The Bollyn Trial, by Christopher Bollyn

Gathered together in one place, for easy access, an agglomeration of writings and images relevant to the Rapeutation phenomenon.

Re: The Bollyn Trial, by Christopher Bollyn

Postby admin » Mon Oct 02, 2017 11:06 pm

Commentary: The Right Against Government Retaliation
May 13, 2007

Across the nation, judges, prosecutors and the police are running amok, engaging in a rape and pillage of the U.S. Constitution, abusing the laws, their briefcases, gavels, badges and their black robes to terrorize, retaliate and intimidate members of the citizenry who have the courage to stand up to their arbitrary and wrongful arrests, malicious prosecutions and rulings, who seek to expose the cover-ups of abuse and corruption in the justice system and challenge their abuse of parties whom appear before them seeking justice and redress of grievances.

The outing of the firing of federal prosecutors based on politics and the egregious prosecutorial misconduct by North Carolina prosecutor Mike Nifong in the Duke rape case are clear indications that our Republic is on a slippery slope to destroying democracy.

Police are abusing their powers, arresting people who dare to criticize the government, arresting people for taking pictures of police officers or simply taking pictures in public places, who wear a t-shirt bashing President Bush and for reporters who dare to look further than the news release handed out and work to expose government corruption. The prosecutors and low level courts are condoning it, resulting in ruining people’s lives, causing wrongful incarcerations, trying to label their critics as cuckoo, all in an effort to cover up their wrongful actions, in essence fueling the cancer of governmental interference and corruption that has become pervasive in today’s society.

Complete article online at: http://www.northcountrygazette.org/2007 ... taliation/
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 24666
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

Re: The Bollyn Trial, by Christopher Bollyn

Postby admin » Mon Oct 02, 2017 11:08 pm

The Bollyn Trial - Truth vs. Plea Bargain
by Christopher Bollyn
May 4, 2007

A Lebanese Druze friend of mine told me that the lie is the mother of all sins because the lie allows all other sins and crimes to be committed.

To be falsely accused of crimes and forced to defend oneself against false testimony in court is a very challenging and stressful position for anyone. Seeing how the evidence that could exonerate me has been destroyed or withheld and how my accusers have crafted lies to use against me, I often feel quite discouraged and depressed about trying to fight for the truth in a trial.

The process is extremely costly and stressful, as I now realize, and something most people are simply unable or unwilling to go through. Most criminal cases in the United States are settled in a compromise plea bargain in which the defendant accepts some guilt and a reduced penalty even if he or she is completely innocent.

I don't want to accept a plea bargain because I am innocent - all I did was call 911 for help. I know that I did not assault, or intend to assault anyone when I was unexpectedly tackled and TASERed by plainclothed men in body armor in my front yard. There was no arrest prior to their assault and there was no resistance when they pinned me down and TASERed me. I did not commit the crimes I am accused of: aggravated assault and resisting a peace officer.

While I am accused of resisting a peace officer, the men who came to my house were not uniformed and did not identify themselves to me as Hoffman Estates police working undercover. They were loitering around in an unmarked car.

When I see the wall of lies I am facing, I often feel that it is quite hopeless to try and fight these charges. I know that I have many supporters who want me to succeed in this case and who have donated to help in this effort. I am very grateful for their support and know that without them I could not challenge these trumped-up charges.

But doubts and gnawing fears are never far away and I often ask myself if it is really worth the struggle. As Epictetus said: "It is not death or hardship that is a fearful thing, but the fear of death and hardship."

Today, I received a most inspiring letter from a supporter who tells me why I must fight these charges. This letter gives me substantial spiritual encouragement in this legal battle I face. While the letter is addressed to me, its universal message is for anyone who is forced, as I am, to defend him or herself against false accusations.

* * * * * * * *

May 3, 2007

Dear Chris,

I appreciate L.'s heartfelt letter to you of April 30, 2007, and the concern that it evinces for your family. I especially appreciate, however, its last two paragraphs. They illuminate the true mettle of her soul and show forth a Woman who is intent on plumbing the depths of injustice for the sake (some day) of (more) justice for us all (as well as for herself).

One could argue that the issue of a plea bargain is a political issue, but, I prefer to think of it fundamentally as a moral and, ultimately, as a spiritual issue. (All Bible quotes below are from the KJV translation.)

On the one hand, God requires us to "submit [our]selves to every ordinance of man [which was designed] for the Lord's sake [and/or which promotes His good purposes]" (I Peter 2:13a), to "confess …our faults" (James 5:16) when we violate such ordinances (as well as God’s own Laws and precepts), and to “agree with [our] adversary quickly whiles [we] are[e] in the way with him, lest at any time [he] deliver [us] to the judge and the judge deliver [us] to the officer, and [we] be cast into prison” (Matthew 5:25).

There are some things, however, that we must do in order to determine whether we have violated any such an “ordinance of man.” Firstly, we must not just presume that we are innocent when we are not, for God hates presumption (see Numbers 15:30; Psalm 19:13; II Peter 2:10).

Secondly, we must earnestly have our souls “examined” by God through prayer (see Psalm 26:2; 139:23-24), by our own deep soul-searching (see I Corinthians 11:28a; II Corinthians 13:5), and by the counsel or admonitions of our friends and/or enemies (see Proverbs 27:6,17; I Corinthians 9:3).

And thirdly, if we survive all of this examination and come out with a well-informed, tested, and yet still good conscience (see Acts 24:16; Romans 2:15; 9:1;13:5; II Corinthians 1:12; 4:2; I Timothy 1:5,19; Titus 1:15; Hebrews 9:14; 13:18; I Peter 3:16, 21), then we must draw the proper conclusions and conduct ourselves honorably in accordance therewith.

How then should we live? Again, on the one hand, God requires us not to be purposelessly or unnecessarily “contentious” (see Proverbs 26:21; Romans 2:8) and to "live peaceably with all men," but only "if it be possible [and] as much as lieth in [us]" (Romans 13:18), the capacity for which will vary with each individual, so the Scripture implies. So we see that there is some wiggle room here.

On the other hand, God also requires us to “know the truth" (John 8:32a; I Timothy 4:3), to “cho[o]se… the…truth” (Psalm 119:30a), to "belie[ve]...the truth" (II Thessalonians 2:13b), to "obey the truth" (Romans 2:8, Galatians 3:1, 5:7, I Peter 1:22), to “acknowledge[e] the truth” (II Timothy 2:25b; Titus 1:1), to "bear witness unto the truth" (John 18:37), to “testify of the truth” (III John 3), to "speak the truth" (Ephesians 4:15, I Timothy 2:7b), to "tell the truth" (Galatians 4:16), to "say the truth" (II Corinthians 12:6b), to "say nothing but the truth" (II Chronicles 18:15), to “lie not against the truth” (James 3:14), to not “err from the truth” (James 5:19), to “do the truth” (I John 1:6), to “walk in the truth” (John III:3), to “live” the truth (Galatians 2:20; Philippians 1:21; Hebrews 13:18b; I Peter 2:24b; 4:6c), and even to be indwelled by the “truth” (II John 2) so that “the truth…shall be with us forever” (II John 2), thus making us literally “of the truth,” which supreme spiritual Reality “assures our hearts before [God]” (I John 3:19), after which “the truth shall make [us] free” (John 8:32b).

Notice that the truth cannot simply “make us free,” if we just rely on attorneys, or on the actual facts, or on the inherent justice of the System, or on the common sense of jurors, or even on our own perfunctory prayers. “The truth shall make us free” only if we comply with all of the conditions as set forth in these paragraphs (and perhaps with some others as well).

Now I ask you: after you have been drenched in all the truths of the preceding paragraphs and after you have performed the requisite self-examination as indicated above, do you really believe it is the truth that you committed a crime on that fateful day last August?

If not, and knowing that to “lie against” and to “err from” “the truth” is to sin and that to sin – especially to be counted among “liars –…[is to] have…part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone, which is the second death” (Revelation 21:8), are you really prepared to confess to the court (and hence to all the world throughout all time) that you committed a crime?

Will you be able to live with such a betrayal, knowing how it could influence your children, should they ever conclude there from that they too can commit any old indiscretion or crime, lie about it, and get off lightly? Is that the kind of legacy that you wish to leave to them?

Or would you rather see them suffer some economic hardship (as have millions of other children throughout history who still grew up to become great men and women in spite of it) and grow up being incredibly proud of their father and being influenced, perhaps, to become, in their own ways, as great a prophet as their father is in (controversial) truth-telling?

Could you ask for more blessings for your children that they should grow up to become equally as indefatigable and on fire for the truth as you have been?

The Bible reports that John the Baptist told the (controversial) truth about the sins (which at that time included the unlawfulness) of King Herod and got beheaded for his (controversially) truthful efforts, and Jesus praised John for being the greatest prophet that Israel had, up until that time, ever produced (Luke 7:28a).

God warns us that a life of (controversial) truth-telling (and the telling of all really deep truth is controversial), i.e. that a life of prophecy – for truth-telling is what prophecy is biblically defined as – is not a bed of roses.

On the one hand, it is much easier in many instances not to prophesy or to tell the (controversial) truth. If, on the other hand, we are led to embark upon a career of prophecy – of telling the (controversial) truth – then we must be consistent (or, in biblical language, “non-dissembling”) in our truth telling (see Psalm 26;4; Proverbs 26:24; Jeremiah 42:20; Galatians 2:13).

“Let your communication be ‘yea, yea’ [or] ‘nay, nay.’ Whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil” (Matthew 5:37).

Telling the truth on the Internet but not in court doesn’t wash! God warns us that “all [who] will live godly…shall suffer persecution” (II Timothy 3:12), but in that persecution, “this is thankworthy, if a man for conscience toward [the truth] endure grief, suffering wrongfully. For what glory is it, if, when ye be buffeted for your faults, ye shall take it patiently? But if, when ye do well and suffer for it, ye take it patiently, this is acceptable with God. For even hereunto were ye called, because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example that [w]e should follow in his steps” (I Peter 2:19-21).

In other words, an honorable man (who honors the truth by consistently telling it) can take solace in God’s promise to honor him, if not in this vale of tears, then in heaven. Pie in the sky, you say? You don’t believe in the Bible?

Well, I say that even if an atheist could prove that there is no transcendent truth or God or heaven (which he can’t), that still wouldn’t negate the value to your children and to all others who are watching you of your heroic stand for truth, like that of Socrates, would it? Socrates could have run away (either by fleeing or by compromising the truth), but he chose to stand for and to tell the (controversial) truth (as he saw it), and his example shall continue to inspire the hearts of secularists (and Christians alike) throughout all time.

Isn’t that alone a worthy legacy for any honorable man and his family? Can economic hardship of one’s family ever justify a serious betrayal of the truth which a false confession of crime always entails? No, God honors those who honor Him, and as for children and/or wife left behind? “God setteth the solitary in families; He [also] bringeth out those which are bound with chains” (Psalm 68:6a+b).

Practically speaking, I do not wish to belittle the consequences to you and your family of a possible conviction and incarceration, which could conceivably happen, now that so many crimes and torts are being committed by state actors in your prosecution, but I still believe that:

1) you could easily convince a jury of your innocence – even without an attorney – just by prophetically telling the (controversial) truth and letting the chips fall where they may;

2) if convicted, you may be able to induce someone out there to finance your appeal, which must be overturned at some higher level, but if not, you would surely, as L. suggests, only get probation or supervision and, at most a nominal fine or a few days or weeks of community service.

None of these most likely worst-case consequences – not even a few months or a year in jail – would even come close in my view to the horrible prospect of confessing to the court and to all mankind (because, remember, you have the whole world watching your case, now that you’ve advertised it on the Internet) by means of a plea bargain that you have committed a crime.

Galileo was a great scientist, but his false confession cost him what – the loss of his self-respect and, much more importantly, the honor of truth, which he betrayed.

Finally, there is much left in your case that can be done: 2nd Motion to Dismiss, removal, etc. Don’t lose heart! Decide now, in your soul, that you’re in this battle for the long haul – whether in this country or wherever you may move to in the (probably false hope of finding refuge from the NWO) – and then the rest of your battle and life will have a surer foundation than they now have, and you’ll be happier, less depressed, and more blessed.

Faith in and an honorable stand for truth, my brother, is its own (and very rich) reward.

D.
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 24666
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

Re: The Bollyn Trial, by Christopher Bollyn

Postby admin » Mon Oct 02, 2017 11:12 pm

The Destruction and Withholding of Evidence
by Christopher Bollyn
April 25, 2007

In the same way that the 9/11 relatives have been denied access to the evidence of the "crime of the century," the destruction and withholding of evidence has been the main obstacle for the defense of Christopher Bollyn, independent journalist and 9/11 researcher.

The intentional withholding and destruction of crucial evidence from the terror attacks of 9/11 has been the main obstacle to discovery for the 6,600 plaintiffs who brought lawsuits against the airlines, the passenger screening companies, and others. The denial of access to evidence is clearly obstructing the pursuit of justice for the 9/11 relatives and victims. (See: The Zionist Hijacking of the 9-11 Victim Lawsuits)

The Judicial Hijacking of the 9-11 Victim Lawsuits
by Christopher Bollyn
April 14, 2006

While the media plays up the significance of the government show trial of the seemingly deranged "20th hijacker" Zacharias Moussaoui, not one 9-11 victim's lawsuit has been allowed to be heard in a trial by jury. Why have the 9-11 victims' families not been given the same right to have their cases heard in an open trial?

Ellen Mariani, who lost her husband Neil on United Air Lines (UAL) Flight 175, filed the first 9-11 wrongful death lawsuit against UAL on December 20, 2001. Interviewed on national television in May 2002 by Bill O'Reilly of FOX News, O'Reilly repeatedly questioned Mariani about why she had chosen to pursue litigation instead of accepting the government fund.

"I want justice," Mariani said. "I want accountability. Who is responsible? I want the truth." Today, Mariani, like the other 9-11 plaintiffs, is under a legal gag order which prevents her from speaking about her on-going lawsuit. Likewise, thousands of employees of federal agencies, such as the Federal Aviation Administration, have received secret gag orders in the mail preventing them from speaking about what they know about the events of 9-11.

After more than four years, however, Mariani's determined pursuit for the truth about 9-11 through the court system has failed to yield any answers or discovery about who is responsible for 9-11. Today, she is no closer to obtaining what she has clearly and repeatedly said she wanted from the beginning – a jury trial. Why have the many victims' cases like Mariani's, brought by relatives of loved ones lost on 9-11, not been heard in open trials with juries -- a basic American right? And why has the Israeli-owned airline security company involved in the shocking security lapses, which apparently enabled the attacks of 9-11, been granted complete immunity by the U.S. Congress?

All of the relatives' wrongful death lawsuits, i.e. criminal cases against the airlines and their security companies, were consolidated by the presiding judge into a negligence lawsuit, which, as a civil case, is much less likely to be argued or investigated in an open trial with a jury. All the 9-11 wrongful death and personal injury cases against either American Air Lines (AA) or United Air Lines or any of the foreign-owned airport security companies, namely Argenbright Security (British), Globe Aviation Services Corp. (Swedish), and Huntleigh USA Corp. (Israeli) have been handled by United States District Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein of the Southern District of New York.

In the case of at least one of these security defendants, Huntleigh USA, there would seem to be a serious conflict of interest for the judge because the airline security company who is responsible for the shocking security lapses at both the Boston and Newark airports on 9-11 is a wholly-owned subsidiary of an Israeli company (ICTS) headed by Israelis with clear ties to Israel's military intelligence agency, the Mossad. Judge Hellerstein, on the other hand, has deep and long-standing Zionist connections and close family ties to the state of Israel. A Zionist is a supporter of the Jewish state of Israel. Judge Hellerstein's wife, for example, is a former senior vice president and current treasurer of a New York-based Zionist organization called AMIT. AMIT promotes Jewish immigration to Israel and stands for Americans for Israel and Torah. AMIT's motto is "Building Israel -- One Child at a Time."

Judge Hellerstein, 73, is also a long-time member of The Jewish Center of New York and a former president of the Board of Jewish Education of Greater New York. This raises the obvious question about why, in the 9-11 terror case in which an Israeli security company is a key defendant and in which individuals from Israeli military intelligence are suspected of being involved, was Hellerstein chosen to preside over all 9-11 victim lawsuits -- and who chose him?

Huntleigh USA is a wholly owned subsidiary of an Israeli company called International Consultants on Targeted Security (ICTS) International N.V., a Netherlands-based aviation and transportation security firm headed by "former [Israeli] military commanding officers and veterans of government intelligence and security agencies."

Menachem Atzmon, convicted in Israel in 1996 for campaign finance fraud, and his business partner Ezra Harel, took over management of security at the Boston and Newark airports when their company, ICTS, bought Huntleigh USA in 1999. UAL Flight 175 and AA 11, which allegedly struck the twin towers, both originated in Boston, while UAL 93, which supposedly crashed in Pennsylvania, departed from the Newark airport.

ICTS also operates the German port of Rostock on the Baltic Sea. An Israeli company linked to the Mossad runs the port operations of a major German harbor. Why would the Israeli intelligence agents want to run a German port?

Some victims' families brought lawsuits against Huntleigh claiming the Israeli-owned airport security firm had been grossly negligent on 9-11. While these relatives have a right to discovery and to know what Huntleigh did or did not do to protect their loved ones on 9-11, Huntleigh was granted complete congressional protection in 2002 and will not be called to account for its actions on 9-11 in any U.S. court.

On July 26, 2002, the U.S. House of Representatives passed the Homeland Security Bill and slipped in a last-minute provision which provided complete corporate immunity for the three foreign-owned security companies. Likewise, the Senate voted to shield the three security companies from corporate responsibility on November 19, 2002. These congressional votes effectively prevent any legal investigation or discovery into the security failures of these foreign companies on 9-11.

Hellerstein, however, is not the only player overseeing the 9-11 litigation process who has close ties to Israel. In fact, all of the key players and law firms involved are either active Zionists or do a great deal of business representing Israeli companies and/or the state of Israel. Kenneth R. Feinberg, for example, the special master of the federally-funded Victims' Compensation Fund, is also a deeply dedicated Zionist. Feinberg single-handedly administered the $7 billion fund that paid out U.S. taxpayer money to some 97 percent of the families who could have otherwise used the courts to sue to recover tort damages for monetary loss and pain and suffering.

The families who accepted the Feinberg administrated federal fund signed away their right to litigate against the government, the airlines or the security companies. This federally funded pay-off to the families effectively prevented nearly all of the relatives from using the courts to obtain justice or truth through the legal process, which would have brought discovery of facts and events of 9-11.

The Kenneth Feinberg Group is listed as one of the top ten supporters of the Jerusalem Institute for Israel Studies for 2004-2005. The Jerusalem Institute is an Israel-based Zionist organization that supports the building of the illegal separation wall across Palestine, for example. The Feinberg Group also lists as its clients major insurance and re-insurance companies such as Lloyd's of London. These are the companies who stood to lose billions of dollars if 9-11 victims' lawsuits had gone forward.

Feinberg was appointed special master by then Attorney General John Ashcroft. Ashcroft, a dedicated Christian Zionist and supporter of such groups as Stand for Israel, is today working as a lobbyist for Israel Aircraft Industries (IAI), Israel's major military aerospace company, which hired the former U.S. Attorney General to help secure the U.S. government's approval to sell an Israeli weapons system to the South Korean Air Force.

The Israelis hired Ashcroft to improve their chances against an American-made system built by Chicago-based Boeing Co. Ashcroft, who was born in Chicago, is the former head of the Dept. of Justice, where his Israeli-American assistant, Michael Chertoff, directed the FBI non-investigation of the events of 9-11. Ashcroft is now being paid by the state of Israel to work against the interests of an American company - and the United States.


Ellen Mariani, the first 9/11 relative to file a lawsuit against United Airlines for the wrongful death of her husband, is still demanding a jury trial. "You can't have a trial without evidence," Mariani says.

It is discouraging to see how this is done in cases large and small. The withholding of evidence has become the main obstacle I have encountered in preparing my defense.

In my misdemeanor case, the Hoffman Estates Police Dept. (HEPD) has destroyed the video evidence of the incident. HEPD is also withholding the most important parts (more than 75 percent) of the audio tape of the police transmissions and has provided false evidence of the body armor vests the undercover unit was wearing when it came to my house.

When the state's case against me began, a supporter wrote: "The side which gets the most evidence excluded wins."

FALSE EVIDENCE

When three unidentified men wearing body armor marched up my driveway last August 15, I was shocked and realized something had gone terribly wrong with my 911 call.

I had been very concerned about a suspicious vehicle with three armed men that I had seen prowling around my house for two evenings in a row and called the police to report it. I thought the armed men posed a danger to me and my family.

While I had expected a uniformed police officer with a normal police car to respond, the same suspicious vehicle I feared had unexpectedly returned.

I saw my wife, Helje, and our 8-year-old daughter talking to them on the driveway. Helje was frightened but had enough sense to ask them who they were and what they wanted. The men, who were wearing blue jeans and navy blue body armor, had not even said "Hello" or explained that they were responding to my 911 call.

Seeing three armed men confronting my wife and child was a sign of imminent danger. I had never been in such a situation before and although I was very alarmed, I rushed out of the house to assist them.

"Who are you, and why are you threatening our neighborhood?" I asked them. The men did not explain who they were or their business on my property and did nothing to de-escalate the situation.

I was dismayed by their aggressive demeanor and went to summon my brother as an extra witness.

Contrary to the police report, their dark blue body armor carried no insignia or badges which identified them as police. The men were working undercover according to Lt. Richard Russo, spokesman for the HEPD, the author of the press release of August 16, 2006.

The HEPD Media Information Release Form started its description of the incident as follows: "Undercover officers responded to a 'suspicious vehicle' call."

Would officers working undercover wear "POLICE" written on their vests?

My attorney subpoenaed the body armor vests so we could all see what they looked like. Rather than present the vests in court the police department protested and submitted color photographs instead. The photographs, however, are of different vests than those worn by the three undercover officers on August 15.

The vests in the photos are cut differently, have pockets on the front, are a different color and have the word "POLICE" printed in large yellow letters across the front. These are clearly not the plain navy blue body armor the undercover unit was wearing when they arrested me.

An expert witness about police procedures said that I would not be in this predicament if the vests really did have markings of the police.

DESTRUCTION OF VIDEO EVIDENCE

In violation of their own General Order No. 79, the HEPD destroyed the video evidence filmed by their own police officers on the scene. When the undercover police assaulted and TASERed me on my front lawn, at least four officers recorded the event using a digital video system.

"I am informed that all tapes have been recycled," Richard Williams, attorney for Hoffman Estates, wrote to my attorney in a letter dated March 29, 2007.

The village attorney's statement indicates that the police destroyed the video evidence of the crime they are charging me with, in violation of their General Order concerning "Mobile Video Recording" and the preservation of video evidence:

Tapes containing information, which could be useful to an investigation or prosecution, will be treated as evidence. Tapes deemed to be of evidentiary value shall be processed according to departmental procedures governing property custody. The narrative of the associated report shall indicate that the video tape was inventoried as evidence.

The police transcript of their communications indicates that the entire incident was videotaped by Ofc. Joseph Kruschel, the first police officer logged in "on scene."

In a letter to my attorney, dated April 18, 2007, Williams wrote that the incident had been video taped by at least 4 different officers: Joseph Kruschel, Kathryn Cawley, Anthony Tenuto, and John Fitzgerald, the reporting officer. All of these tapes have been erased, Williams wrote.

The HEPD officer who was responsible for preserving the video evidence was Lt. Richard Russo, according to the department's response to my recent FOIA. Russo also acted as the department spokesman in the days after the incident.

Image
Richard Russo of the Hoffman Estates Police Department

Russo was asked about the incident by a number of news outlets and was well aware of the controversy surrounding my arrest and TASERing. He must have also been aware of General Order No. 79.

I had filed a FOIA with the HEPD on September 11, 2006 asking for the complete record and manifest of documents pertaining to my case. So why did Russo allow the video evidence to be destroyed?

DENIED DUE PROCESS

Illinois courts have ruled that if the police destroy evidence, “even absent bad faith” that is “essential and determinative of the outcome of the case” then the Defendant would be denied due process, as the defendant “could not hope to exonerate himself without a chance to have his own experts examine the substance [evidence forming basis of case].”
People v. Camp, 352 Ill. App. 3d 257, 261, 815 N.E.2d 980, 984 (2d Dist. 2004)

The court in Camp (id.) reasoned that if the charges were dependent on the destroyed evidence then the defendant would be deprived of due process if convicted. Therefore, they concluded that the case must be dismissed under such circumstances.

"You don't lose the records unless you are guilty," Ellen Mariani said about the destruction of the evidence in my case.


THE TAMPERING OF THE 911 AUDIO TAPES

After 6 months, the HEPD finally turned over the audio tape of police and fire department transmissions with the 911 dispatcher.

Unfortunately, both tapes are severely cut and badly edited versions of the complete tapes. This is not what was requested in the subpoena. Due to the fact that more than 70 percent of the material on the original tape has been withheld, the audio tapes are of little use as evidence – except perhaps as evidence of the bad faith of the HEPD.

I need to know what was communicated between the police prior to and during this incident. For my defense, we need the entire tape of the police transmissions, which ran for about 40 minutes, i.e. from the time I made my 911 call at 19:43 until the matter was cleared at about 20:25.

The HEPD has only provided what are called "composite" tapes. The 911 call and police transmission tape spans a period of about 35 minutes, yet the tape they have provided is less than 12 minutes long. I have the right to know, what is on the entire tape.

The 911 tape with the fire department spans a time of more than 8 minutes but has been edited down to a tape lasting only 1 minute and 45 seconds.

The critical 10 minutes of police communications prior to the undercover team's arrival at my house, for example, have been deleted. This is the period during which 11 police officers and two emergency medical vehicles were called to the scene – well before anyone had arrived at my house – in response to a non-emergency 911 call about a suspicious vehicle?

According to Deputy Fire Chief Robert Gorvett, the undercover police had talked about a "fight in progress" prior to arriving at my house. This misinformation led the 911 dispatcher to send emergency medical vehicles.

I consulted Steven Cain of Burlington, Wisconsin, a 20-year veteran expert in forensic audio tape analysis and told him about the cut-and-paste tape that I had received.

"They made a composite tape and only gave you the parts that they thought you should have," Cain said. "That's an insult to your attorney and you, the defendant."

To produce this composite tape, the HEPD obviously worked to remove a large amount of evidence from the complete tape that I requested in my FOIA request and subpoenas. I have every right to have the complete tape in order to be able to prepare my defense.

This is just one more indication of the HEPD willingness to tamper with the evidence. This has to be challenged with a motion that will either dismiss the charges against me or bring real sanctions against the prosecution's case.

Image
The front door of the Bollyn home
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 24666
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

Re: The Bollyn Trial, by Christopher Bollyn

Postby admin » Mon Oct 02, 2017 11:46 pm

Malice Exposed - Prosecuting a Journalist for his Writing
by Christopher Bollyn
April 14, 2007

MALICE EXPOSED - Bollyn Prosecuted for "anti-Israel" Views

Who is more to be pitied, a writer bound and gagged by policemen or one living in perfect freedom who has nothing more to say?
- Kurt Vonnegut in Bluebeard (1987)


Yesterday, I spent several hours at the Rolling Meadows (Chicago, Illinois) Cook County Circuit Court (3rd District). My lawyer had filed a motion to either dismiss the charges against me or to disallow the state from presenting any evidence of the events that would have been captured in the police video tapes of their assault and TASERing of me in my front yard on August 15, 2006.

This motion was filed because this video evidence, which would have shown what happened during the police assault, was destroyed by the police in clear violation of their own policies and procedures.

The judge, the Hon. Hyman I. Riebman, denied the motion saying that I had not filed an order to preserve the evidence. The fact that I had filed a FOIA with the police requesting a complete record and manifest of my arrest was not reason enough to preserve the evidence, Riebman said.

My FOIA was submitted to the Hoffman Estates Police Dept. on September 11, 2006, within 30 days of the incident. This should have obliged the police to preserve the evidence.

Although a FOIA is civil and not a criminal procedure, it seems odd that a criminal court would not find it to constitute adequate notice to preserve the evidence. The FOIA is state law of which criminal state courts must take judicial notice.

My first attorney, Jack Smeeton, who I retained near the end of September, refused to file the subpoena although I had given him a well prepared rider demanding all the evidence that the police had regarding my case. This is how Smeeton, the first attorney of record, through unwarranted inaction sabotaged my case and protected the police by allowing them the time to destroy evidence which he request that they preserve.

Yesterday afternoon, because the state was not prepared to argue the motion, the prosecution side was given extra time to find an attorney who was familiar with the case. Riebman, himself, said he was not familiar with the case although he has handled the case for several months.

Riebman said he could not make a decision simply because the police had violated their own policies and general orders by destroying the video evidence.

The police video taken by Ofc. John Fitzgerald, whose patrol car was about 30 feet from the scene, certainly caught the entire violent arrest in which two plainclothes officers assaulted me from behind, handcuffed me, broke my right elbow, and TASERed me with a "drive stun" in which the TASER was applied directly to my back while I was held to the ground. The police video tape of the entire incident has been destroyed.

I was charged with resisting arrest and aggravated assault while the police "recycled" the video evidence of their assault.

I recently learned from a source close to the Cook County State's Attorney's office that I am to receive special treatment in my upcoming trial because of my journalism and writings, which are perceived by some as "anti-Israel." Although my charges are misdemeanor offenses of aggravated assault and resisting arrest, I was told that two Jewish prosecutors want to prosecute my case because of my investigative research and writings that they are apparently opposed to.

My source informed me that two Jewish attorneys working for the prosecutor's office want to prosecute my case when it comes to trial on April 23, because of what they perceive to be my "anti-Israel" writings. The source told me that these two prosecutors were named as attorneys named Rubenstein and Gerber. This was what was going on behind the scenes, he said.

I was shocked, but not surprised, to hear this. This indicates that there is malice against me in my upcoming trial because some of the attorneys working for the Cook County State's Attorney's office disagree with my writings. Furthermore, it shows that these attorneys intend to play a role in the prosecution of my case simply because they are opposed to my political views. Is this blind justice?

Does freedom of speech and thought still exist in America? If I am being prosecuted because of my writing, why do they charge me a thought crime instead of disguising their malice behind trumped-up charges of my having assaulted three heavily-armed men wearing body armor who were trespassing on my property last August 15?

Is this the original source of the malice that I experienced during the assault against me on August 15?

For this reason I will request that my attorney file a motion to move the trial. This trial is supposed to be about the facts of what happened when three unidentified armed men assaulted me at my house during the evening of August 15 – not the lynching of an independent journalist.


Originally published as: "MALICE EXPOSED - Bollyn Prosecuted for "anti-Israel" Views
Posted By: ChristopherBollyn
Date: Saturday, 14-Apr-2007
http://www.rumormillnews.com/cgi-bin/ar ... ead=102707
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 24666
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

Re: The Bollyn Trial, by Christopher Bollyn

Postby admin » Mon Oct 02, 2017 11:49 pm

Timeline of Events Surrounding Police Assault on Bollyn
by Christopher Bollyn
March 17, 2007

Timeline of Events Surrounding the Police Assault and TASERing of Christopher Bollyn, Journalist

Location: The Bollyn home, a suburban corner home in Hoffman Estates, Illinois
Date: August 15, 2006
Time: Evening, beginning at 7:20 p.m.
Duration of Operation: About 4 minutes
Length of Time Between Arrival of Police Tactical Unit and Assault on Bollyn: 50 seconds

Agencies Involved: 911 Northwest Central Dispatch System (NWCDS), Hoffman Estates Police Dept. (HEPD), Fire Dept. (HEFD)

Time followed by Description of Event

19:20 (Estimate) Christopher Bollyn sees a suspicious car with three armed men wearing body armor slowly pass his house for the second day in a row. Concerned, he discusses situation with his wife, Helje, and takes bicycle to store.

19:43:34 911 Call Received – From store, Bollyn calls police (911) about suspicious vehicle with armed men seemingly prowling around his home. Dispatcher agrees for a police officer to come to Bollyn house in 20 minutes. (Police log)

19:46:46 911 Call Entered – Bollyn’s call is entered into 911 Northwest Central Dispatch System (NWCDS). (Police log)

19:47:41 Police Officer Dispatched – 911 Dispatcher No. 5681 (NWCDS) dispatches uniformed HEPD Officer John Fitzgerald in vehicle No. 6131C to Bollyn residence. (Police log)

19:48:09 Three-man out-of-uniform tactical unit wearing body armor (No. 6744), the suspicious vehicle and men that provoked Bollyn's concern, logs in to assist Fitzgerald. (Police log)

Questions: Who authorized this unit to be sent to Bollyn house and why? Why is this unit still in the neighborhood after 30 minutes?

Chief of Police Clint Herdegen told Bollyn, on August 17, that he had sent this unit to their house to explain. Why would the C.O.P. send the suspicious vehicle with out-of-uniform armed men, the very cause of Bollyn's concern, back to his house? How could this be not seen as extremely provocative?

Image
Clint Herdegen, Chief of Police of Hoffman Estates, arrives at the Bollyn trial.

20:01:03 Police Report "Fight in Progress" – 911 dispatcher No. 5681 overhears police saying that a "fight is in progress" at Bollyn residence and tells the fire dispatcher No. 5648, who is sitting beside him, to dispatch the fire department paramedics to the scene. (HEFD Deputy Chief Robert Gorvett)

At this point, Bollyn is not at home, there is no fight, and no police are even at the scene. Why did the police say there is a "fight in progress?"


Question: Why are the police talking about violence before they even arrive at the Bollyn house in response to a non-emergency suspicious vehicle call? What were the police preparing for?

This appears to be evidence that the assault on Bollyn was premeditated by members of the police force. This is why the recording of the police transmissions is required to show what was said and by whom.

20:01:06 Emergency ambulance and fire department vehicle (Engine No. 21) are dispatched by 911 (fire) dispatcher No. 5648.

20:02 (Est.) Bollyn arrives home on bicycle.

20:02:23 Assisting Officers En Route – Off. Joseph Kruschel (6132C) logs in as "en route" to Bollyn house. (Police log)

Officers Steven R. Hill and Kathryn Cawley, a juvenile officer, are en route to Bollyn house in car No. 6134C. (Police log)

20:03:11 Off. Wesley Schulz (6190C) is en route to Bollyn house. At this point, no fewer than eight police officers in 5 vehicles are en route to handle Bollyn's non-emergency call about a suspicious vehicle.

Questions: Why are so many officers involved? What's going on here? Are they all responding to the false claim made by the police that a fight is in progress?

20:03:28 First Officer On Scene – Off. Joseph Kruschel, a uniformed officer, in car No. 6132C, logs in as being on the scene. Off. Kruschel, however, apparently holds back and does not approach Bollyn home or present himself. (Police log)

Questions: Why is Off. Kruschel holding himself back? What is he waiting for? He is a uniformed officer. Why does he not approach the home and respond to the 911 call? Why does he allow out-of-uniform undercover officers to approach the Bollyn family first? Whose idea was this?

20:03:56 Out-of-Uniform Tactical Squad Arrives – Three-man undercover unit (6744) logs in "on scene." They park their unmarked car in the street blocking the Bollyn driveway and all three men wearing body armor march up the driveway to Bollyn house. (Police log)

Questions: After Bollyn was arrested, police told Jay Bollyn (Bollyn's older brother) at the scene that this was a tactical unit involved in "gang-suppression," although there is no gang activity in the neighborhood and never has been.

A month later, Lt. Joseph Perritano (HEPD) said this unit was actually engaged in "cross-training." The police report says that this unit had just made a traffic stop down the street prior to coming to Bollyn house. So, what exactly was the mission and purpose of this unit?

20:03:57 Emergency Paramedics Arrive – Fire department vehicles and paramedics arrive on the scene. The emergency vehicles arrive "on scene" exactly one second after police undercover tactical unit 6744. Paramedics remain about 50 feet from Bollyn house. (FD log)

Note: As C.O.P. Herdegen explained to the Bollyns, in a recorded conversation, the paramedics are called when somebody has been TASERed. This doesn't make sense because nobody has been TASERed and at this point the police are only responding to a non-emergency call about a suspicious vehicle. (August 17 meeting at Village Hall).

Herdegen is also contradicted by Deputy Fire Chief Robert Gorvett (HEFD), who told Bollyn that the department doesn't even have a policy or guidelines about how to treat TASER victims.

Question: We know that the paramedics are on the scene because the 911 dispatcher overheard police saying there was a "fight in progress." Why did C.O.P. Herdegen tell this lie to the Bollyns? The medics were not called because of the TASERing, because this had not yet occurred.

20:04:05 Mrs. Bollyn (Helje) notices the three out-of-uniform armed men wearing body armor marching up Bollyn driveway, and approaches them from the back yard where she had been gardening.

20:04:10 Seeing that the armed and armored men lack uniforms or any insignia, Helje asks them who they were. Catherine Bollyn (8-year-old daughter) comes out of the house to join her mother.

After being asked to show an ID, one man shows Helje his Illinois driver's license from the distance. Another says, "We are with the police."

From a distance of about 10 feet, according to a neighbor, Helje continues to ask the men to identify themselves. One man flashes some sort of a badge attached to his belt by briefly raising his body armor. Helje does not have a chance to see what it says.

The men refuse to give their names or explain their business. They do not leave or say that they have come in response to the 911 call.

Note: The identities of the three men was only revealed to the Bollyns one month later by Lt. Perritano.

20:04:20 Off. Tony Wanic (6191C) is en route to Bollyn house. Wanic is the 9th police officer and 6th police car responding to Bollyn call. (Police log)

Question: Why would police allocate so many men and resources to a non-emergency call about a suspicious vehicle, especially when they know that the vehicle in question is one of theirs?

20:04:26 Twenty-nine seconds after arriving, the fire department emergency crew notify dispatch that they are "back in service," although they do not leave the scene. (HEFD Deputy Chief Robert Gorvett)

Note: The "back in service" notification was given before the tactical unit assaulted and TASERed Bollyn – something they witnessed.

20:04:30 Christopher Bollyn comes out of the house and joins his wife and daughter standing about 6 to 10 feet from the three armed men wearing body armor on his driveway.

Bollyn asks, "Who are you? Why are you threatening our neighborhood?"

Bollyn points at the unmarked vehicle blocking his driveway, asking: "And what is this car you are driving around?"

The men do not explain that they are responding to the 911 call, refuse to identify themselves in any way, and will not answer any of his questions. No explanations or orders are given to Bollyn.


20:04:43 In the shadow of the Bollyn's maple tree, Officer Fitzgerald, the uniformed officer originally dispatched to handle the 911 call, logs in as "on scene" as he quietly pulls up beneath behind the unmarked car (6744). Fitzgerald remains in the car, however, and watches the assault.

There are now 5 police officers in three vehicles and two fire department vehicles on the scene at the Bollyn house. (Police log)

20:04:44 (Est.) Bollyn tells the men that he wants to get his brother Jay, the permanent resident, from the house. He turns and moves toward his front door.

20:04:46 Tactical Unit Assaults Bollyn - Two men from undercover unit 6744 suddenly tackle Bollyn from behind (#HEP 0650820) as he approaches his front door, trip him and throw him to the ground. (Police log)

20:04:50 Bollyn is brutally pinned down by Officers Stoy and Barber who immediately handcuff his left hand (Bollyn is left-handed) from behind while his right arm winds up beneath his torso during the fall.

Barber asks, "Where is his right arm?"

"It's underneath of me," Bollyn says and tells Helje to get his brother Jay (from the house) and Dale, the neighbor.

According to the police report, Bollyn had called out for the militia.


Stoy uses a pressure hold, kneeling with his full body weight (about 200 lbs.) on Bollyn's right temple. He continues this painful pressure on Bollyn's head, used to paralyze the person, for about two minutes.

Mrs. Bollyn approaches the scene with her 8-year-old daughter who is in distraught and crying. She still has her pruning snips in her hand. The third out-of-uniform man, later identified as Off. Felgenhauer, tells Mrs. Bollyn to drop the snips which Mrs. Bollyn immediately does.

Meanwhile, Barber kneels on Bollyn's right elbow, which is most likely the cause of the occult fracture in his elbow.

20:05 (Est.) Barber places TASER weapon (Model X-26) directly against Bollyn's lower back. Bollyn is TASERed with 50,000 volts for several seconds. No verbal warning of any kind was given prior to the TASERing.

Bollyn's wife notices that her husband's face has turned purple and that his eyes are bulging out of his head. He appears to have great difficulty breathing.

Bollyn is being TASERed while handcuffed and pinned beneath two men. He appears to be in danger of "positional asphyxiation."

Shocked by the brutality of the assault, Helje asks the men," What are you doing? Are you crazy?"

Off. Barber, who worked with the Dept. of Homeland Security in New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina, responds with an insulting remark, "You go back where you came from?"

Helje, who speaks fluent English, asks Barber, "How do you know I am not from here?"


Note: Barber's comment indicates he has been prepared with information about the Bollyn family in advance.

Helje goes to house, which is just a few steps away, to fetch her camera in order to take photographs.

Mrs. Bollyn attempts to photograph the assault but is physically blocked and threatened with arrest by Off. Felgenhauer. She is thus prevented from documenting the event and obtaining evidence of a crime, for example of the body armor vests of the three men, which the police claim had "POLICE" written on them. All three Bollyns claim that the vests had no visible police insignia.

Off. Felgenhauer takes out his little notebook and writes down Mrs. Bollyn’s name and date of birth as if she had done something wrong. Taking photographs or videos of a police assault is perfectly legal. Preventing a person from doing so is a criminal offense.


Time stamp of TASER report is about 4 minutes off. It shows the TASERing occurred at 20:00:36. Andrew Hinz of TASER International says this is not unusual.

20:06:14 Officers Hill and Cawley log in as being on scene. They are the 6th and 7th officers on the scene. (Police log)

20:06:15 Officer Kruschel, who was first officer on scene at 20:03:28, logs in again as being on scene. (Police log)

Questions: Why is Kruschel logging in a second time as being "on scene"? If he was on the scene at 20:03:28, as per the police log, why is he logging in once again as being "on scene" at the same place where he has been for nearly three minutes? Is he logging in again because he has come closer to the house from around the corner and gotten out of his car? (Police log)

20:06:24 Off. Scott Lawrence (6136C) logs in on scene, the 8th officer to appear at Bollyn residence. He is the first uniformed officer to come onto the Bollyn property and talk to Mrs. Bollyn. Bollyn is still being pinned to the ground by two officers. All other uniformed officers remained on the street and simply watched the tactical unit assault Bollyn.

Questions: Was this the "cross-training" Lt. Perritano spoke about? Did the police make a video of this assault?

Lawrence asks Mrs. Bollyn, "What's going on?"

Mrs. Bollyn tries to explain the situation pointing at her husband who is still brutally held down by Barber and Stoy. Off. Lawrence just says, "You are excited."

"Shouldn't I be excited when my husband has been brutalized and arrested for no reason?" Helje asks. "All he did was call 911."

Mrs. Bollyn asks Lawrence why such an army of police is involved in a simple non-emergency 911 call. Lawrence says, "Isn't it great that if something happens, so many police come so fast."


As Mrs. Bollyn is talking with Off. Lawrence, an out-of-uniform female officer, later identified as Off. Kathryn Cawley approaches little Catherine Bollyn, who is standing by her mother, and starts talking to her.

A moment later, Mrs. Bollyn notices that her child is gone. Without telling the mother, Off. Cawley has taken Catherine away. (Police log)


Mrs. Bollyn asks Off. Lawrence, "Where have you taken her?"

Lawrence says, "We are showing her the fire truck."

"Are you going to bring her back?" Mrs. Bollyn asks anxiously.

Mrs. Bollyn goes into house to put the camera away, and is in the middle of the living room when she notices that Off. Lawrence has followed her into the house.

Mrs. Bollyn turns around and says, “I did not ask you to come in.”

Off. Lawrence says, "I want to make sure you are alright."


20:06:30 (Est.) Bollyn is taken, handcuffed, and placed in rear seat of Fitzgerald's car (6131C).

20:06:40 (Est.) Christopher Albert, Bollyn's 11-year-old son comes home to find a huge police presence in his front yard and see that his father is being taken away. He becomes hysterical and needs to be calmed down by his uncle and his mother. Off. Lawrence who works with juveniles, witnesses the scene.


20:07:18 Off. Wesley Schulz (6190C) logs in on scene. Schulz is the 9th officer in the 6th police car on scene. (Police log)

Schulz approaches Fitzgerald's car. Fitzgerald tells Bollyn, "See this guy? He is going to beat the ---- out of you." Fitzgerald made several similar threats that Bollyn would be beaten at the station.

Knowing that Bollyn has been TASERed, the police prevent the medics from examining Bollyn – violating their own policy. Off. Schultz tells the medics that they are not needed, according to HEFD Deputy Chief Robert Gorvett.

Note: Had the medics examined Bollyn at the scene, they would have seen that he was not drunk or on drugs, as the police report claims. No tests were done to determine Bollyn's condition or extent of injuries.


20:07:29 Bollyn is taken to the police station by Off. Fitzgerald. (Police log)

During this trip Fitzgerald continued to abuse and threaten Bollyn. When Bollyn would lean toward the Plexiglas window between the front and back seats, Fitzgerald would suddenly slam on the brakes causing Bollyn's head to strike the window. This happened at least twice.

At police station a team of about 10 officers with rubber gloves are waiting in the garage. Upon entering garage, Fitzgerald rolls down his window and tells the gang that Bollyn has insulted the police.

"You take care of him now," Fitzgerald says.


When the police start to remove Bollyn from vehicle, he says he is a journalist and will write about the "treatment" he receives.

20:07:44 Off. Anthony Tenuto arrives on scene at Bollyn house. Tenuto is 10th officer in 7th police car on the scene. (Police log)

20:20 (Est.) Bollyn is Processed at Station – Bollyn's floral shirt is ripped off, tearing the shirt and sending the buttons flying. He is fingerprinted, photographed, and placed in a cell in which the water has been turned off.

When he asks Fitzgerald for a glass of water, he is told, "Drink from the toilet." Fitzgerald is clearly aware that there is no drinking water in the cell.


Asked why the unit had prowled around his house for two days in a row, Fitzgerald says, "We are watching you." Two other officers are with Fitzgerald when he says this.

22:00 (Est.) Off. Schulz comes to Bollyn's cell, where he is being held without water or medical attention, and told that because he has been TASERed, medics would have to examine him.

Bollyn tells Schulz that he needs medical attention for his arm. However, no medical attention is ever provided.

Deputy Fire Chief Gorvett says that no medics were called to police station during the entire time Bollyn was incarcerated. Gorvett found no calls from the police station to the fire department between 20:01 and 01:42 the next morning.

23:50 Bollyn is released after posting $100 bail and walks 4 miles home with untreated fractured elbow. Bollyn's elbow is X-rayed on Thursday and effusion indicative of occult fracture is found. His arm is put into a cast and sling.

http://i60.photobucket.com/albums/h36/s ... report.jpg

During the entire time in the lock-up, Bollyn is denied water and medical treatment.

No examination for internal damage caused by the TASER is done until several weeks later. Bollyn is ill from the effects of the TASERing for two weeks.

[x]
Photo: Christopher Bollyn with his children near Schaumburg library two days after being brutally assaulted and TASERed by three undercover agents of the Hoffman Estates Police Department.

The evidence suggests that the police assault on Bollyn was premeditated and planned.

Among other things, this police assault has caused the Bollyn children to suffer mental anguish, the abuse of child sensibilities, the infliction of emotional pain, disruption of enjoyment of domestic tranquility, and the diminishment of innocence of childhood.

Image
Bollyn with his children shortly after the police assault, which was witnessed by his 8-year-old daughter.

Originally published as "Timeline of Events of Police Assault on Christopher Bollyn, Journalist"
Posted By: Christopher Bollyn
Date: Saturday, March 17, 2007
http://www.rumormillnews.com/cgi-bin/ar ... ead/101044
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 24666
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

Re: The Bollyn Trial, by Christopher Bollyn

Postby admin » Tue Oct 03, 2017 12:09 am

Evidence of A Police Conspiracy to Injure Bollyn
by Christopher Bollyn
March 6, 2007

Evidence Emerges of Police Conspiracy to Assault & TASER Bollyn. 3 Minutes Before Arriving on Scene Police Reported "Fight in Progress".

Hoffman Estates, Illinois - Two emergency vehicles from the Hoffman Estates Fire Department were at the Bollyn residence at 20:03:57 - only one second after the arrival of the heavily-armed tactical unit of three men wearing body armor, who assaulted and TASERed me in my front yard on August 15, 2006.

Image
The view of the Bollyn home (red house) from the vantage point of the corrupt witness for the prosecution who said Bollyn took a swing at the three heavily-armed men on his driveway. The car is parked where Fitzgerald's squad car was parked during the assault, which occurred between the car and Bollyn's front door.

To help establish the facts, I called the chief of the fire department to ask why the medics had not examined me after I had been assaulted and TASERed.

Deputy Chief Robert Gorvett, a local resident who grew up in Hoffman Estates, promptly returned the call and investigated the fire department/police transmissions and communications which preceded the assault.

In the assault, my right elbow was fractured and my body was subjected to 50,000 volts from a TASER gun placed directly over my lower back.

What Dep. Fire Chief Gorvett told me indicates that the police had provided false information to the central 911 dispatch - saying there was a "fight in progress" - which resulted in the dispatcher calling in fire department emergency vehicles. The 911 dispatch had heard this false police report and contacted the fire department at 20:01:06 - nearly three minutes before the undercover tactical unit had even arrived at my house.

The police log indicates that the undercover tactical unit only arrived on the scene at 20:03:56, only one second before the fire department, although an Officer Joseph Kruschel was logged in as being on the scene at 20:03:28.

Kruschel, however, evidently remained out of sight in order to allow the three-man tactical team to approach the Bollyn family first. This action indicates that there was a plan to provoke a confrontation. The three-man tactical unit was led by an officer named Michael Barber who had worked with the Department of Homeland Security in Katrina-ravaged New Orleans.

Barber was also the officer who TASERed me in front of my wife and 8-year-old daughter while I was handcuffed and forcibly restrained by two men who pinned me to the ground. Another officer named Timothy J. Stoy, a former jail guard at Cook County Jail, restrained me for the duration of the assault by kneeling with his full body weight (ca. 200 lbs.) on the temple of my head as Barber TASERed me. This tactic is employed to paralyze the victim by putting intense pressure on the nerve center on the side of the head.

Image
Timothy J. Stoy, an undercover cop without uniform in Hoffman Estates, arrives at the Bollyn trial. Stoy, a former prison guard at Cook County Jail, knelt on Bollyn's right temple for several minutes while Barber TASERed him.

My wife said that my face had turned purple and that my eyes were bulging out of my head and that I appeared to have great difficulty breathing. Shocked by the brutal assault, my wife Helje tried to photograph the assault but was told by the third unidentified man, who we later discovered was Officer Darin Felgenhauer, that if she dared to take any photos she would be arrested as well.

Helje, who grew up in Soviet-occupied Estonia and who traveled widely in the Soviet Union, says that she never experienced such police brutality anywhere, although she was politically active and married to a well-known Estonian rock singer and political dissident against the Soviet occupation of Estonia. She and her former husband, Urmas Alender, who perished in the 1994 sinking of Estonia, had been monitored by the notorious KGB for years.

Gorvett looked into the fire department log and found that the first fire department vehicle was on the scene at 20:03:57 - exactly one second after the undercover police tactical unit arrived. This corroborates Helje's testimony that the fire department was on the scene before I was TASERed. Indeed, the fire department was on the scene before any contact was made between the police and my family.

Two days later, we asked Chief of Police Clint Herdegen to explain why so many police and the fire department had been called to the scene. He said the fire department medics are called when somebody has been TASERed.

So why were they on the scene before I was TASERed? And why were 11 police officers on the scene of a non-emergency 911 call? Anybody would wonder about such an overwhelming response to a simple call to the police concerning a suspicious vehicle in the neighborhood.

The police tactical unit that marched up my driveway was completely unwilling to identify themselves or explain their purpose at my home. The unidentified men appeared eager for a confrontation and within a minute of their arrival, they had assaulted and TASERed me. I had committed no crime and there had been no arrest, warnings, or orders given prior to the assault. Furthermore, I was completely unable to resist the attack by the three men in any way during the assault.

Twenty-nine seconds after arriving at my house, at 20:04:26, the fire department emergency crew notified dispatch that they were back in service, although they did not leave the scene. They gave the "back in service" notification before the tactical unit had assaulted and TASERed me - something they must have witnessed.

The medics' failure to examine me indicates that the fire department's policy is inadequate in regard to TASER victims. Gorvett told me that the department does not even have policy guidelines relating to medical treatment of TASER victims.

I told Chief Gorvett that many healthy people have died shortly after being TASERed and asked why the medics had not checked my health after I had been TASERed in front of professional medics, while I had been forcibly restrained. According to Chief Herdegen, the use of the TASER is why the fire department had been called to the scene in the first place.

Had the medics checked my condition they would have seen that I was not drunk or on drugs, as the fabricated police report alleges, and would have seen that my elbow was injured. They may have even noticed the superficial wounds caused by the TASER gun. But they didn't examine me. Why not?

Gorvett told me that the fire department records indicate that police officer Wesley Schultz, who was logged on the scene at 20:07:18, had told the fire department medics that their services were not needed. This is the same officer who came to my cell in the middle of the night to tell me that because I had been TASERed the medics would have to examine me. Concerned about my sore elbow, I waited for the medics for several hours - but they never came. As a result, my fractured elbow was not looked at until one day later when I went to the local hospital clinic.

While Schultz told me that the medics had been called to examine me because of being TASERed, Gorvett searched the log for the night of August 15, 2006, and found that there had been no calls from the police department to have the fire department medics assist or examine any detainee during the time I was incarcerated. (He actually found no calls from the police station between 20:01 and 01:42 the next morning.)

This evidence from the fire department indicates that the police had a very different agenda than simply responding to a non-emergency 911 call. The Hoffman Estates police can be reached by phone at (847) 882-1818.

As a result of this police attack, I was charged with resisting arrest and aggravated assault. I was attacked by people associated with American Free Press immediately after the police assault. Fighting these baseless charges has cost me a great deal of money and energy. I am convinced that this attack was orchestrated by people in the government who are opposed to my research and writings about 9/11 and other subjects. Not a single media outlet in the United States has discussed this brutal and unjustified police attack on an independent American journalist.

Where is the free press in America? After the assault, American Free Press fired me and has punished me by withholding the money they collected in my name for my legal defense. They also refuse to reimburse my business expenses incurred during the summer of 2006. Why did they turn against me so quickly?


It is only thanks to generous supporters that I am able to challenge this abuse of power by the police. People who want to support me in the struggle against police brutality and malicious prosecution are welcome to donate to my legal defense fund.

I am currently in the process of changing legal counsel and will appear in court on April 7 at 10:00 a.m. in Room 107 at the Cook County Circuit Court in Rolling Meadows to have attorney Paul P. Moreschi take over my case from Jack Smeeton.

Smeeton, who had withheld the evidence contained in the police report and transmission log from me, said, "They came. It's a fact." He clearly sided with the police and totally ignored the details and significance of this evidence that the police conspired against me. This material came into his possession only because I had filed FOIA requests for it before he was even retained as my legal counsel.

Smeeton completely disregarded Helje's testimony and said that I have no case. He was strongly opposed to a jury trial and urged me to accept a plea bargain in which I would accept guilt for resisting arrest.


When we first met Jack Smeeton at the court, he said he was English. Helje, a scholar of English language and literature, said that I was related to the family of Anne Boleyn, the second wife of Henry VIII. Smeeton said that he is related to Mark Smeaton, the court musician who, under torture, provided false testimony against Anne Boleyn in 1536.

See: http://tudorhistory.org/boleyn/

As a result of Mark Smeeton's false testimony, Anne Boleyn and five men lost their heads.


The evidence indicates that the Hoffman Estates police had a very different agenda with Christopher Bollyn than simply responding to his non-emergency 911 call about a suspicious vehicle.

The Hoffman Estates police can be reached by phone at (847) 882-1818.

Originally published as "New Evidence Emerges of Police Conspiracy to Assault & Taser Bollyn"
Posted By: ChristopherBollyn <Send E-Mail>
Date: Tuesday, March 6, 2007 18:44:18
http://www.rumormillnews.com/cgi-bin/ar ... ead/100543
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 24666
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

Re: The Bollyn Trial, by Christopher Bollyn

Postby admin » Tue Oct 03, 2017 12:22 am

Establishing the Facts of the Police Assault
by Christopher Bollyn
February 27, 2007

Transmission Log Reveals Extraordinary and Suspicious Police Activity

Is this evidence of a conspiracy to assault Bollyn and violate his civil rights?

On August 15, 2006, after noticing a suspicious vehicle near my house with three armed men wearing body armor, I called 911, which is the listed number to contact the local police in Hoffman Estates, IL. I decided to call the police after having seen this vehicle for two nights in a row prowling around my house.

On August 15, I stepped out of my front door at about 6:20 p.m. and saw this suspicious vehicle with its heavily-armed occupants driving past my front yard very slowly. That these men were loitering in my neighborhood seemed very odd.

Image
The Bollyn front door

About 30-35 minutes after I had seen this suspicious vehicle pass my house, these same men came onto my property. Not one, but all three armed men marched up my driveway in a confrontational manner.

Nothing told me that these strangers were actually police. They could have been anybody.

The way that these men approached my family was very provocative and threatening.

They had first been met by my wife and daughter on the driveway. They had refused to identify themselves or explain their business. I then came out of the house and met with the same treatment. The entire verbal exchange with me lasted about 15 seconds.

When I said I wanted to get my brother from the house to resolve this situation, they unexpectedly assaulted me from behind, handcuffed, and then TASERed me.

It is interesting to note that these men had assaulted me in less than one minute after arriving at my home. They clearly took the first opportunity to attack.

It was I, however, who was later charged with aggravated assault against a peace officer and resisting arrest.


For three men wearing jeans and body armor to handle a non-emergency 911 call is very unusual and unprofessional.

I obtained a log of the police transmissions concerning this police action after filing a FOIA with the Hoffman Estates Police Department. This log helps to establish the actions of the police prior to the assault.

The 2-page police log was scanned as two images. This document is not easy to understand unless you are familiar with police logs, but the description below should help.

Explanation of the Police Transmission Log

At the top of the Page 1 is a summary of the key events of this incident: 911 call received, call entered, police dispatched, police en route, and police on scene.

The dispatcher sent, at 19:47:41, a normal on-duty uniformed police officer named John Fitzgerald (6131C). Had Officer Fitzgerald handled this non-emergency call, and explained the situation to me, there would have been no confrontation of any sort.

However, according to the log, about thirty seconds after Fitzgerald was dispatched, at 19:48:09, an undercover tactical unit of three armed and non-uniformed men (6744) was apparently dispatched to assist (ASST).

About 14 minutes later, before any officer has come to my house, at 20:02:23, three more police cars are en route to assist (ASSTER), making for a total of 5 uniformed officers in 4 cars plus a special tactical unit en route to respond to a non-emergency 911 call about a suspicious vehicle. Isn’t this a waste of police resources?

At 20:03:28, the first police vehicle is on the scene. It is identified in the log as being 6132C with Officer Joseph Kruschel (#6222). This is odd because this is a normal marked police car with a uniformed police officer, which is what I had expected.

Officer Kruschel, however, obviously held himself at some distance from the house out of sight. Where was Officer Kruschel if he reported being on the scene and why did he not present himself at the Bollyn house?

About 30 seconds later, at 20:03:56, the unmarked car carrying the three-man undercover unit (6744) is logged in as being on the scene. Kruschel was nowhere to be seen.

Twenty seconds later, at 20:04:20, while these three men are talking with my wife, another police vehicle with an Officer Tony Wanic is en route to my house. Wanic is the 9th police officer in the 6th police vehicle responding to the same non-emergency 911 call.

Twenty-three seconds later, at 20:04:46, Officer John Fitzgerald, the officer first dispatched to handle the 911 call, pulls up quietly behind the unmarked car belonging to the undercover unit in front of my home. Fitzgerald remains in his car as I and my wife ask these unidentified men who they are and what they want.

The initial verbal exchange prior to their attack on me was very brief. The entire operation took some 3 or 4 minutes. I was instantly handcuffed and pinned to the ground with one man kneeling on my head with his full body weight. Fully restrained, I was then TASERed, for no reason.

My wife tried to photograph the assault but was physically blocked by Officer Felgenhauer, who threatened her with arrest if she dared to take any photos of Bollyn being assaulted.

This assault appears to have occurred between about 20:04 - 20:05. The TASER report, however, that I received from my FOIA request says that the TASERing occurred at 20:00:36, which does not correspond with the times found in the police log. At the time shown on the TASER report, the three men had not even arrived at my home.

Within two or three minutes, four more police vehicles arrive on the scene. The first two cars, 6134 and 6136, are carrying three officers who often work with children. The Bollyns have two young children. Seven police vehicles with 11 officers and two fire department vehicles are now on the scene.

It should be noted that nearly all of these vehicles were en route to the scene before the police assaulted me. Why would 7 police cars be dispatched to handle a non-emergency call in which a local resident is asking about a suspicious vehicle in his neighborhood?

One of the officers, Kathryn Cawley (#6280), who was not wearing a uniform, took 8-year-old Catherine Bollyn away from her mother without telling her. Helje was distracted by Officer Scott Lawrence and asked where her daughter had been taken. Why did they do that?

Officer Lawrence had followed my wife into our home without being asked in.

The log transmissions clearly show that an extraordinarily large number of police were involved in responding to my suspicious vehicle call long before they had even arrived at my home.

Image: This is part of the transmission log. This shows that a normal uniformed officer, John Fitzgerald, was properly dispatched to respond to Bollyn's 911 call - but that he and others police evidently conspired to hold uniformed personnel back and allowed the undercover tactical unit to engage the Bollyn family first. This armed unit of three men was precisely the object of Bollyn's fears. These are the men in car No. 6744, i.e. Barber, Stoy, and Felgenhauer.

The police chief, Clint Herdegen, told Bollyn that he had made the decision to send the tactical unit to respond to his non-emergency 911 call. This is an extremely unwise and unprofessional approach to such a situation.

That the police conspired to threaten and harm Bollyn is obvious by the fact that the first police car on the scene at Bollyn's house was 6132C driven by Off. Joseph Kruschel.

Such a conspiracy is a federal offense.

Image
The 911 transcript is evidence of a police conspiracy.

Originally published as “Establishing the Facts - What Really Happened When Police Assaulted Bollyn”
By: ChristopherBollyn
Date: Tuesday, February 27, 2007
http://www.rumormillnews.com/cgi-bin/ar ... ead/100253
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 24666
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

Re: The Bollyn Trial, by Christopher Bollyn

Postby admin » Tue Oct 03, 2017 12:32 am

How the Undercover Hit Squad Hijacked the 911 Call
by Christopher Bollyn
August 15, 2006

The three-man undercover tactical squad of Michael Barber, Timothy Stoy, and Darin Felgenhauer hijacked the response to Bollyn's 911 call taking it from the properly uniformed police officer named Fitzgerald, who had originally been dispatched. (Barber, it should be noted, is an agent of Michael Chertoff's Department of Homeland Security and served as an agent of DHS in New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina.) Barber's hijacking of the 911 response was clearly meant to provoke Bollyn because the unmarked undercover car with three armed men prowling his neighborhood was precisely the car that concerned Bollyn and that had prompted his 911 call.

The transcript in which Barber and Felgenhauer ask to be sent to Bollyn's house is here.

Image
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 24666
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

Re: The Bollyn Trial, by Christopher Bollyn

Postby admin » Tue Oct 03, 2017 2:16 am

Christopher Bollyn: The Man Who Solved 9/11
by Know More News
Sep 22, 2017



Investigative journalist, 9/11 researcher, and author Christopher Bollyn sits down with Adam Green and Know More News for an exclusive interview.

We discuss:

His Books and Tour
Israeli Role in 9/11
Predictive Programming
Alex Jones controlled opposiiton
and much more!

Buy Christopher Bollyns Books!
https://www.amazon.com/Solving-9-11-D...

https://www.amazon.com/War-Terror-Plo...

http://www.bollyn.com/
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 24666
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

PreviousNext

Return to A Growing Corpus of Analytical Materials

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests