM UP......even if it means just one person at a time.....
Where do you want the check sent, who should I make it out to, or I can leave it blank. I know you won't give up the fight on this one and I hope the corrupt cops get their just do.
Hello Truthseekers & Truthtellers,
It's very important we (9/11 Truth Movement) stand together in solidarity with Bruno and do whatever we can throughout this nation to fight these outlandish lies by these dishonest police officers. This could happen to any of us that get out on the street with our 9/11 Truth activism and then run into dishonest police officers who either don't like our message or are involved in a conspiracy with an illegal hidden agenda against the 9/11 Truth movement. Fortunately, I've had very little conflict with my local authorities in the Milwaukee, Wisconsin area but that doesn't mean it couldn't happen to me the next time I'm on the street or confronting some corrupt politician that comes to my town. I will be sending out e-mails & blogs about this, making some calls and sending a donation for Bruno's defense.
Take Care Matt
...in NO CIRCUMSTANCE...being associated with the Libertarian Party, Rand and Ron Paul, and by association, the Tea Bag Party [for which there is a high alert from the police state right now].
The entire existence and structure of We Are Changes are nebulous enough as it is...
Its good to remember Cass Sunstein's impetus about infiltrating groups critical of the US governement and its policies. So, it appears to me that you are a very, very visible target for such activities...most notably because you are in LA...and so damned good at what you do.
I do think that it is important that we know who the other WAC-LA member was and what reason he or she was in court. This is very important background for all of us to know.
The best opportunity for the 9/11TM is to connect you being a Truther...and being busted because of that connection...and not because you are with We Are Changes...
If you can align soley with the 9/11TM, then I suggest reaching out to Bill Veale because he was/is the attorney handling April Gallop's case and my affidavit against Cheney-Rummie-Meyers and thusly, he is well versed in 9/11 stuff and will be able to magnify some connective stuff. Bill is out of SF and I can give his email addy to you if you can't find contact info yourself...
Hang in there...expand the 9/11 connection as soon as you can...because it seems that they have a poor case...and you have a GOOD case to expose their objectives.
9/11 Truth for World Peace and Justice
Had some odd issues with my PayPal account, but got a donation in now.
Please keep us posted.
If we didn't believe it we would not be here.
Judge Manfred Delong granted conditional discharge to Splitting the Sky, who had been charged with obstructing a peace officer while attempting a citizens arrest of George W Bush for war crimes.
The judge ordered that Splitting the Sky must make a $1,000 donation to a charity of his choice and pay a $50 victim fine surcharge as conditions of his probation.
Speaking to reporters outside the court after the sentencing hearing, Splitting the Sky announced he would make his $1000 donation to Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth.
Would it be a worthwhile effort for all 9/11 Truth activists to contact the Southern California ACLU and make them aware of Bruno's situation?
The more information and details that we can learn about this situation the more we can help.
We're all with you Bruno and will do what it takes to clear up this total travesty of justice.
Yes, I agree, we should all write to the S.Cal. ACLU! Thanks.
Related points-- how, in God's name, will a prosecutor try this case, if it does come to trial? It doesn't seem to have a toe-hold in reality.
So, not coming to trial, what other courses could this story take? If charges are lowered, say, to contempt of court, will Bruno plead guilty and pay the fine or whatever, just to end it? Or, should he fight that and insist on a trial?
Are there other ways this could play out? How can we prepare for them?
I just can't see this coming to trial as the charges stand now. Good Christ it's insane.
And for the future, is it possible to take preventative steps to insure that this kind of thing never happens again? Or can there be an established protocol for an appropriate response? My head is spinning with this case.
Or, are we just all subject to the vagaries of a policeman's mood, an incompetent judge's feelings of low-self esteem? And the Constitution is really just a piece of paper?
Bruno, wishing you and your family the best. Keep up the faith and the struggle going. I've chipped in to help, and I hope others will too.
It took me less than a minute to Google 'Terrorist Threat' and 'California Penal Code' and I found Penal Code 422. Terrorist Threat and Criminal Threat both fall under California Penal Code 422. It took me less than a minute to disprove an unwarranted stink and false accusations by the same crew that have been the most hostile toward those who have been recently 'banned' from 911blogger.
I am facing more false accusations in a short amount of time than I could ever have imagined. Larson, Gold, Zombie, Cosmos, Ford, Bursill and others, I would hope for an apology, and a retraction sent out to all the world. As those of us in the truth movement know, it is easy to cause damage to the truth, and unless people make an active and diligent effort to undo the damage, then the damage will quickly become irreparable.
I personally would rather focus on the love and support from those amazing souls around me and around the world who are so active in helping and supporting me during such a demoralizing and unfortunate time. A new article is coming out soon. Thank you to you all.
to have an open discussion from all sides.
i dont have anything to apologize for, so if this is all legit and you have been targeted for being an activist, then good luck to you. i can certainly say i wouldnt want to be in that position.
by the way y'all, Jon Gold goes on trial july 12, so be sure to show your support! :)
I'm retracting my article, and replacing it where it was posted with the following message- best of luck to Bruno.
‘Terrorist Threats’ Covered by CA Penal Code Sec. 422
I’m retracting the article originally posted here as it has been brought to my attention that threats prosecuted under Section 422 of the California Penal Code are sometimes referred to as “terrorist threats.”
As Bruno Bruhwiler said in a comment at 911blogger after he was made aware of my article:
“It took me less than a minute to Google 'Terrorist Threat' and 'California Penal Code' and I found Penal Code 422. Terrorist Threat and Criminal Threat both fall under California Penal Code 422.”
Google is a tool I should have used before posting my article. I apologize to anyone who relied on it, and particularly to Bruhwiler and his associates, as my article implied they may have committed wire fraud by saying he had been charged with making a “terrorist threat.” Assuming Bruhwiler is committed to non-violent activism and that the charges against him are baseless, I wish him the best of luck in fighting them in the court system, and for being recompensed for any injustices and mistreatment he may have suffered in the LA penal system.
A google search for 'Terrorist Threat' and 'California Penal Code' gets the below as the top three hits:
“In California, Terrorist or Criminal Threats are Illegal. A terrorist or criminal threat is a threat of violence, threat to hurt, injure or kill others with the intent of intimidating or frightening them, or causing public panic. Examples of terrorist or criminal threats include:… Threatening harm or injury to a neighbor” http://www.lacriminaldefenseattorney.com/criminalthreats.html
“Section 422 of the California Penal Code makes it illegal to make criminal threats (formerly called ‘terrorist threats’)”. http://www.shouselaw.com/criminal_threats.html
“Despite its name, the crime of terrorist threats does not necessarily implicate al Qaeda or other terrorist organizations for their inflammatory speech or their attempts at political blackmail. Instead, the offense has more to do with situations involving domestic violence, hate crimes, bomb threats, and school violence. The question presented as to when is a threat actually a violation of the criminal law presents a tension between an individuals free-speech rights and the government’s duty to protect its citizens.” http://www.criminalattorney.com/news/terrorist-threats/
It does not excuse the fact that my research should have been more thorough, but so that the public can understand why I was led to believe that referring to a charge under Sec. 422 was being improperly characterized as a “terrorist threat,” (which I had associated with the “post-9/11 world”, the “war on terror”, indefinite detention, rendition, Guantanamo, Bagram Air Base, etc.), here’s the text of the code:
CALIFORNIA CODES: PENAL CODE: SECTION 422-422.4
422. Any person who willfully threatens to commit a crime which will result in death or great bodily injury to another person, with the specific intent that the statement, made verbally, in writing, or by means of an electronic communication device, is to be taken as a threat, even if there is no intent of actually carrying it out, which, on its face and under the circumstances in which it is made, is so unequivocal, unconditional, immediate, and specific as to convey to the person threatened, a gravity of purpose and an immediate prospect of execution of the threat, and thereby causes that person reasonably to be in sustained fear for his or her own safety or for his or her immediate family's safety, shall be punished by imprisonment in the county jail not to exceed one year, or by imprisonment in the state prison. For the purposes of this section, "immediate family" means any spouse, whether by marriage or not, parent, child, any person related by consanguinity or affinity within the second degree, or any other
person who regularly resides in the household, or who, within the prior six months, regularly resided in the household. "Electronic communication device" includes, but is not limited to, telephones, cellular telephones, computers, video recorders, fax machines, or pagers. "Electronic communication" has the same meaning as the term defined in Subsection 12 of Section 2510 of Title 18 of the United States Code.
Once again, the truth movement is eating its own. I am thoroughly disgusted. First Bruno gets shafted by the thugs at the court, and then gets character assassinated by so-called fellow truthers. None of you have anywhere near the full story of what happened, which Bruno can't really talk about while his court date is pending. The truth movement can't afford to have this endless bickering. It's exactly what Cass Sunstein would want. I am seeing this happening over and over, and it's fracturing the truth movement. We're all here because we can agree on one thing, the most important thing, and that is that we were lied to about the events of 911 and we want to get to the truth. Check your egos at the door. Agree to disagree and leave it be. Sheesh! You might as well be Sunnis vs. Shiites.
I haven't been able to get on 911blogger for awhile. I just assumed I was banned for some reason without explanation, because that's happened recently to quite a few people I respect. I don't look here everyday, especially recently, because I am under tremendous pressure, and I have lots to do. Larson sent an email to me saying that I need to toss my cookies, then keep trying. I am on now after tossing my cookies and trying a different browser.
Everybody I named in my 'Sigh' comment as having responsibility for the horrendous accusations that Larson made against me was named by association. Like I had said, it took me less than a minute to debunk Larson's ludicrous assertions, and everybody should take responsibility for not doing the same. It might be safe to assume that you trusted Larson would not post any unresearched claims, and that is the reason you did not react. But it might also be safe to assume, at least in my state of defending myself against grossly inaccurate and consequential accusations, that the only reason you accepted Larson's accusations is because somewhere inside you, you wanted them to be true.
Zombie Bill Hicks is guilty by association for posting a link here on 911blogger to Larson's article on Visibility911. Larson is apparently a moderator here at 911blogger, so Zombie, why not let him post the article himself right here? Doing it yourself puts the responsibility on yourself. You are not an innocent bystander.
Bursill and Ford are both intimately involved in Visibility911, in other words, that is your website. I can accept Scott Ford's reasoning that he can't control the bloggers on his website, but I still ask that you take responsibility for the content on your website, Scott. I do appreciate your words of peace.
Cosmos, you are very intimately involved with your truthaction website. I've seen you out of town before, and you are a busy bee on your laptop dealing with the posted content on your website. You react quickly to what people post. I wish you reacted quickly in this regard. I am not sure why you are posting multiple accusations that I am not reacting to your comment quickly enough. You did not ask for an apology... I did.
Scott Ford is probably right, in the midst of intense anxiety, misunderstandings spawn into divisive battles. I am not interested in a battle with this group. I apologize for reacting in general against the entire group. Thank you Larson for redacting the article and making the corrections. I would hope that you and everybody else will give me the benefit of the doubt next time. Those of us in the streets seem to be getting singled out these days, and the last thing we need is bloggers attacking us while we are down.
I do not take my laptop and non-existent satellite internet connection with me when I go camping in the woods. That's half the reason to go - to get away from all this crap. But even if I did, the posts on the Truth Action forum are the responsibility of their respective authors - just like every other forum on the internet.
Bruno are you for real?
Man did they give you electric shock treatment as well?
Sorry I have not been around this last week I've had some serious family stuff going down, so I hope your ok and are getting the help you need.
But for you to attack me here about something I have done or said about you? I have done absolutely nothing to hurt you or even said anything?
For the record I oppose the speculation of P4T with there laughable impossible speed claims and I oppose that the CIT "flyover" as proven but besides that I am not doing anything against you and those who you see are your allies.
An apology is in order? I am waiting...
Good luck, John
I'm not sure why you're asking me for an apology for Erik's article. I've never even seen it. I've been out of town for a few days and this is the first I've heard of it. Good luck in court.
and still no sign of an apology or retraction from Bruno for the false accusations he's made against me and others. I figured a full day would be long enough. I'll keep checking back.
Bruno, for someone complaining about being falsely accused you sure don't seem to have a problem with doing the same thing to others. I guess I should just be happy that you're not a judge or a cop. When Erik's mistake was pointed out to him, he immediately retracted and offered an apology. That's what people with integrity do.
Bruno, please don't lump me in with this debacle, I had nothing to do with it. I know that is my website, but I have no control over what Erik posts at his own blog. In fact I didn't even see it until just now. I know we don't always agree on stuff but I am not in the business of attacking you. This was very bad judgment on Erik's part, and I am sure he probably knows that by now.
I think that this is a good opportunity for everyone to see how misunderstandings and mistrusts turn into hugely divisive situations.
When asked about it, I have given you the benefit of the doubt in this situation and have stated that I find it highly unlikely that you threatened a cop's life. Please return the favor by not jumping to conclusions about me and the work that I am doing at the website. Things are indeed not always what they seem.
EDIT: it is nice to see an apology from Erik. I also would like to point out that Bruno handled this like a gentleman. Props to you both.