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 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: 35170
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: 35170
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: 35170
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: 35170
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: 35170
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: 35170
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: 35170
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."


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.


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.

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?


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.


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.

The front door of the Bollyn home
Site Admin
Posts: 35170
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 ... ead=102707
Site Admin
Posts: 35170
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?

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. ... 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.

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.

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 ... ead/101044
Site Admin
Posts: 35170
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