Derrick Robinson - Exposing The Most Harmful Infiltrator Among Us (by BobS)

[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)— (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 © 2013, CointelproContinuesToday.com, All rights reserved.