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 9:47 pm

Bollyn vs Chicago Tribune
by Christopher Bollyn
August 20, 2006

Journalist Christopher Bollyn photographed at his home in Hoffman Estates on 20 August 2006

Dear Chicago Tribune:

As a member of the press who has recently become a victim of police brutality in the Chicago area, I must say that your extremely brief report on the unusual and torturous treatment and arrest that occurred at my home in Hoffman Estates is both utterly dishonest and biased. Most importantly, it fails to even mention that I am a journalist with American Free Press in Washington, D.C.

Your 121-word report begins and ends with the fundamental fabrication produced by the Hoffman Estates Police Department: "Police used a Taser to stun a Hoffman Estates man during a struggle after he called authorities to report a suspicious vehicle that turned out to be an unmarked police car," it begins.

The last sentence then repeats the lie: "The officers stopped Bollyn from entering his house and stunned him with Taser after failing to subdue him."

As we can easily discern, this is the essential lie that needs to be supported by the mainstream media.

As my wife and 8-year old daughter can attest, there was absolutely no struggle or resistance as I was attacked by three men from behind and the Taser weapon was applied as I was handcuffed and pinned down on my front lawn. The only possible explanation for the gratuitous use of the Taser weapon is that it was applied to torture me and inflict long-term damage.

It should be noted that the car that responded to my 911 call was the very car that was the subject of my concerns. Why would the police send the heavily-armed undercover agents in an unmarked car to my house as a response to a 911 call?

The Tribune reported that I had "physically threatened" the undercover agents. How could I "physically" threaten three heavily-armed "police" wearing body-armor on my driveway?

For that matter, how could I even know that these unidentified thugs who appeared in my yard were police? To this day, I still do not know the identity of the three men who beat and Tasered me on my front lawn in front of my family.

Christopher Bollyn


The following was the Chicago Tribune about the police assault on Bollyn

Title: Cops struggle with man, stun him with a Taser
Dateline: Hoffman Estates
Date: August 17, 2006

Police used a Taser to stun a Hoffman Estates man during a struggle after he called authorities to report a suspicious vehicle that turned out to be an unmarked police car, authorities said Wednesday.

Christopher L. Bollyn, 49, of the 200 block of Kingman Lane, was charged with aggravated assault and resisting arrest Tuesday, authorities said.

Bollyn called police around 8 p.m. Tuesday and said police officers in an unmarked car that slowly passed his house were FBI agents, Hoffman Estates Police Lt. Rich Russo said. When police went to Bollyn's house and explained who they were, Bollyn physically threatened them, Russo said. The officers stopped Bollyn from entering his house and stunned him with Taser after failing to subdue him.

Section: Metro, Page: 3
Copyright (c) 2006, Chicago Tribune Company. All rights reserved.

This article was originally posted at: ... read/92114
Site Admin
Posts: 36135
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

Re: The Bollyn Trial, by Christopher Bollyn

Postby admin » Mon Oct 02, 2017 9:54 pm

ADL Link to Bollyn Case by M.C. Piper
by Christopher Bollyn
August 27, 2006

Source: American Free Press

ADL Link to Local Police Agencies Uncovered in Chris Bollyn Affair

The Anti-Defamation League (ADL) of B'nai B'rith has had its eye on AFP correspondent Christopher Bollyn for a long time. In light of the recent attack on Bollyn, in his own front yard, by officers of his hometown police department in Hoffman Estates, Ill., it is fitting to outline what we know about past ADL efforts to undermine Bollyn.

What follows is Michael Collins Piper's abbreviated account of a previous ADL campaign against both Bollyn and Piper, demonstrating that the ADL maintains intimate contact with police officials in suburban Chicago where the attack on Bollyn took place. As Piper notes, this certainly raises the question as to whether the thugs who attacked Bollyn had been "advised" by the ADL about Bollyn.

By Michael Collins Piper

For the first five months of the year 2000 the otherwise quiet Chicago suburb of Schaumburg, Ill., was wracked by a stormy debate over censorship, centering around my book Final Judgment, which charges Israeli involvement in the assassination of President John F. Kennedy.

The frenzy began when a local library patron, Christopher Bollyn, tried to donate a copy to the Schaumburg Township District Library (STDL). Trained in Middle East studies, Bollyn is fluent in Hebrew and Arabic, among other languages. In addition, his late mother was one of the library's founders, his wife was a volunteer at the library, and Bollyn himself had worked at the library as a young man. Despite all this, the library rejected the donation.

However, Bollyn attended a library board meeting to press the matter, and, at that time, pointed out that several library directors were partisans of Israel. He charged that the book was rejected because of the Israeli lobby's fervent objections to the book.

Already involved behind the scenes, the Chicago office of the ADL publicly stepped into the picture, with ADL spokesman Richard Hirshhaut attacking Bollyn.

"We believe this is a cynical ploy, an attempt to create a First Amendment issue as a subterfuge for an effort to exploit the goodwill and fair-mindedness of the public library system," said Hirshaut. "The library should not be forced to put itself in a position of being a warehouse or central address for every bigot with an agenda."

Hirschaut had previously been based in the San Francisco office of the ADL at the very time - seven years previously - that the ADL came under intense public scrutiny for its improper involvement with at least one member of the San Francisco Police Department. Following that scandal, in which Hirschaut was under criminal investigation for his involvement in the ADL-connected police scandal, Hirschaut was moved to Chicago.

In fact, Hirschaut and the San Francisco ADL office were keeping tabs on Bollyn as far back as the early 1990s when Bollyn, then a college student in the San Francisco Bay area, was leading protests against the first U.S. war against Iraq, which was being promoted by the Israeli lobby.

In any case, the brouhaha between Bollyn and the ADL and the Schaumburg Library attracted the attention of the media. No less than five area newspapers and the PBS affiliate reported on the controversy. The mess dragged on for some five months, with Bollyn insisting that the library accept the copy of Final Judgment.

In response, the library appointed a special three-member "tribunal" to examine Final Judgment and determine whether it was "appropriate" for inclusion in the library. Heading the tribunal was Uri Toch, the library's official translator of Hebrew, which is the state language of Israel.

Toch and his tribunal declared the book "poorly written" and essentially called it a piece of garbage but finally consented to permit the book to be accepted by the library to avoid being accused of censorship.

At one point, Toch tried to get Bollyn arrested after Bollyn called the library and asked Toch, in the Israeli state language, where Toch had lived in Israel. Toch called the local police, crying that he felt "threatened."

By this juncture, I was personally tired of the attacks by the ADL on Bollyn, whom I had never even met in person and with whom I had never even spoken on the telephone, and I accepted Bollyn's invitation to come to the Schaumburg-Hoffman Estates area and speak publicly at the library where the Israeli librarian and the ADL had worked to suppress my book. Some 150 people turned out for the event - including a local police officer who happened to have been a reader of The Spotlight newspaper by which I was employed.

The officer advised me, confidentially, that the ADL had contacted the Schaumburg Police Department to "brief" them about me and about Bollyn. In response to the ADL briefing, the Schaumburg police chief at the time, Richard Casler, sent out word that one of the "top Nazis in America" (me) was coming to town and that this Nazi bigwig had invited "his followers" to come to a rally. To preserve the peace and prevent Bollyn and me from instigating another holocaust, perhaps, Casler ordered extra officers on duty.

When I learned of this tough cop's toadying to the ADL, I called his office, but Casler wouldn't come to the phone. He sent his deputy, Capt. Tom Ostermann, who refused to either admit or deny the chief had been in touch with the ADL. When Ostermann became exasperated and said he was "just a hard-working cop," I told him I thought the Schaumburg police would do the public a much better service by watching out for drug dealers rather than chasing down a fat guy with glasses whose only crime was to write a book.

The big problem is that the ADL's contacts with local law enforcement all over America have intensified. The ADL's web site on the Internet brags of its close "cooperation" with local police. The ADL brags of "advising" police departments about "gangs" and in techniques of fighting "terrorism."

Our police departments are being made adjuncts of the ADL's efforts to suppress dissent in America. Outspoken journalists such as Bollyn are the frontline targets. Don't let it happen in your town.

Originally published August 27, 2006, American Free Press, Washington, D.C. ... olice.html
Site Admin
Posts: 36135
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

Re: The Bollyn Trial, by Christopher Bollyn

Postby admin » Mon Oct 02, 2017 9:56 pm

Was Homeland Security Behind Attack On Bollyn?
by Christopher Bollyn
August 31, 2006

The "undercover tactical unit" involved in the assault and TASERing of a 9/11 investigative journalist at his Chicago-area home was most likely an operation ordered by the Department of Homeland Security, according to a former high-ranking police official.

Since the bizarre and brutal attack against me by three heavily-armed agents at my family home in Hoffman Estates, Illinois, a number of people have commented on the seemingly odd use of an "undercover tactical unit" to respond to a non-emergency 911 call.

Some of the most insightful comments have come from a former senior police official from Illinois, who spoke to a source close to AFP. The former police chief was familiar with the details of the incident when he made his comments.


The former police chief said the deployment of an armed tactical unit wearing body-armor on a "gang suppression" exercise in a neighborhood in which there are no gangs or history of gang activity was itself "highly unusual."

Although the Hoffman Estates Police Department (HEPD) C.O.P. Clint Herdegen told AFP that the tactical unit was on a normal patrol, this unit of heavily-armed men had never been seen before in the neighborhood prior to the night before the incident.

That this undercover unit of three agents, supposedly on a mission of "gang suppression," wearing tactical gear and ready to "do battle," would "blow their cover" by responding to a non-emergency 911 call from a concerned citizen about their presence in his neighborhood is one of the many anomalies of the incident.

The Illinois Terrorism Task Force (ITTF) has released a video entitled "Homeland Security Begins at Home: 7 Signs of Terrorism." Patty Thompson, spokesman for the task force, told AFP that calling 911 to report unidentified armed men is exactly what the ITTF would expect a citizen to do.

Why did a covert "gang suppression" unit leave their so-called "patrol" and respond to a non-emergency 911 call? Did these three unidentified heavily-armed agents have any right to respond to a 911 call and did they have any right to come onto my property without a warrant or probable cause, legal experts ask.

The Chicago Police Department has guidelines, specifically adopted "to ensure that the anti-gang loitering is not enforced in an arbitrary or discriminatory way." Under the CPD guidelines, the Ordinance may be enforced only by trained officers in "areas frequented by members of criminal street gangs." Such gangs do not exist in my neighborhood, and never have.

In the opinion of the former police chief, the operation appears to have been ordered by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), under the leadership of the Israeli-American dual national Michael Chertoff. Chertoff, who has been the subject of several of my articles about 9/11 and the failure of his department to respond to Hurricane Katrina, is the son of Livia Eisen, one of the first agents of Israel's military intelligence agency, the Mossad.

The purpose of the heavily-armed "gang suppression" squad in a neighborhood in which there has never been any gang activity was meant to "intimidate, scare, and harass" me, according to the former police chief. The "gang" that was being monitored was, in fact, me, he said, but the tactical unit and the local police chief were probably not aware of the political nature of the target. The tactical unit had probably only been told that I was a "very dangerous person."

The reason for the conspicuous presence of the heavily-armed agents around my house was to create a provocation and confrontation, according to the former police chief, in which I would be arrested and humiliated.

The local chief-of-police would probably have been the only local official who had direct connection with DHS, according to the former chief. DHS maintains contacts with local police departments and is able to give orders to local officials, according to its mandate.

"More than 87,000 different governmental jurisdictions at the federal, state, and local level have homeland security responsibilities," according to the DHS "organization" webpage dedicated to "Department Subcomponents and Agencies."

Experts have "come to expect" that DHS will involve local police playing "a large role in many aspects of homeland security," according to a September 2005 article by David Thacher, "The Local Role in Homeland Security," in Law & Society Review.

A recent analysis, cited by Thacher, indicated that local police would be "developing new areas of investigative expertise, cooperating much more with federal law enforcement and intelligence agencies, working more closely with the military, [and] increasing their levels of surveillance over their communities."

An inquiry to DHS asking about the precise nature of its interaction with local police departments went unanswered. Lt. Richard Russo, spokesman for the HEPD, however, told AFP that senior officers had gone through "command post" training with DHS and a private New York-based contractor called BowMac.

Lt. Dennis Carroll of the neighboring Schaumburg P.D. told AFP that DHS and the Schaumburg police "work very well together." Asked who handles the communication with the federal agency, Carroll said there is a liaison at the police department.

Russo did not know if local police are required to act on orders given by DHS, but said they probably would, in the spirit of mutual co-operation with the federal agency.

A former Swedish marine and public safety expert who works in France commented on the odd use of a "gang suppression team" to respond to a 911 call. The decision by the HEPD to send the undercover unit to explain their presence was "illogical," according to the European public safety expert.

"This was provocative, threatening, and very unusual," he said. "This is not the way to handle a 911 call. The gang suppression team should have been instructed not to get out of the car. There was no need to get out of the car, but if there were, the proper thing would have been to send only one man to the house ­ without a gun. Or better, wait for an official, marked police car with a uniformed officer to explain the situation.

"Police teams of any kind always operate in pairs," he said. "Police teams never operate in formations of three for obvious reasons."

"Gangs are local juveniles with some strange ways," the France-based public safety expert wrote, "Easily handled by social workers, not undercover agents in body armor. So the statement by the HEPD that undercover agents were on a gang suppression mission seems to be an outrageous lie." In France, gang suppression units always have a person videotaping their actions. In my case, there was no filming by the police and my wife was physically prevented from taking photographs.

The police have offered two explanations about why the "gang suppression" unit was sent, both of which seem illogical. The first is that this was the nearest unit, although the 911 call was not an emergency call, but rather a request for an explanation more than 30 minutes after I had observed the heavily-armed unit near my house. However, after the arrival of the tactical unit, a half-dozen squad cars and two emergency vehicles immediately appeared on the scene to support the action.

The uniformed police, however, clearly had orders not to intervene and stayed back until after the assault and arrest had been completed. This raises the question, what were the orders given to the tactical unit and to the uniformed police?

An AFP supporter contacted the Palo Alto Police Department ( Calif. ) to ask if citizens, believing that armed federal agents are spying on their home without probable cause, are entitled to call 911 and report the apparent threat to their safety?

"Yes, one can call 911," the Palo Alto police spokesperson said. "But," she added, "if federal agents are watching a home, in most cases, the local law enforcement is notified, and they are in contact with the federal agents, but local police are not to reveal which agency is involved or why." Nor are the local police allowed to intervene in any action taken by the federal agents.

Chief Herdegen of the HEPD subsequently told AFP that the tactical unit had returned to my house to identify themselves and explain their purpose. However, despite repeated requests, the three men refused to do either. Why would the HEPD send a unit who could not, or would not, identify themselves? The refusal by the armed agents to identify themselves as legitimate police officers prevented them from resolving the 911 call, and allowed them to exacerbate the situation leading to the violent assault.
Site Admin
Posts: 36135
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

Re: The Bollyn Trial, by Christopher Bollyn

Postby admin » Mon Oct 02, 2017 10:16 pm

The Trial of Investigative Reporter Christopher Bollyn
by Dr. Linda Shelton, Phd, MD
June 11, 2007

I met Mr. Bollyn about six months ago and talked with his children, wife and friends. While I do not agree with all of his writings, I am convinced his version of events concerning his arrest is correct. I am VERY concerned about this attack on HIM which was twisted, by the corrupt police and prosecutor, into a story in which he allegedly set-up the incident in order to cause a "confrontation with authority figures."

The Bollyn family in Salt Lake City, September 2006

I attended the trial. It was simply a farce - a Salem Witch trial, where someone with alternative views was crucified. It is clearly an illegal penalty on the exercise of constitutional rights - freedom of speech. The judge allowed the prosecution to make statements that were inconsistent with the evidence and highly inflammatory slander and defamation of Mr. Bollyn's character. The prosecutor so tainted the trial that a fair hearing was impossible.

Mr. Bollyn stated he is an investigative reporter who investigates unsolved crimes. He has written about depleted uranium, the 9-11 tragedy, and many other controversial issues of the day. I find it astonishing that the police and prosecutors twisted his career, and his right to question the actions of our government, into a theory that he purposely causes incidents to occur so that he can write about them.

I find it more astonishing that the judge allowed this baseless, anti free-speech and anti free-press argument. It's unbelievable that the jury bought it. No evidence was provided to the jury to prove this nonsense and therefore, it was impermissible defamation of the defendant.

Mr. Bollyn's attorneys pointed out the inconsistencies and lies of the police, but NO ONE ON THE JURY LISTENED, AND THE JUDGE IGNORED THE DUE PROCESS VIOLATIONS.

Consider please,

1. That they painted Mr. Bollyn as a "drunk", who "went to the liquor store to buy alcohol";

2. Who "faked" that he "had a broken arm" resulting from police brutality;

Christopher Bollyn addresses the public at a Hoffman Estates village board meeting, August 2006

3. Who "writes for the alternative press";

4. Who makes a living from making up crazy conspiracy theories;

5. Who called 911 solely for the purpose of luring the police to his property so that he could say they attacked him and make up another conspiracy and write about it for profit.

The three undercover tactical officers said Bollyn had approached the three of them, after they had gotten out of a car, which they had parked across the entry to his driveway - blocking it. They said they told the uniformed officer, who had been initially dispatched to respond to the call, that they would handle it. The uniformed officer then parked out of direct view of the Bollyns.

Officer Barber said Bollyn was "irate," and that "he was looking for a fight," and that "that scared the hell out of me."

Officer Felgenhauer said "I did not want to see what he was going to bring out of the house." Yet no search warrant was issued to see what was in the house after the arrest, and they allowed Bollyn's wife to go into the house and get a camera. When she tried to use the camera to document what was happening, they threatened to arrest her.

The three officers all stated that Mr. Bollyn smelled of alcohol. One said he could smell it from 10 feet away, while the other two said Bollyn had gotten as close as 2 feet from them.

Bollyn allegedly pointed a finger in one officer's face (Barber) from two feet away, and stood in a "bladed stance" with "clenched fists and clenched teeth." Bollyn said he stood 8 feet away and only pointed at their car. Bollyn testified that he said, "Why are you threatening our neighborhood, what is that (pointing to their unmarked car), and what agency do you work for?"

The undercover cops all said their vests were clearly marked with large letters saying "police" but admitted that the words were attached by Velcro. They said their badges were clearly in view although one said his badge was under the vest.

The police said Bollyn ran for the house stating he was getting "reinforcements" and the three heavily armed officers (like a Swat team, or according to Bollyn, like someone would see in Baghdad) were afraid he was going into the house to get a weapon because he turned and said "I'm getting reinforcements, the militia," so they had to take him down, after stating multiple times he was under arrest, and that he struggled so much they had to use a TASER.

One officer (Felgenhauer) stated clearly that Mr. Bollyn had committed NO CRIME before he turned to the house and ran. (Then why was he convicted of assault?) Furthermore, the police admitted that his running to his house was not itself a crime. Bollyn said he walked quickly to get his brother as he thought he was going to get shot.

The prosecutors said since Bollyn gave a speech in Utah 3-4 weeks later, and moved his arm, this proved that he was faking his elbow injury.

The police chief admitted that their police cars, including the undercover cars are equipped with video cameras and that the department policy is that it is mandatory to use them and to preserve this evidence if it documents a crime. Yet the chief said the tapes of all seven cars, including that of the first uniformed officer on the scene, Ofc. Kruschel, who hid in the shadows when the tactical unit said they would handle it, as well as the undercover car, were recycled and no one ever looked at them to see if there was any evidence.

The arresting officer (Fitzgerald) said that Mr. Bollyn was so drunk and belligerent that he banged his head on the Plexiglas divider in the squad car.

Fitzgerald also admitted, on cross-examination, that he was the officer that told the squad car behind him (Ofc. Kruschel who had been on the scene from the beginning) to "turn off your video", while he was transporting Bollyn and that he could have turned his video around to record Bollyn's behavior but he didn't. This statement was played by the defense from the recording of the police communication center.

The police testified that the undercover officers were just doing "routine patrols" several nights in a row, and that there was a woman who is a user of heroin down the street.

The prosecutor (despite the 911 deputy director stating that the police and fire logs were accurate and in real time) stated in closing that the logs were not accurate because the 911 staff did not necessarily write down what was said, when it was said.

Compare that nonsense with the evidence presented and facts:

1) No evidence was given that Mr. Bollyn was drunk - no breathalyzer, no statement that he had slurred speech, no statement that he stumbled or was impaired in any way - only the word of the police that he "smelled like alcohol." The police did NOT have Bollyn examined by a doctor to document impairment by alcohol or to check him for injuries after the TASER was used.

2) The police came to his property at his request when he said there was a suspicious vehicle that frightened him. The Hoffman Estates web site urges its residents to "call 911 when in doubt." There was NO REPORT that he was drunk, no history of violence, no record of a FOIA card or a gun, and no complaint against Mr. Bollyn. Bollyn was never trained in military or police tactics. So why would three heavily-armed and very well trained tactical officers be afraid of him?

3) There was a crowd of children playing in the front yard, Mr. Bollyn was wearing a Hawaiian shirt, shorts and sandals (certainly not dressed to fight).

4) Mr. Bollyn testified he came back from a long stay away from his home a few weeks before the incident so he didn't have a phone in the house yet. He made the 911 call from a liquor store near his home.

The 911 transmission log for the Hoffman Estates Fire Department EMS vehicles that responded to the Bollyn house on August 15, 2006. This document reveals that the three-man tactical unit led by Ofc. Barber planned to use violence when they responded to Mr. Bollyn's non-emergency 911 call about a suspicious vehicle. This was not a "gang suppression" exercise - this was a hit squad!

This dispatch record shows that a fire department ambulance team was dispatched to the Bollyn house, for an unknown medical emergency, at the same time as the police.

There was absolutely no evidence to make the giant leap that he was drunk or went to the store to "buy alcohol" as the prosecutor said in the closing argument.

5) There are medical records, I have seen, but which were not introduced at trial stating Mr. Bollyn had an elbow effusion. As a doctor I can tell you that this means it is highly likely that there was a small occult fracture. These small fresh fractures usually do not show up on X-rays for weeks - the pattern of the effusion is highly suggestive. The arm would be very sore at first, but he could still move his fingers to type and could move it from the shoulder out of the sling. The hospital put on a posterior splint and gave him a sling. They told him to see an Orthopedic Surgeon, but he didn't because he does not have health insurance, so he just wore the sling until he could use his arm better.

Bollyn the day after the assault by three undercover police in Hoffman Estates

Just because he took it off to shower and drive, and did not wear it while giving a speech 3-4 weeks later, does not mean he was "faking" an injury so that he could falsely state the police injured him.

6) Of the three undercover tactical officers, two of them were military veterans, former military police, trained in combat and SWAT team techniques. The one who TASERed Bollyn had spent 5 years as a Military Police in charge of prisoners. Obviously these men are very familiar with the terms "reinforcements", "bladed stance", and the physical demeanor of someone violent about to strike, so it is clear where these lies came from.

7) Mr. Bollyn testified he had NO military training or experience, knew of NO militia in the area and simply turned to go to the door quickly and get his brother as a witness, shouting "Jay, Jay" because one of the officers really concerned him when he stepped back and said "so you think we are threatening" and another reached under his vest and unsnapped the holster to his weapon.

How could any one believe that Mr. Bollyn took a military or martial arts like stance to pick a fight with three armed men wearing body armor while standing next to his 8-year-old daughter and wife, wearing only sandals and shorts and with no training in how to fight?

Bollyn and his children in Schaumburg, August 2006

8) Mr. Bollyn is known to be a pacifist.

9) His wife testified that before Mr. Bollyn came out of the house, she had repeatedly asked the men for identification and to explain who they were. She said they would not say who they were, but that one had pulled out a driver's license and shown it from about 7-8 feet while another raised his vest very briefly and flashed a small shiny object that could have been a badge.

10) The childrens' story agrees with the Bollyns' and contradicts the police, but they didn't testify because their parents didn't want them to be traumatized further.

The Bollyn family on the search for a lawyer in Chicago, August 2006

They are suffering nightmares, refuse to sleep in the front bedroom where the window is next to where their father was attacked, and are very shaken and crying worrying that their dad, who home schools them and is very close to them will be taken away to jail. The trauma to them is palpable if one speaks to the children. 9-year-old children generally do not lie about such things, unlike police.

11) Mr. Bollyn ran for village president in Hoffman Estates in 2001 [as an anti-corruption candidate] so there is motive to discredit him in the community. (Cook County, Illinois is known for political corruption - take out your opponent is the motto.)

12) Ofc. Kruschel's video had been on and clearly could have recorded Bollyn's behavior in the squad car, but it was turned off during the transport. Then why did the police not preserve it as evidence?

13) One officer testified on cross examination that Mr. Bollyn committed NO CRIME when he turned towards the house. Yet the jury convicted him of assaulting Ofc. Barber before he turned to the house to get his brother. Go figure! They obviously became biased by the inflammatory and derogatory picture painted of Bollyn by the prosecutor and failed to listen to the evidence.

14) The judge would NOT ALLOW the defense expert witness on police procedures to testify. He could have commented on "routine patrol" procedures, how it was unnecessary for all three officers to get out of the car to talk with Bollyn without any suspicion of criminal activity, how this might frighten Bollyn, how parking diagonally across the driveway was a threatening procedure, (why didn't they politely park in front?) and how it was bizarre that three well trained and experienced officers would have to use a TASER on a partially handcuffed, restrained and untrained individual that was already pinned beneath two men on the ground. One of the men had used a very dangerous pressure hold and knelt with his full body weight on Bollyn's right temple for at least two minutes.

15) I don't believe that it is routine to patrol a low crime area in an undercover car with three undercover officers and to drive slowly past Mr. Bollyn's house two days in a row.

16) The testimonies of the three undercover cops and the one witness they produced, were contradictory and highly strained.

17) Two neighbors testified for Mr. Bollyn that they were across the street and that the fire truck was there before Mr. Bollyn turned to the house and was taken down. This is confirmed by the police and fire department 911 transcripts. Why was a fire truck called before they used the TASER? This certainly is not routine in the case of a citizen who makes a call about a "suspicious vehicle." The judge wrongfully allowed the prosecutor to contradict the 911 deputy director's testimony in their closing argument and state that the time on the 911 transcripts were not necessarily accurate to explain the presence of the fire truck.

18) The judge allowed the State's Attorney to grossly mischaracterize the evidence in closing, state false "facts" that were never in evidence, and therefore biased the jury.

19) Mr. Bollyn testified that the arresting Ofc. Fitzgerald was very nasty and derogatory towards him, calling his late mother a c___, etc., and when Mr. Bollyn leaned forward asking what he had said, he purposely slammed on the brakes several times to make him hit his head on the seat divider Plexiglas. At the station, Ofc. Fitzgerald told the assembled officers waiting in the garage that Mr. Bollyn had said cursing derogatory statements about the police so that they would then rough him up (Mr. Bollyn's statement of what they said was more detailed, but I don't wish to repeat it.)

20) The police made no effort to obtain a search warrant of the Bollyn house to find the "weapon" or "reinforcements" - yet the prosecutor made a big deal about it - "who knows what was behind that door", and "the police risk their lives daily." They "had to protect themselves" is what he said. I ask FROM WHAT?

This conviction was for the sole purpose of destroying the credibility of Mr. Bollyn and retaliating against his controversial reporting on issues of the day. All persons of conscience, who believe in the Bill of Rights and are opposed to the encroaching police state, should protest loudly, contribute to his legal defense fund (he will need to raise at least $10,000 for appeal) write and continue to write their congressmen, the Hoffman Estate police, Mayor, and the press about their outrage and be prepared for a long and consistent fight to overturn this gross injustice.

I am praying that the judge has the intelligence and sense of justice to find Bollyn not guilty based on the evidence notwithstanding the verdict on post-trial motions, or throw out the conviction and declare a mistrial because of the prosecutorial misconduct in making derogatory and inflammatory statements without evidence, before sentencing on June 25, 2007.

Originally posted as: "The Trial of RMN Agent Christopher Bollyn as Reported by Dr. Linda Shelton"
Posted By: Rayelan, Wednesday, 13-Jun-2007 02:10:08 ... ead=105561
Site Admin
Posts: 36135
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

Re: The Bollyn Trial, by Christopher Bollyn

Postby admin » Mon Oct 02, 2017 10:38 pm

Bollyn Attorney Moves for Reversal of Verdict
July 19, 2007

On June 26, 2007, one day after Christopher Bollyn failed to appear for in court for sentencing before Associate Judge Hyman I. Riebman of the Cook County Circuit Court, his lead defense attorney Paul P. Moreschi filed two motions on Bollyn's behalf. (Both motions were filed with the clerk of the circuit court and are assumed to be documents in the public domain.)

Bollyn was charged with Aggravated Assault and Resisting a Police Officer after being assaulted and TASERed in front of his home, wife, and 8-year-old daughter on August 15, 2006, by three Hoffman Estates undercover cops who were unidentified, heavily-armed, and wearing only blue jeans and body armor. Bollyn had called 911 to report a suspicious vehicle with three armed men prowling around his house. The three-man undercover tactical unit improperly intervened in the 911 response and came to the Bollyn house with the clear purpose of committing a violent assault. This was clear from the fact that they had discussed "a fight in progress" minutes before they even arrived at the Bollyn house. This caused the 911 dispatch to send emergency medical vehicles, which arrived on the scene one second after the undercover tactical unit arrived.

Bollyn, claiming his innocence, went through a seriously flawed trial and was found guilty of both misdemeanors. Expert court observers described the trial as "a miscarriage of justice."


Moreschi's first motion was for a new trial and argues that "various errors" occurred prior to and during the trial "which all served to deprive the defendant [Bollyn] of fundamental constitutional rights guaranteed by the United States Constitution and the Illinois State Constitution of 1970..."

Moreschi argues that Bollyn was denied "effective assistance of counsel in that his [first] trial counsel [Jack C. Smeeton of Wilmette, Illinois] failed to promptly file with the court a Motion For Discovery on his behalf;"

Bollyn was also denied "effective assistance of counsel," Moreschi argues, because Smeeton "failed to promptly seek from the court on his behalf an order preserving all evidence in connection with this cause..."

Smeeton committed legal malpractice in the Bollyn case by intentionally failing to provide "effective assistance of counsel" by promptly serving subpoenas to preserve the evidence. Bollyn had even provided Smeeton with subpoena forms and a completed rider to be submitted to the Hoffman Estates Police Dept. to preserve the evidence, but Smeeton adamantly refused to submit either. When Smeeton repeatedly refused to serve a subpoena to the Hoffman Estates Police Dept., Bollyn demanded that he withdraw from the case.

Bollyn was denied "his fundamental constitution rights to due process of law and confrontation in that the Hoffman Estates Police Dept. failed, whether intentionally, negligently or inadvertently, to gather and/or preserve and/or produce all audio and video tape evidence in connection with this cause despite HEPD General Orders to so gather and preserve such evidence..."

The destruction of this video evidence deprived Bollyn of his fundamental rights to due process of law and confrontation, Moreschi argues in his first post-trial motion.

Judge Feccarotta erred when he entered an order, sua sponte, "effectively striking that portion of the defendant's subpoena duces tecum, served upon the Chief of the HEPD, commanding the production of the personnel files of Officers [Michael] Barber, [Timothy] Stoy, and [Darin] Felgenhauer."

Michael Barber served in a military-type function with the Dept. of Homeland Security in New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina and had previously spent more than 5 years serving as a Military Police in which he worked with prisoners. Because the police assault on Bollyn seemed to be more of a military operation than a police response, Bollyn's first question to Chief of Police Clint Herdegen on August 17 had been about the military background of the officers involved. Herdegen claimed to have no knowledge although both Barber and Felgenhauer had lengthy military careers before becoming police officers.

Judge Hyman I. Riebman erred, Moreschi continued, in denying Bollyn's two motions for sanctions based on the destruction of video tape evidence, which asked for the charges to be dismissed, or for an order limiting the introduction of evidence, or for jury instructions relative to the destruction of evidence.

Judge Riebman, who heard the Bollyn trial, also erred on many of his decisions, Moreschi argues in the motion, most notably by the following actions:

* not allowing the defendant to represent himself, while still being represented by counsel;

* not allowing the defendant to present and argue each of his pretrial motions filed pro se;

* in not considering and ruling on each of the aforesaid pretrial motions filed by the defendant pro se;

* in denying the defendant's oral Motion For Directed Verdict made at the close of the prosecution's case;

* in granting the prosecution's Motion In Limine, ordering that the defendant would not be allowed to present to the jury the testimony of defense expert, Gregory Johnson, relative to the area of his expertise, namely police procedures, the appropriate manner in which to de-escalate an escalating police encounter, and the appropriate use of police force...;

* in denying jury instructions that the jury would have to find, beyond a resonable doubt, that the defendant [Bollyn] committed the acts alleged;

* in denying the defendant's request that the jury be instructed relative to the law on defense of person, defense of others, defense of dwelling, and defense of property;

* in ordering that not all exhibits introduced into evidence at trial could be brought to the jury for review and consideration during deliberations;

The evidence admitted at trial was not tantamount to proof beyond a reasonable doubt of the defendant's [Bollyn] guilt with respect to either of the charges and was insufficient to support the verdict of the jury with respect to either charge, Moreschi argues in the motion.

The prosecution team of James Pontrelli and Stacy Cosseth, which was supervised by Steven Rosenblum, presented arguments to the jury that were improper and prejudicial, "including, but no limited to, argument that the defendant was intoxicated" and that Bollyn "intentionally created his contact with the order to provide himself with material about which he could write article in the course of his career as a journalist."

Rosenblum mixed Bollyn's journalism into the prosecution of the journalist when he said, before the trial, that the prosecution of Bollyn should go ahead because of his "anti-Jewish" writing. Rosenblum's comment, and other comments made by Pontrelli suggest that Bollyn was being prosecuted and tried because of his writing, which is protected by the First Amendment. It also suggests that the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) was improperly involved in the case and was advising Rosenblum in the office of the prosecutor.

Cosseth and Pontrelli got the first and the last word in a seriously flawed legal process in which the defense was not given the last word or even allowed to rebut the prosecution's final presentation to the jury. Pontrelli, who addressed the jury last, committed a raft of violations. He was allowed to misrepresent to the jury the injurious effect of the 50,000 volt TASER shock Bollyn received as if it was nothing more than a tiny shock that affected an area of about one square inch. These false statements reflected the false testimony of Officer Barber who was allowed to misrepresent to the court the effects of the TASER although he is not an expert witness on effects of the TASER.

Pontrelli was also allowed to completely misrepresent to the serious injury to Bollyn's right elbow. Pontrelli claimed that Bollyn did not suffer "an occult fracture" in his right elbow and suggested that Bollyn had concocted this injury. Pontrelli was allowed to make these false claims to the jury despite the fact that he had no medical expertise or evidence upon which to base his claims.

James Pontrelli, Stacy Cosseth, and their supervisor Steven Rosenblum, will be certainly be remembered as the people who prosecuted this miscarriage of justice.

"There's frustration when we go through a jury trial and you think that the truth is heard," Pontrelli told the Daily Herald. "You want to see it finalized."

The only question is which truth does Pontrelli believe? Three of the four prosecution witnesses told completely contradictory accounts of what occurred at the Bollyn house. (It was very clear that the jury and the news reporters were not very diligent in taking notes during the four-day trial.)

Officer Michael Barber, for example, who delivered the "stun drive" TASER to Bollyn while he restrained by handcuffs and held down by himself and Officer Timothy Stoy, perjured himself when he told the court that Officer Stoy had shouted, "TASER, TASER, TASER," prior to the TASER shock being applied.

Officer Stoy, on the other hand, told the court that Barber had called out "TASER" before using the TASER weapon to torture and injure Bollyn. Stoy was kneeling on Bollyn's right temple when the 50,000 volt TASER shock was applied. Stoy knelt with his full body weight on Bollyn's head for at least two minutes, a non-police hold which is extremely dangerous and harmful.

Clearly either Barber or Stoy, or both, are lying about the verbal warning given before the TASER shock was applied. As the person who was TASERed, Bollyn has testified that no verbal warning was given prior to his being shocked. This means that either Barber or Stoy, or both, commited perjury when they testified about this verbal warning. This would be made clear by the video tape recordings that were destroyed by the HEPD.

Barber said that he smelled alcohol on Bollyn's breath and that Bollyn had stood two feet from the police officer's face. Stoy, on the other hand, said he had smelled alcohol on Bollyn's breath as he stood ten feet away. Because Barber, Stoy, and Felgenhauer had stood beside each other as they addressed Bollyn, the question is which is telling the truth - Barber or Stoy? Was Bollyn two feet or ten feet away? Despite the wild police claims of smelling alcohol from ten feet away, no normal police tests were done to determine if Bollyn had any alcohol in his system. Furthermore, the police denied Bollyn any medical attention and even sent the emergency personnel away after they had tackled and TASERed him.

The prosecution's only non-police witness, Debra Cabay, clearly told the court and demonstrated how Bollyn "took a swing" with his right arm at the police on his driveway although there is not even one word in the police report or in testimony from any of the three undercover officers that Bollyn ever "took a swing" at anyone.

So three of the four witnesses for the prosecution clearly lied on the stand and evidently perjured themselves. Yet Rosenblum, Pontrelli, and Cosseth (and perhaps even Judge Riebman) believe the police account and are quite willing to send an innocent man and father to jail. The only question is, which police account do you believe?

Moreschi's second motion was a Motion For Finding Of Not Guilty Notwithstanding Verdict of Jury, in which he requests the court to enter a finding of not guilty against Bollyn because "the evidence admitted at trial was not tantamount to proof beyond a reasonable doubt."

It is not known if these motions have been heard or argued in court. The next date for the Bollyn case to be heard before Judge Riebman is August 3 in the Rolling Meadows courthouse of the Cook County Circuit Court.

Photo: Christopher Bollyn at his home in Hoffman Estates shortly after the undercover police assault which resulted in his being TASERed and his right elbow being fractured. James Pontrelli of the prosecution told the jury, without any evidence to support his claims, that these injuries were fraudulent and concocted by Bollyn or not even worth considering.

Originally published as "Bollyn's Attorney Moves for New Trial or Reversal of Verdict"
Posted By: ChristopherBollyn <Send E-Mail>
Date: Thursday, 19-Jul-2007 10:41:01 ... ead/106800
Site Admin
Posts: 36135
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

Re: The Bollyn Trial, by Christopher Bollyn

Postby admin » Mon Oct 02, 2017 10:50 pm

Constitution Coalition of Utah Letter of Support
May 30, 2007

Mayor William D. McLeod
1900 Hassell Road
Hoffman Estates, IL 60169

Via: Fax (847) 781-2669 and U.S. Mail

Dear Mayor McLeod:

Speaking for the constitution Coalition here in Utah, I write you this letter in regard to Christopher Bollyn who has been terribly mistreated and assaulted by the very people in Hoffman Estates who should be protecting American citizens.

When Christopher Bollyn called 911 last August, he was concerned with the unidentified car and three plain clothed men who had been cruising in his area. He was concerned and wanted to know who they were.

As you know, they turned out to be the very ones who assaulted, injured and TASERed Christopher Bollyn with a shock of 50,000 volts, as other police and firemen stood by. This should never happen in the pleasant village of Hoffman Estates. Nor should it happen anyplace in America.

The three policemen who assaulted Bollyn are the ones who should be on trial – not Bollyn!! We plead with you, Mayor McLeod, to see that justice is done in this matter. Bollyn in entitled to have his case dismissed and to receive just compensation from the city for all that he suffered. Members of the Constitution Coalition stand fully behind Christopher Bollyn.

We would be pleased to hear from you on this matter.


Spencer F. Hatch

Christopher Bollyn and family after a speech in Salt Lake City to the Constitution Coalition of Utah

Originally published as "Bollyn Trial - Constitution Coalition of Utah Speaks Up for Bollyn"
Date: Wednesday, May 30, 2007 ... ead=104998
Site Admin
Posts: 36135
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

Re: The Bollyn Trial, by Christopher Bollyn

Postby admin » Mon Oct 02, 2017 10:52 pm

Dr. Steven Jones Appeals for Fairness
May 23, 2007

Dr. Steven E. Jones
Provo, Utah
23 May 2007

To Whom It May Concern:

I understand that my colleague and friend Christopher Bollyn was subjected to TASER shocking by members of the Hoffman Estates Police Department while he was handcuffed – in a community in your jurisdiction or area. I consider this barbaric action shameful and "cruel and unusual punishment," forbidden in the U.S. Constitution. I further understand that Christopher will now be subjected to a trial (Case No. 06MC3005170). In my opinion, it will be the Hoffman Estates Police Department and local leaders who will be on trial, if this trial goes forward.

I have known Christopher Bollyn as a decent and loving family man. I respect him and the rights of all those who speak out in defense of Constitutional principles of human dignity and freedom as he has done in his job as an investigative reporter.

Where is the dignity and fairness in TASERing a handcuffed man on the ground, and breaking his elbow? Is not this brutality against a neighbor? How can there be justice and a fair trial when the video tapes of the incident have been "recycled?" That "recycling" of the tapes should itself be sufficient to dismiss the case against him, since officials failed to protect this crucial evidence which would have revealed the facts of what happened and could have exonerated Christopher. It is called "due process."

I will be following this situation and will follow the trial of Christopher on the one hand, and the mayor and Hoffman Estates Police Department on the other. It certainly appears that Christopher has been put into unnecessary pain and jeopardy, perhaps due to his investigative reporting disclosures. Freedom of inquiry and freedom of speech are highly prized civil rights in this country, and I ask you to support those rights.

I ask that Christopher Bollyn be treated fairly and not subjected to any further mistreatment. Furthermore, it certainly appears appropriate to dismiss the charges given the destruction of crucial taped evidence at the hands of those who were duty-bound to preserve that evidence. This case is becoming well known and the attention will certainly escalate as many are now watching you. I wonder, will justice and due process prevail?


Dr. Steven E. Jones
Professor of Physics (ret.)
PhD, Vanderbilt University 1978

Christopher Bollyn and Dr. Steven E. Jones in May 2006 at the Eyring Science Center, home of the Department of Physics and Astronomy, at Brigham Young University. In the spring of 2006, Bollyn and Jones shared notes and worked together to solve the mystery of the large amounts of molten metal found in the basements of all three demolished towers weeks after 9/11. In the summer of 2006, Bollyn and Jones were both targeted, defamed, and smeared by people and organizations dedicated to concealing the truth of 9/11. (Photo Helje Kaskel)

* * * * * * *

This is the list of people who Dr. Jones sent his appeal to:

Mayor William D. McLeod
Tel: (847)781-2604 Fax: (847)781-2669

Police Department – Chief of Police Clint Herdegen
Tel: (847)882-1818 Fax: (847)882-8423

HEPD Spokesperson – Lt. Richard Russo
Officer responsible for preservation of the evidence
Tel: (847)781-2807 Fax: (847)882-8423

Village Manager – James H. Norris
Tel: (847)882-9100 Fax: (847)781-2669

Corporation Counsel – Richard N. Williams
Tel: (847)882-9100 Fax: (847)781-2669

Illinois State Senator for Hoffman Estates area
Honorable John J. Millner
Tel: (217)782-8192 or (630)351-9340

Cook County State's Attorney's Office
Supervisor - Steven Rosenblum
Tel: (847) 818-2326

Originally posted as: "Dr. Steven Jones Appeals for Fairness for Christopher Bollyn"
Posted By: ChristopherBollyn <Send E-Mail>
Date: Wednesday, 23-May-2007 22:15:47 ... ead=104752
Site Admin
Posts: 36135
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

Re: The Bollyn Trial, by Christopher Bollyn

Postby admin » Mon Oct 02, 2017 10:56 pm

Letter to Mayor William D. McLeod from Illinois Committee for Public and Private Accountability
May 14, 2007

Illinois Committee for Public and Private Accountability
P.O. Box 6169
Chicago, Illinois 60680

Via U.S. Mail

William D. McLeod, Mayor
Village of Hoffman Estates
1900 Hassell Road
Hoffman Estates, IL 60169

RE: HEPD v. the Sovereign Citizenry of Hoffman Estates

Dear Mayor:

ICPPA is, inter alia, a citizen, consumer, and constitutional rights advocacy group that compliments agencies, companies, and organizations when they serve the People well and that seeks to encourage them to do better when that is indicated. But it has come to our attention that all may not be well in your Police Department.

It has been rumored abroad, for example, that plain-clothes, rogue, HEPD cops are casing and surveilling law-abiding residents' yards, invading them in response to 911 calls from the owners of such properties about those very same suspicious armed men, immediately taking aggressively bladed stances in front of their houses, announcing – upon their arrival but without any arrest warrant of provocation – that they have come to arrest the sovereign citizen who is head of the household, refusing to identify themselves as police to him when he comes out to inquire why they have invaded his property, when he turns to retreat back into his house to get away from the apparently impending terrorist attack: tackling him, sitting on him, TASERing him, breaking his arm, arresting him, charging him with trumped-up, phony 'crimes' – one of which (aggravated assault), it has been said, should be charged against the rogue cops themselves! – denying him medical attention while in custody, destroying the only material evidence (the unmarked squad car video tape) of the incident that is completely exculpatory of him but inculpatory of the rogue cops, supplying phony lying documents in response to his FOIA requests and legal discovery that show completely different clothes on the three rogues than on the day of the incident, and then visiting his neighbor witnesses and suborning them to change their previously offered testimony – that had been exculpatory of the sovereign citizen and inculpatory of the HEPD – to the reverse of what it had been!

Lt. Ted Bos of the HEPD was seen visiting Bollyn's neighbors - suborning key witnesses - before the trial.

This fantastically unbelievable rumor, which, up until now, we had supposed could only happen in some dictatorial country, couldn't possibly, really be true, could it, Mr. McLeod? We certainly hope not.

But alas, when we heard that this particular sovereign citizen and Hoffman Estates resident once campaigned for the job that you now hold and allegedly exposed a lot of deeply entrenched corruption in your Village, we began to wonder whether there could possibly be any causative connection between those former activities of his and the unprovoked and apparently very criminal attack of your police upon him.

Then, to make things constitutionally even worse – if that is imaginable – when we heard that this particular sovereign citizen and Hoffman Estates property owner is a seasoned, international journalist who has allegedly exposed – or claims to have exposed – a lot of deeply entrenched corruption in the current administration in Washington, D.C., including about 9/11 and the Mossad's putative involvement therein, and then when we heard that the current Director of Homeland Security is or has family who is or was allegedly a Mossad agent and who, in any event, is himself a dual-loyalty citizen of the Middle Eastern state called 'Israel' and that Homeland Security works closely with your Police Department, as it does with all police departments now, we began to wonder whether there could possibly be any causative connection between the said on-going journalistic activities of this sovereign citizen and Hoffman Estates resident and the allegedly unprovoked and criminal attack of your police upon him.

Now Mayor, on the one hand, ICPPA is not in the habit of making unfounded and unproven accusations, nor are we doing so here. This is strictly an innocent inquiry, which assumes that none of this fantastic story could possibly be true in "the land of the free [or] the home of the brave," but rather that it is just wild rumor and absolutely nothing more. Please rush us your written assurance to us that there is not a shred of truth in any of it.

On the other hand, however, since it may be prudent of us to hedge our bets, we would just like to suggest that, if any significant portion of these allegations is true, the three police officers in question, their immediate supervisors and your Chief of Police (for failure to train and supervise), you personally who, it has been rumored, have encouraged a policy or custom of such rogue police depredations, and perhaps numerous others all the way to very high levels in Washington, D.C., could eventually be in deep doodoo in federal court.

But such a national and international scandal, announcing to all the world that the Village of Hoffman Estates is now front runner for this year's Leon Trotsky (or perhaps, more appropriately, this year's David Raziel, Avraham Yair, Rabbi Avraham Toledano, Baruch Marzel, Binyamin Ze'ev Kahane, Baruch Goldstein, Rabbi Meir Kahane, or Shelley Rubin) Award, would hardly be becoming to the Village, now would it?

Perhaps – depending upon whether any or how many of them are true – it would surely just be easier, more politically correct, and more (publicity-wise) prudent to simply settle with this sovereign citizen and Hoffman Estates property owner, whose constitutional rights – if the Village admits fault in this matter – your subordinates have so horrifically trampled upon. Of course, if you do attempt to settle, we trust that you would bear in mind – again, depending upon how many, if any, of these wild allegations are true – that the value of this sovereign citizen's otherwise, eventual, federal, civil suit, which numerous big-name free speech and police-brutality attorneys (especially out-of-state ones that would not be subject to corrupt Illinois politics) would no doubt love to take, is growing by the minute. And it would be a fair bet that, even if your allegedly rogue cops lied like a rug at trial, as they are alleged to be doing now, a 12 person jury could not convict, on a beyond-a-reasonable-doubt standard, this allegedly poor, innocent victim of Hoffman Estates Official Misconduct, 720 ILCS 5/33-3 and Conspiracy Against Civil Rights, 735 ILCS 5/8-2.1. In fact – should the Village admit fault – it would be your three rogue cops and their superiors who ought to be prosecuted! So, don't you think that – again, depending upon how many of these wild rumors are true – this sovereign citizen's civil case would be worth somewhere between $1-5 million?

We here at ICPPA certainly hope that the potentially humungous blotch on the otherwise (apparently, mostly) clean reputation of Hoffman Estates would just dissipate in the backrooms of negotiation. Believe it or not, we actually like Hoffman Estates and want to see it prosper and to get whatever federal funds it is due, but which would hardly be justified in continuing to flow in the face of any such fact scenario as is being alleged here.

By copying the individuals that we have with this letter, it is our hope that it will result in: 1.) an exhaustive investigation of the allegations contained herein and, if they are confirmed (may God save your Village and our country!), 2.) prosecution of all responsible for the two crimes cited above, if not also for many more, such as 18 USC 242, Deprivation of Constitutional Rights Under Color of State Law, 18 USC 241, Conspiracy Against Rights Under Color of State Law, and also the Racketeer- Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, 18 USC 1961 et seq.

In any event, we shall be watching this matter very closely and, should the Village not be forthcoming with reasonable proof of its innocence or a reasonable settlement offer, we might ourselves get involved, beginning with the submittal of our own FOIA requests, being fully prepared to litigate any violation thereof in which your Village might decide to indulge, as we would be.

Sincerely yours for public and private accountability,
Davy Cady

Karen Mills, Trustee
Cary Collins, Trustee
Raymond Kincaid, Trustee
Jackie Green, Trustee
Gary Pilafas, Trustee

Jim Norris, Village Manager
Virginia Hayter, Village Clerk
Richard Williams, Esq., Village Attorney
Clint Herdegen, Village Chief of Police

Doug Schultz, Editor, Hoffman Estates Citizen

Jeff Wisser, Editor in Chief, Hoffman Estates Review, 291 Dunton Ave., Arlington Heights, IL 60004-5903

John Lampinen, Editor in Chief, Daily Herald, P.O. Box 280, Arlington Heights, IL 60006-0280

Jill Blodgett, Executive Director, Village Chamber of Commerce,
2200 W. Higgins, Suite 201, Hoffman Estates, IL 60195

Robert D. Grant, Special Agent in Charge, Federal Bureau of Investigation,
2111 W. Roosevelt Rd., Chicago, IL 60608
Site Admin
Posts: 36135
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

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: ... taliation/
Site Admin
Posts: 36135
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.

Site Admin
Posts: 36135
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am


Return to A Growing Corpus of Analytical Materials

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests