[I was recently directed to this article by another TI. It reveals evidence of Derrick Robinson's intentions to destroy the credibility of all real TIs and to assure that efforts at exposing the targeting situation will fail. It also shows possible evidence that Derrick Robinson might have been a handler for Aaron Alexis, the recent shooter in Washington.]
Most Harmful Infiltrator – COINTELPROContinuesToday.comExposing The Most Harmful Infiltrator Among UsDerrick Robinson (FFCHS) Exposing an infiltrator - Part 1: Strategy of Success and Strategy of Failiure In a message dated 4/11/2011 9:31:30 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time, _________@___.com writes: Can't you just imagine how the "handlers" are enjoying this? "Divide and conquer" is a common tactic. J Edgar Hoover used that very tactic in the COINTELPRO project. Don't play into their hands. We are all tortured for no reason. Let's support each other and band together. As a unified group we'll be more effective. Response by Bob S: ______, no one wants a united TI community more than I do, but I want the community to be united in carrying out a legal strategy that can achieve a solution. Derrick wants a community that is united in carrying out his strategies of failure. Which do you want? As a lawyer, it has been my profession to explain to clients how to follow a strategy of success and how to avoid a strategy of failure. Do you think that I should not use my legal skills by telling TI's how they can succeed in ending their torture? Do you think I should not tell them that Derrick has been leading them for five years to follow strategies that are intended to fail and which are certain to fail? As a lawyer, I know what you do not know about the difference between a strategy that is designed to succeed and a strategy that is designed to fail. Do you think that I should not share my knowledge with you and with all the other TI's who are in desperate need of finding and following the best possible legal strategy to give them the best possible chance of achieving a solution? Do you think that I should stand aside and let you and other TI's be continually deceived and defeated by an infiltrator who has proved over and over for five years that his mission is to keep defeating you and to keep preventing you from ever achieving a solution? You obviously don't understand that this is what Derrick has been doing deliberately and intentionally for the past five years. If you understood what he was doing, you would be applauding my effort in trying to turn the community away from Derrick's strategies of certain failure and toward the best possible strategy for achieving success. If you want to have a solution that can end your torture, it is your responsibility, _____, to read my legal explanations carefully enough so that you fully understand the difference between Derrick's strategies of certain failure and my strategy for achieving your objective. I've explained this many times before, but you and other TI's have not been paying enough attention to understand what makes the difference between a winning strategy and a losing strategy. In future emails, I'm going to explain it to you once again. This time you'd better pay close attention because your choice between a strategy that can succeed and a strategy that is certain to fail is the most important choice you will ever make. The rest of your life depends on it. Bob S Exposing an infiltrator - Part 2: Responsibility of Directors In a message dated 4/12/2011 9:33:55 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time, _________@___.com writes: Bob, You do not address me directly in your emails to selected targets, as you doubtlessly know that I am a member of the board of directors of FFCHS. Response by BobS: Hello ________, I have not heard of you before, but Derrick has been on my mailing list throughout the past five years. He has heard me explain a great many times how to follow a legal strategy that can succeed. He has also heard me explain why each of his strategies is certain to fail. As you should know, Derrick has been 100% consistent in choosing strategies that he knew would fail. Some of the Directors were on my list, but they asked to be removed. They didn't want to know why Derrick's strategies were certain to fail. They didn't want to consider following the best strategy that a lawyer could devise to bring an end to TI torture. If the Directors wanted carry out their purported objective of ending the torture, why would they refuse to listen to the clear legal explanations that I have repeated over and over as to what they must do to obtain evidence to prove specific responsibility for specific harm so that they can then go to court and win? It is the legal responsibility of the Directors to set the policies that the President will carry out. It is the legal responsibility of the Directors to establish policies that will fulfill the purposes of the organization. It is also the legal responsibility of the Directors to see that the President carries out policies that are designed to achieve the purpose of the organization. Most of the FFCHS Directors have drastically and flagrantly violated their legal responsibilities. Instead of setting policies that would serve to carry out the purposes of the organization, they have permitted Derrick to set policies that directly violated the purposes of the organization. They have rubber stamped all of Derrick's destructive policies. My question to you, _______, is: where is your sense of responsibility as a Director of FFCHS? Don't you have any care or concern about meeting your legal responsibilities? Don't you care about the personal liability that you are incurring by violating your responsibilities? Your current email shows that you do not. Neither you nor any of the other current Directors have ever made any attempt to meet your legal responsibilities as Directors of a non-profit corporation. The few Directors who wanted to meet their legal responsibilities were forced to resign in protest against the violations of those responsibilities by the President and the other Directors who approved the President's constant violations. You are violating your responsibility now,________. You are acting directly contrary to your responsibilities by supporting and by defending Derrick's five-year record of intentional failure to meet his responsibilities as President of FFCHS. The questions that I am asking you must ultimately be answered by you and by every other FFCHS Director. The longer you continue to violate your responsibilities, the worse harm you will be doing to the TI's that you pretend to be serving and the greater your personal liability will be to those TI's for working to defeat them while taking there money to use in working to benefit them. I thus urge you and all Directors of FFCHS to start meeting for the first time the legal responsibilities that you have been so clearly and openly violating up to now. You can try claiming ignorance as an excuse for failing to meet your responsibilities in the past, but you can't keep claiming ignorance when I am now putting Derrick's five year record of proven subversion directly before you and demanding that you meet your responsibility as Directors by removing this infiltrator from office. If you refuse to meet your responsibilities as Directors and if you and the Board continue to condone and to cover up Derrick's five year record of intentional failure, then you are proving that the Board is as corrupt as the President. You will each be held personally liable to all the TI's who have been deceived into contributing money which the Directors have authorized Derrick to use in for purposes which were directly the opposite of the purposes for which the money was contributed. The longer that you and the other Directors continue to violate your legal responsibilities, the more harm you will be doing to the TI community and to yourselves! Exposing an Infiltrator - Part 3: Demand for Retraction Derrick, In your Newsletter of a week ago, you said this about me and my associates at www.CointelproToday.org: Finally, there are tons of other myths, lies, convoluted, and sometimes insane tales being told by this group to newcomers hoping to steer all of you from FFCHS. Bob S' Response: You're not going to get away with such vague lies about us, Derrick. Tell me specifically what you are describing as “Myths, lies, convoluted, and sometimes insane tales” so that I can reply to your charges. Well, I've waited 6 days, and I haven't heard any attempt from you to explain or support your vague but serious charges against us. So I'm demanding that in your Newsletter today you give specific details of what you claim to be “tons of other myths, lies, convoluted, and sometimes insane tales being told by this group to newcomers hoping to steer all of you from FFCHS.” We both know that you can't do this. You know that if you deny the truth of anything we've said about you, I can very thoroughly prove the truth, but go ahead and try to tell me about the tons of myths, lies and insane tales that you accuse us of telling about you. I'll be more than happy to prove the truth of anything that we have said. You say that we are telling lies “to newcomers hoping to steer all of them from FFCHS”? No, we only need to tell them the truth to achieve that result. Are we trying to steer newcomers away from FFCHS? Of course we are, but not just newcomers. We are also trying to make experienced TI's understand the dire necessity of breaking free of FFCHS as the only means of saving their lives. As long as they keep trusting in you, they are doomed to eternal DEW-COINTELPRO torture. You know that you have operated FFCHS throughout its existence as an Anti-TI Activist organization. How could it be anything else when it is controlled by a thoroughly proven COINTELPRO infiltrator and a Board of Directors who are so irresponsible that they automatically approve every one of your ridiculous strategies of certain failure? Don't bother to deny it, Derrick? The jig is up! Your five year record proves the truth about you beyond any possible question or doubt. (Derrick) You also said in your Newsletter a week ago: I cannot say for certainty that Bob and his group are government operatives, however, if there are such operatives among us, I believe they must be working with that group to lead them to say and do the things that they are. In my response, I said: Derrick has no evidence whatsoever to support his false charges. That's why he can't say any such thing “for certainty.” But I have five years of documented evidence to fully support the charge that I am now making against Derrick. I CAN say for certain that Derrick is a COINTELPRO infiltrator. I would not make this charge if I did not have very strong evidence to prove it. I've waited 6 days for you to produce some evidence to support your charge against me or against anyone working with me. I know that you have no such evidence, but I'm asking you again today, April 16, 2011, to produce in today's FFCHS Newsletter any evidence that you claim to have to support your accusation against me or against anyone working with me. I will refute any evidence that you purport to offer. I know that you have no evidence, but I don't expect you to have enough integrity to retract your lies about us. There is no such thing as a COINTELPRO infiltrator with integrity. Making false charges with no evidence behind them is the essence of McCarthyism. Refusing to give evidence while refusing to retract your lies about us puts you in the same category as Senator McCarthy. It proves how morally corrupt you are. What else can we expect from a COINTELPRO infiltrator? So you have these three choices: Trying in vain to support lies that you know you can't support. Publishing a full retraction in your Newsletter. Proving yourself to be as morally corrupt as Senator Joseph McCarthy by doing neither of the above. Tell me which of these three alternatives you prefer, Derrick, and we'll take it from there. Exposing an Infiltrator - Part 4: The Strange TI Mystery In a message dated 4/16/2011 11:02:55 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time, _________@___.com writes: Bob you worry too doggone much about what Derrick says. BobS Responds: How long have you been on my mailing list? Years, I think, but somehow you are still missing the point of all that I've been saying for those years and all that I'm saying now. I don't worry about what Derrick says about me. I couldn't care less about anything he says about me if he were not doing such extremely serious damage to you and to all other TI's by persuading you to follow his losing strategies instead of following the only winning strategy. It is this intentional harm to TI's that outrages me. When he uses lies to get you to follow his bad strategies instead of my good strategy, I refute the lies, but it doesn't seem to matter to you that he was lying. You are still supporting him. If you could see what I see, you would be as outraged as I am, but you don't understand anything that I've explained. That puzzles me. Why are you closing your eyes to truth that is so very obvious? Why do so many other TI's do the same? If you're able to get some results for us, your actions will speak far louder than anything Derrick says about you. This comment shows a total misunderstanding of everything I've said for eight years. Don't you know that if I could work by myself to end your torture, that's what I would have been doing for all those years instead of writing emails to TI's? I have been writing emails for those eight years explaining over and over what TI's must do to make it possible for an attorney to achieve a solution for them. There isn't any attorney in the world who can help you unless and until you do the necessary work to help yourselves. For what it's worth, I believe in you and bless you for your efforts, but I think Derrick is making a little headway too. How can you say that you believe in and bless my efforts when for years you have ignored all my efforts to persuade you to do what you need to do to end the DEW-COINTELPRO torture? Do you even know what my strategy is? I doubt it. You are badly mistaken in thinking that Derrick has made any headway. He has maliciously wasted five years of your time and all the money that he could squeeze out of TI's in that time. He has only harmed you. His intent to harm you instead of help you is unquestionably clear from his five year record. Do you realize how strange it is that TI's have been getting eight years of free legal advice on how they can end their misery, but they have never followed the legal advice? They have instead spent the eight years following ridiculous strategies from non-lawyers. It doesn't do any good for the lawyer to explain why these strategies are certain to fail. It doesn't do any good for him to keep explaining how to follow a strategy that can succeed. TI's are determined to keep following losing strategies for eight years in spite of all the legal advice to do otherwise. No matter how many times they fail, they never give up hope that the non-lawyer can solve their extremely serious problems. They never try following the strategy recommended to them by a lawyer. This makes as much sense as trusting a snake oil salesman to cure cancer.. If the cancer keeps getting worse, do you keep buying more bottles of snake oil or do you turn to an oncologist who has the medical skill to give you the best chance of survival? The unbelievable, inexplicable TI choice has been to keep buying more bottles of snake oil. There is nothing like this self-destructive behavior outside the TI community. Except at places like Jonestown and Waco. Is FFCHS an on-line cult? How else can anyone explain this incredibly strange TI behavior? I truly would appreciate an explanation from anyone who can understand it. I am quite baffled by it. Don't you find anything strange about this, Arielle? If it somehow makes sense to you, would you please explain it to me? Exposing an Infiltrator - Part 5: Derrick's Monstrous Lies In a message dated 4/17/2011 4:40:53 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time, _________@___.com writes: Finally, you could have come to us with your "winning strategy" like most people with suggestions, like people did last night. But not once did you do that...We might have been able to work with your plan, but whatever ideas you had got lost in all the uproar. On April 17, Derrick sent out the above outrageous lie as his excuse for not following an attorney's recommendation of the only strategy that could succeed in bringing an end to DEW-COINTELPRO torture. He claimed that I had never explained my strategy to him. Derrick was lying! He knew that I had explained my strategy to him when I first met him in 2006. He knows that I kept repeating this explanation over and over throughout the years that followed. Derrick always knew what my strategy was, and he always rejected my strategy without giving any explanation. He always led TI's to follow strategies of his own, which he knew would fail. He knew that they would fail because I kept explaining to him why they would fail. My profession is advising clients on the difference between strategies of failure and strategies of success. Derrick's profession is to always follow the strategies of failure. Derrick made a fatal mistake by claiming on April 17 that the reason he never considered my strategy was that I never told him what it was. Not once, says Derrick, did I ever come to him to recommend my winning strategy. If I had done so, he might have worked with me. What a monstrous lie! I cannot count the number of times that I explained to Derrick in the past five years why my strategy could succeed and why each of his strategies was certain to fail. Did Derrick hope that I do not have the documentation to disprove his lie? That was a foolish gamble. I do have the documentation. This was a lie that Derrick could not lie his way out of. I started assembling documentation to prove how thoroughly and how frequently I had explained my strategy to Derrick, but on April 20, I received an email in which Derrick disproved his own lie! In a message dated 4/20/2011 11:02:59 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time, __________@___.com writes: Apparently, we were not the first to ignore his advice. When Bob first came to us, he stated that people wouldn't listen to him, even though he was an attorney. I thought well we'd listen. I did and found that his strategies were often not sound on several topics. After a while I realized why people weren't listening to him. There you have it. Derrick now admits that I told him my strategy after he had claimed three days earlier that I had never told him what it was. He has replaced one monstrous lie with another monstrous lie. Now he is claiming that he rejected my strategy because it was “not sound.” Derrick has never given me any rational reason for rejecting my strategy. Sometimes he has twisted and distorted my strategy to transform it into nonsense. Then he can disagree with the nonsense that he has created, but Derrick has never offered any reason for disagreeing with the strategy that I have explained to him so many times. He can't do so now. Ask him to tell you why my strategy is “not sound.” I guarantee you that he can't give you any rational reason. What incredible arrogance for Derrick, who knows nothing about law, to tell an experienced lawyer that his legal strategy is "not sound:"! Derrick's idea of a good legal strategy was to spend two years and $27,000 preparing to go to court without having any evidence to prove responsibility for harm. Now he is telling you that it was "not sound" for me to tell him and his attorney how to get the evidence needed to make successful litigation possible. Getting this evidence is what my strategy is all about. When we have the evidence to prove responsibility for harm, it won't be necessary to pay an attorney to go to court for us. Attorneys will be chasing after us begging to let them represent us on a contingency. I can't imagine a worse strategy than what Derrick pretended to believe was a good strategy. But he is saying now that my strategy of forcing a congressional investigation in order to obtain the evidence to make successful litigation possible was “not sound.” My strategy could have turned Derrick's bad strategy into a good strategy, but Derrick didn't want you to have a good a strategy. He wanted you to waste your time and money on his bad strategy. My view is the direct opposite of Derrick's. I say that a good strategy is to get the evidence we need before we go to court. Derrick says that a good strategy is to prepare to go court without the evidence needed to win. Derrick tells you how to lose. I tell you how you can win. That's the difference between the way a legitimate TI thinks and the way an infiltrator thinks. Derrick didn't like my strategy because he knew that it could succeed. To Derrick, a good strategy is one that he knows will fail. A bad strategy is one that can succeed. Derrick has always worked to achieve failure because for him, failure is success, and success would be failure. By an infiltrator's standards, Derrick has been highly successful in always achieving failure. If you aren't convinced yet of Derrick's true motives, try asking him these question: Why did he tell you on April 17 that he didn't follow my strategy because I never told him what it was? Why did he reverse himself on April 20 when he told you that he listened to my strategy but rejected it? Why did he decide that my strategy was "not sound"? If he thinks it is "not sound" to follow my strategy for obtaining evidence of responsibility before going to court, does he think it is more sound to follow his strategy of preparing for two years to go to court without evidence? Tell me what Derrick says, and I'll Tell you how he is lying to you. There's no way that Derrick can answer these questions without lying, and there's no way that he can tell lies that will be believable. Derrick, the jig is up! You are exposed as an infiltrator! Legitimate TI's will never give you another dollar for you to use in working against them! Exposing an Infiltrator - Part 6: Repealing a Protective Law -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Good and bad legal strategies for achieving a TI solution Date: Fri, 30 Jun 2006 21:33:11 -0700 From: Bob S To: tedgunderson1, Gordon ormand, dcr618, "Jim McCue" To the lobbying team: I am the only experienced attorney who is also an experienced TI. I have been trying for years, without success, to persuade TI activists to follow effective legal strategies instead of ineffective or harmful strategies. The difference between good and bad legal strategies is what makes the difference between success and failure in any difficult project. Nothing could be more difficult than attempting to achieve a legal solution to TI problems. Using the best possible legal strategies will not guarantee success for TI's, but using invalid, ineffective, or harmful legal strategies will guarantee failure. It is thus of the most extreme importance for activists to follow valid and effective legal strategies and to avoid invalid, ineffective or harmful strategies. We will then have a fighting chance. Using bad legal strategies gives us no chance at all. Dedicated activists, with the best of intentions, do not have the legal knowledge and experience to judge what strategies are valid or invalid; effective or ineffective: beneficial or harmful. This is not a criticism of our activists. It takes three years of law school and a good amount of experience in the practice of law before a lawyer reaches the point of being well qualified to devise and recommend to clients the best legal strategies for achieving their objectives. The average person, undertaking a difficult legal project by using his own judgment is certain to make legal blunders. TI activists have not recognized the need for obtaining and following sound legal advice on the best legal strategies. They have made bad legal choices and have wasted a great amount of effort and capability on strategies that are doomed to failure. The same effort and capability applied to good legal strategies might have produced real achievement by now. You provide a current example. If you had asked me, I could have recommended legislative proposals which would be most effective in benefiting TI's. I did not know what you were doing until I came across Derrick's website and read that you were going to ask for repeal of federal laws that supposedly authorize electronic tests on involuntary subjects. I then wrote to Gordon, Derrick, and Ted on June 13: I assure you that there are no laws authorizing such experiments on involuntary subjects. The government criminals who do these experiments are violating laws and the Constitution. They are not acting under authorization of any law. Do you have a written legislative proposal that I may see? It is very late to suggest changes, but in case there is a major error of the kind that Derrick's words suggest, you need to know about it before it is too late. In the legislative proposal, which you sent to me after the lobbying was over, you say that you are asking for repeal of Sec. (a) and (b) of 50 U.S.C. 32, Sec. 1520a. You can't get repeal of part of a law and leave the rest of the law standing senselessly by itself. Repealing Sec. (a) and (b) would require repealing all of 50 U.S.C. 32, Sec. 1520a. This is a protective law that we don't want repealed! It is the only federal law that specifically prohibits tests on involuntary subjects. Asking for repeal of this protective law is a major error in legal strategy. The harm is not that you will get the law repealed. The harm is that it makes TIs seem paranoid and crazy when they ask for repeal of a protective and beneficial law. It gives our enemies good grounds to argue that if we find false, negative meaning in a protective law that prohibits experiments on involuntary subjects, we must also be finding false, negative meanings in all the facts and experiences that we need to prove. You say that people without a legal background could interpret this law as making it “legal to experiment or test chemical agents, biological agents, or electronic equipment on a civilian population.” This is like saying that a law which permits driving 65 miles per hour on the freeway should be repealed because someone without a legal background might misinterpret it as making it legal to drive 65 miles per hour in a school zone. You don't want to repeal a good law because of a fear that someone might make an absurd and irrational misinterpretation of it. If a beneficial law is unclear and open to misinterpretation, you should ask to have it clarified, not repealed. There is no need for clarification of 50 U.S.C. 32, Sec. 1520a. It is not at all ambiguous nor is it open to misinterpretation. It is as clear as any law can be in prohibiting tests on involuntary subjects. This is a good law that we need to have expanded, not repealed! In your legislative proposal, you quote only Sec. (a) and (b) of this law. You omit Sec (c). Any law can be misinterpreted by someone who reads only part of it. This is not an excuse or justification for violating what the full law says. Everyone is held responsible for knowing the full law. Ignorance of the law is not an excuse. Sec. (a) and (b) authorize certain forms of chemical and biological tests (but not electronic tests). Sec. (c) requires advance, informed consent by all subjects of the tests which are authorized in Sec. (a) and (b). The law thus prohibits the specified tests on involuntary subjects. Here are the three sections of the law together: (a) Prohibited activities The Secretary of Defense may not conduct (directly or by contract)â€” (1)any test or experiment involving the use of a chemical agent or biological agent on a civilian population; or (2)any other testing of a chemical agent or biological agent on human subjects. (b) Exceptions Subject to subsections (c), (d), and (e) of this section, the prohibition in subsection (a) of this section does not apply to a test or experiment carried out for any of the following purposes: (1)Any peaceful purpose that is related to a medical, therapeutic, pharmaceutical, agricultural, industrial, or research activity. (2)Any purpose that is directly related to protection against toxic chemicals or biological weapons and agents. (3)Any law enforcement purpose, including any purpose related to riot control. (c) Informed consent required The Secretary of Defense may conduct a test or experiment described in subsection (b) of this section only if informed consent to the testing was obtained from each human subject in advance of the testing on that subject. (Emphasis added.) This law applies only to the Dept. of Defense. Sec. (a) prohibits DOD from conducting chemical or biological testing on humans except for the three limited purposes specified in Sec. (b). Sec. (c) permits DOD tests for the three limited purposes in Sec (b) only if advance, informed consent is obtained from each subject of the tests. Any lawyer or non-lawyer who reads the full law can see that: It applies only to tests involving use of a chemical or biological agent. It contains no authorization for electronic tests under any circumstances. It gives no authorization for tests by any agency or organization other than the Department of Defense. It limits tests by the Department of Defense to the three specific purposes in Sec. (b). It permits tests for those three purposes only if informed consent to the tests is obtained from subjects of the tests in advance of the testing. In a single sentence: This law prohibits chemical or biological tests on human subjects without obtaining advance, informed consent from each subject. There is no possible justification or excuse for anyone to interpret this law as authorizing tests on involuntary subjects. Instead of asking for repeal of this law, you should be asking for expansion of its coverage in these ways: Include electronic tests as well as biological and chemical tests. Make the requirement of advance, informed consent applicable to experiments by all local or federal government entities and all private organizations and individuals. Add criminal penalties for violations. With this expanded coverage, you will have the equivalent of the Glen legislation. The Glen bill also permits experiments with advance, informed consent. We can't prohibit all experiments nor do we need to. We only need to prohibit experiments conducted without obtaining advance, informed consent. I recommend seeking expansion of this law as a better strategy than seeking enactment of the Glen bill because you have a much better chance of obtaining legislation to expand coverage of an existing law than you have of resurrecting and enacting a legislative package that was previously defeated. The other law you cite applies only to electronic surveillance devices. You can't get repeal of a law authorizing the testing of such devices. It would be of no benefit to us if you could do so. Asking for repeal of this law confuses the issue and wastes limited bargaining power on an impossible and useless request. The first rule of good lobbying is to ask for things that are feasible to obtain and which will be most beneficial for your purpose. Repeal of the surveillance law is impossible and would not be at all beneficial to us. Seeking expansion of the protection in 50 U.S.C. 32, Sec. 1520a, is desirable, but it is not the most important thing that we need to do. This alone will not give us a realistic remedy. It fails to address our real problem. Laws do not give us protection. Only enforcement of laws gives us protection. Unenforced and unenforceable laws are of no benefit to us. A common misconception among TIs is that if we get a law prohibiting misuse of DEWs, this will put an end to the harm we suffer. This would be true if criminals obeyed laws, but if they obeyed laws, we wouldn't need a new law. We would have adequate protection under existing state laws; federal regulations; and the U.S. Constitution. State laws prohibit inflicting physical harm on any person. Federal regulations prohibit federal agencies from conducting experiments on human subjects without obtaining advance, informed consent. The Constitution prohibits cruel and unusual punishment by the federal government and prohibits it from imposing any form of punishment without due process of law. How much more theoretical protection do we need? If you can obtain either enactment of the Glen bill or the equivalent result by expanding coverage of 50 U.S.C. 32, Sec. 1520a, you will still have only unreal, theoretical, legal protection for TIs. You will have added another law to the list of laws that perp criminals are now violating. This will change nothing. Since criminals don't obey the law or the Constitution, we can't solve our problems by obtaining enactment of a new law or a dozen new laws prohibiting acts that are already prohibited. Our most fundamental need is not for new prohibitions but for an adequate and realistic means of enforcing our right to protection under existing law. If you and other TIs want to lobby for legislation that would enable TIs to obtain a realistic means of enforcing our right to protection under existing law or under any new law that you may be able to obtain, I can explain the legislation that is needed to achieve this objective. I can also explain what must be done to produce the possibility of obtaining enactment of legislation that we need. Ordinary lobbying won't accomplish anything. Much more is necessary. I received the email about your new legislative proposals after writing the above. You have added additional proposals that won't benefit TIs. It's a shotgun approach with none of the shots hitting the mark. Remedies based on false answers or theories are a distraction and a waste of your effort and bargaining power. With your present approach, congress might, at most, throw you a bone in the form of a useless remedy. You should put all your muscle behind real remedies and discard useless remedies. Where do you think the harm is coming from? We have the knowledge and evidence to answer this question and to prove the truth of the answer. The question must be answered, and to be effective, a remedy must be based on the answer. To get the remedy, we must prove the truth. We have available the evidence that can prove this truth. More later. Please forward this to other members of your team and to all others who may be interested. If we can agree on legal strategies and objectives, we will need much more help to do the work necessary to have hope of achieving the objectives. Exposing an Infiltrator - Part 7: World Day Debacle Download World Day document. World Day.pdf Dear Derrick, As coordinator of the International Coalition and World Day to End the Silent Holocaust, I thank you again for sponsoring the first World Day teleconference. It is important now to discuss and clarify some issues of great importance to our global movement. I have been working with international and national leaders committed to our freedom and to developing the coalition on the most solid ground. Our second Annual World Day to End the Silent Holocaust, 2007, is developing well with new organizations, nations, and their victim leaders joining the coalition by committing to participate in World Day 2007, each in their unique way. Regrettably, because of FFCHS's public actions, contrary to what you and I had verbally agreed on, Derrick, there is confusion among the TI community about your organization's role within the international structure. FFCHS appears to be attempting to take over and change the direction of the International Coalition. There is very grave concern about actions by FFCHS which seem to be directly contrary to the interests of all TIs. The last thing TIs need is more chaos or ill feelings in their lives and more disruption of their work. To avoid further damage to all TI's, I feel that it is my responsibility to put these questions to you directly and ask you for answers and explanations that may help to alleviate the deep concern that now exists. Earlier this year, I contacted various people about my plans to develop an international coalition that would coordinate World Day each year and strengthen the TI movement globally. You agreed that FFCHS would sponsor one aspect of World Day: a teleconference. Your sponsorship of the World Day teleconference for 2006 did not give you a right to control or define or alter the purpose of World Day, but this is what you proceeded to do. FFCHS began an attempt to take over World Day as its own project and excluding me from planning. You suggested that I work directly with your public relations person so that advertising would be correct, but even my input for publicity was ignored. FFCHS participants were told about World Day as if it were a creation of your group. They were not told that World Day was the project of the International Coalition and that FFCHS was a participating member of the International Coalition. I was not included in or informed of this planning until Julianne suggested that my name be added to mailings on this subject. I learned only recently about a FFCHS telephone conference, which you held on September 30, at which time your group discussed and decided upon your name for the International Coalition, which I had founded and over which FFCHS had no right to assert any such control. Instead of working with me within the International Coalition for the purpose of advancing the interests of TI's worldwide, FFCHS was attempting to take control of the Coalition and of World Day, and it was trying to exercise control in ways that were harmful to all TIs. I cannot permit this to continue. Let me review the ways in which FFCHS has been acting contrary to the interests of the TIs that it is supposed to represent: In early September, Aaron announced to persons active in FFCHS an advance press release for World Day. Bob S protested strongly to the content of this press release because it falsely attributed all the harm that we suffer to a vast number of independent, local stalking groups instead of to government. Examples of the FFCHS imaginary local stalking groups and their targets were: “Whistleblowers targeted by corporations; activists targeted by opposing groups; defendants targeted by plaintiffs; plaintiffs targeted by defendants; children targeted by pedophiles; homosexuals targeted by religious groups.” The FFCHS press release seemed to be designed to make our true experiences seem like impossible paranoid delusions. You rejected Bob's opinion, saying that the press release had been approved by your core committee of members. You did not send me a copy of the press release, but I later read Bob's objections to it, and I fully concur with them. I would have so stated at the time if you had asked for my opinion. Because of protests by other TI's who learned about your damaging press release, you later relented and offered Bob an opportunity to edit the press release to explain why persons who are knowledgeable about this subject place responsibility for our persecution upon central governments. Bob wrote this explanation into the press release and submitted it. A few days later, your inner circle announced a final version of the press release with everything that Bob had written about government responsibility removed and with the impossible, paranoid delusions restored. Aaron's excuse for removing the truth about government responsibity and replacing it with paranoid delusions was that you "can't make everybody happy.” By turning your press release into a presentation of paranoid delusions instead of a presentation of truth, you were not making anyone happy other than the inner circle of FFCHS. I and other TI's who wanted to communicate truth to the public were outraged. Bob again objected strongly but to no avail. Having subsequently read Bob's objections, I can say that he was expressing the views of myself and of all well-informed TIs. He was seeking to communicate to the public and to the media an explanation of our situation, which would be understandable and believable. Such communication of truth to the public and to the media was supposed to be the primary purpose of World Day. I find it puzzling and disturbing that a few unidentified people within FFCHS would choose to censor from the World Day press release the most important information that we need to communicate. The strange reason that you gave for removing this vital explanation from the press release was that World Day was an international event and that you thought it inappropriate to provide an explanation supported only by historical documentation in the United States and not in other countries. Since I am the founder and organizer of the International Coalition and the coordinator of World Day, why did you not ask me what I think is appropriate for a press release designed to represent the international TI community? If you had asked me, I would have said that the evidence of government responsibility in the U.S. is of enormous value to people in other countries in proving the probability of the same explanation being applicable to them and to their own governments. I wonder how you can think that no explanation for a strange mystery is better that the fully documented explanation which Bob tried to put into the press release? And I wonder why a few people within FFCHS, whom you don't identify, took it upon themselves to dictate to the International Coalition this important policy decision about World Day. You rejected what Bob described as the present “golden opportunity” to interest media in a story about major crime within U.S. government at a time when media is again finding it fashionable to investigate wrongdoing within the U.S. government. Government responsibility for our torment was discussed throughout the conference. No other explanation was suggested. Bob's press release accurately reflected the World Day conference. Your press release served to make all TI's seem irrational and delusional. It was contrary to the fundamental purpose of World Day. Because of the great disappointment, which I and others felt in the weak and misleading press release which you issued, I decided to issue on behalf of the International Coalition a post press release describing the discussion of government responsibility during the conference. I asked Bob to provide me with what he had written on this subject for the advance press release, which you had cut out of the advance press release. I incorporated this wording into the Coalition press release and sent it to Julianne who had volunteered help in editing. When Julianne returned her edited version to me, I was surprised to find that she had entirely removed Bob's explanation of government responsibility. Because of communications problems, Bob had been unable to reach me and to participate in editing until after Julianne had signed off on it. I told Bob that I wanted the explanation of government responsibility restored to the press release. Bob rewrote this explanation. After working through five drafts, we reached a final version with which we were both pleased. Bob sent this final version to FFCHS participants on Sunday evening, October 22, with instructions on obtaining media fax numbers in each person's local community and faxing to them. I sent the release to TIs in other countries with the request that they add local contact information. I was happy in the belief that we had finished a very good press release which told the story that your advance press release had failed to tell. Because of communications problems, I did not learn until two days later that on Monday morning, John Allman began sending to everyone extremely negative email about the press release. He denounced it as “rubbish” and as a “perp psyop.” He harshly criticized Bob for no reason other than the coincidence of the Coalition initials, ICESH, matching the initials of an existing environmental organization. Such negative comments prevented anyone else from faxing the release. To satisfy John, Bob promptly amended the release to use the full name of the International Coalition without the initials, but this was not enough for John. He falsely claimed that I had given him authority to amend the release, and he proceeded to edit the wording to suit himself. Bob later challenged John to produce this authorization from me. He could not do so because I had given him no such authorization. John announced that he would not fax the release until I approved his changes. If I did not approve his changes by the end of the week, he said that he would write his own press release to replace the one that I had sent him. John had no right and certainly no authority from me to redo the press release after Bob and I had put it in final form to our satisfaction. This press release was a project of the International Coalition, not a project of FFCHS. We only asked your people to help us do the faxing. We did not request or authorize John or anyone in FFCHS to take over the project or to change the content in any way. Blockage of my email prevented me from learning about John's hijacking of the Coalition's press release until Tuesday. I was appalled to learn that our success had been turned into failure by the wrongful actions of one person. I wrote to John about the necessity of meeting a time deadline for a press release. I told him that he did not need to use the release if he chose not to do so. I said that I took offense and deserved an apology for his accusation that the press release was a “psyop” and a piece of “rubbish.” I received no apology for these insults nor for the destruction of the press release by delay and by unjustified attack on its content. Derrick, you defended John's destruction of the Coalition press release by your astonishing statement that important FFCHS documents cannot be perfect and ready to go at the first draft and that they must go through a few versions to get them right. What makes your statement so astonishing is that you were treating a press release of the International Coalition as if it were FFCHS property. You were asserting a right to control, to alter, and to destroy the Coalition press release at your will, regardless of my objections and regardless of objections by Bob, who spoke on my behalf. It is wrong to try to seize control of another organization and its projects even if you have good intentions. What concerns me even more than John's wrongful seizure and your wrongful approval of it is that it was done for the purpose of destroying the Coalition's project and thus harming all TIs. You both know as well as I do that by delaying a press release, you are destroying it. This is what John did under his false claim of authority from me. You approved and supported this destruction under your false pretense that the Coalition's press release was the property of FFCHS. I can find no possible way to interpret John's actions and your approval thereof other than as intentional destruction of a Coalition project which was of great importance in trying to salvage the value of World Day as a means of communicating truth to the public and to the media. This was the sixth repetition of the same harmful pattern of concealing government responsibility -- a pattern severely harmful to TI interests which you and the rest of the FFCHS inner circle have shown your determination to follow. FIRST: You tried to force on everyone a final version of a press release that concealed truth about government responsibility and presented the public would interpret as wild paranoid delusions about a vast number of independent stalking groups operating throughout the nation. SECOND: You responded to TI objections to the first press release by letting Bob write a press release which explained government responsibility, but you then again cut his explanation of government responsibility out of the press release and restored the paranoid, delusions which had produced the strong, general TI protest to your first version of the press release. THIRD: After I obtained Bob's wording about government responsibility to put in the Coalition's post press release, Julianne volunteered to assist in editing. Her editing consisted of cutting out the entire explanation of government responsibility. FOURTH: After Bob and I put government responsibility back into the release and went through five more drafts to produce the best result we could manage in time for faxes to go out on Monday morning, you told Bob, in effect, that you and others in FFCHS were too exhausted to participate in faxing the press release that he had sent you. FIFTH: John seized control of the press release under the false claim that I had authorized him to amend it. He prevented others from faxing by condemning our work as “rubbish” and as a “perp psyop.” Under the false pretense of making essential changes, John only degraded what we had written and delayed it until the time value of the news had been destroyed. SIXTH: You, Derrick, endorsed John's wrongful seizure of the Coalition's press release by treating the Coalition and the Coalition's press release as the property of FFCHS for you to destroy at will. While you were following this policy of concealing government responsibility, you knew about the dissatisfaction and concern that you were producing among TI's who had learned of what you were doing. You knew that Aaron had received emails with strong complaints about his removal of government responsibility from Bob's revision of the press release, but you disregarded all criticism and steadfastly maintained your determination to present to the public an unbelievable, impossible, delusional story instead of the understandable, believable, and provable truth. This consistent, detrimental policy of FFCHS was a direct violation of the intended purpose of World Day, which was to educate the public as to the truth about government responsibility for secret DEW experiments on us. You did this in spite of the total agreement by all participants in the conference that government is the source of the persecution. The demonstrated purpose of you and the other persons mentioned above not to educate the public but to deceive the public. You and others in FFCHS were working to turn World Day into Paranoia Day. Your response to Bob's work in trying to make World Day what it was supposed to be was to take him off your mailing list and to shut him out of further discussions. You had previously demonstrated that you would not follow good legal advice that Bob gave you. Now you were demonstrating that you did not even want to hear good legal advice. All these facts raise questions of grave concern to me and to all other TIs whose lives are at stake. It is very clear that FFCHS has been consistently acting contrary to the interests of all TIs. You owe them an explanation for your concealment of government responsibility and for your rejection of all legal recommendation that would benefit TIs. In regard to your attempted takeover of the International Coalition and its projects, I will tell you now that I do not accept and will not permit a seizure by you of an international organization that represents TIs worldwide nor of the World Day project which belongs to the Coalition. I am confident that the worldwide TI community will join me in opposing any further takeover attempts by you. Not only are your takeover attempts improper and unethical, but they are contrary to the interests of all TIs. The objectives of FFCHS, as manifested by your actions, are directly contrary to the objectives of the International Coalition. Our objective is to prove the truth about government violation of our human rights. You have demonstrated in six ways that the FFCHS objective is to conceal government responsibility. Out objective is to follow the best legal advice we can find and to pursue the best legal strategies available. Your demonstrated objective is to reject the best legal advice available and to pursue ineffective strategies. If FFCHS should change its objectives and begin to work for the advancement of TI interests, the International Coalition will welcome your participation in World Day 2007. Otherwise, the Coalition will welcome the participation of all individual TIs or other TI organizations that want to pursue the objectives of the Coalition instead of the present contrary objectives of FFCHS. As sponsor of World Day 2006, you agreed to pay for the cost of the conference call. I will forward this bill to you when I receive it. Do not think that your payment for the conference call is a payment for World Day or a payment for the International Coalition. World Day and the International Coalition are not for sale. Not at any price! World Day was and is the creation and the responsibility of the International Coalition and not of FFCHS. The International Coalition and World Day belong to all TIs. I am defending them on behalf of all TIs. I intend to see that they will be managed for the true benefit of all TIs. I will not let them be managed or controlled by FFCHS. I will not let you use them for purposes that are contrary to the interests of TIs. I regret that the actions of FFCHS have made it necessary for me to spell out these subjects so strongly and emphatically. I hope that it will not be necessary for me to do so again. If you have any explanation for your six part program of concealing the truth about government responsibility for DEW experiments on involuntary subjects, I would like to hear it, and I am sure that the worldwide community of TIs would like to hear it. Attached are two letters containing more detailed information about the facts discussed above. If you have any questions or disagreement about any of the points I have made, please let me know. Deborah Dupre' World Day to End the Silent Holocaust, Campaign Coordinator. Exposing an Infiltrator - Part 8: Derrick Robinson Trapped At Last By His Own Words! On 10/20/2013 6:31 AM, ______ wrote: Let's rock the boat a little with some fucking truth; More Evidence Derrick Robinson is part of our targeting. If it weren't for whoever found this correspondence it would have remained buried. The person who found it should be the President of FFCHS. How the hell would you not remember Aaron Alexis emailing in about this? Because Robinson is part of it!!!!!! I strongly agree with you, Jeff. I've been waiting for someone to raise the obvious question that you have asked. It is not believable that Derrick forgot about receiving Aaron's letter. Keeping quiet about the letter until someone else forced it into the open is totally consistent with Derrick's past ten years of anti-TI policies. But that's only one tiny item in ten years of evidence proving beyond any shadow of a doubt that Derrick is an infiltrator. As you know, I am a retired lawyer and a TI. Ten years ago, when Derrick was starting his website and his false pretense of working to advance the interests of TI's, I offered him the benefit of my legal knowledge and experience in applying strategies that offered the best hope of achieving a TI solution. Invariably, Derrick and his associates rejected and opposed effective legal strategies that I recommended. He always insisted upon following useless and harmful strategies. No amount of legal explanation and legal advice from me could ever change this. Derrick has no knowledge or understanding of the law and the legal system, but he was always determined to reject advice from an experienced attorney who did have such knowledge and understanding. Such understanding is necessary in order to know what strategies can possibly work and what strategies cannot possibly work. Rejection of such legal strategy advice would be incredibly stupid behavior from an honest leader. It would utterly disqualify him from being a leader. Derrick is not that incredibly stupid. His behavior can only be explained as the behavior of an infiltrator who is working to defeat the cause that he pretends to be advancing. For ten years now, Derrick has been 100% consistent in his policy of defeating TI's by leading them to follow strategies that have no possible chance of success and which have made them appear to the public as the delusional "tin-foil hat" community. I have never been able to make TI's understand that Derrick has been working always to harm them and never to help them. Derrick has now clearly proved by his own words what he has been proving to me over the past ten years by his consistant anti-TI choices. As soon as the Aaron Alexis story hit the news, the first thing a legitimate TI leader would do is to search through past correspondence to see if Aaron had ever written to FFCHS. Derrick pretends that it didn't occur to him to do this obvious thing, but it's much worse than this. Derrick pretends that he doesn't remember that he personally had corresponded with Aaron several times immediately prior to the shooting rampage. Look again at Derrick's own words: "It appears that Aaron Alexis had contacted our organization just prior to the shooting spree that happened at the Washington Navy Yard. Several email exchanges then ensued between Aaron Alexis and myself that clearly showed that a) he had come under physical attack from microwaves and was experiencing voice to skull technology, but was not able to process the situation until he arrived at our site. b) he had come across some information at the Washington Navy Yard that convinced him that someplace inside there was a source of our ELF targeting - establishing a motive for the attacks!!!" (Emphasis added. Full text is below.) Source: http://www.mynewsletterbuilder.com/email/newsletter/1411883353 Derrick admits that he had personally engaged in "several email exchanges" with Aaron "just prior to the shooting spree," but he claims to have forgotten all about this correspondence when the shootings by the person with whom he was corresponding hit the news immediately after this correspondence. Could any attempted cover-up of the truth that we need to prove be more openly evident? Derrick Robinson has finally trapped himself by his own words! This exposal of Derrick's failed attempt to cover up major news of benefit to TI's is perfectly consistent with his ten-year record of doing always what an infiltrator would do and never doing what any legitimate TI leader would do. I have been hearing very obvious lies from Derrick for ten years, but this lie tops them all in its blatancy and outrageousness. Any TI who still believes such lies from Derrick deserves to remain a TI forever. Let's demand that Derrick publish all his correspondence with Aaron to see what else Derrick claims to have "forgotten." As long as TI's continue to let this infiltrator lead them constantly in the wrong direction, they will never have any possibility whatsoever of achieving a solution. Please feel free to forward this to your list. I urge anyone receiving a copy to forward it to other TI's, particularly to those who have been deceived into believing that Derrick is trying to help them. Bob S Copyright Â© 2013, CointelproContinuesToday.com, All rights reserved.