US Indymedia Global Indymedia Publish About us
Printed from Boston IMC :
IVAW Winter Soldier

Winter Soldier
Brad Presente

Other Local News

Spare Change News
Open Media Boston
Somerville Voices
Cradle of Liberty
The Sword and Shield

Local Radio Shows

WMBR 88.1 FM
What's Left
WEDS at 8:00 pm
Local Edition
FRI (alt) at 5:30 pm

WMFO 91.5 FM
Socialist Alternative
SUN 11:00 am

WZBC 90.3 FM
Sounds of Dissent
SAT at 11:00 am
Truth and Justice Radio
SUN at 6:00 am

Create account Log in
Comment on this article | View comments | Email this article | Printer-friendly version
News :: Globalization
TREASONGATE : Whitehouse Indictments
19 Aug 2005
TREASONGATE : Whitehouse Indictments
TREASONGATE : Whitehouse Indictments

TREASONGATE: Total Media BLACK OUT of 18 USC 794, Federal Espionage Statute

In my two part series, TREASONGATE: The Controlling Law,

Part 1 Part 2 I discussed the fact that the Intelligence Identities
Protection Act is virtually irrelevant as to the Valerie Plame CIA leak
investigation. I focussed on the applicability to this fact pattern of 18
USC 793 and 794, the espionage statutes of the United States Code.

Let's go back now, back to the beginning of this affair. Ever since this
thing hit the news with gusto only equalled by Monica's dress, we have seen,
heard and been witness to a main stream media and main stream blogosphere
feeding frenzy of pundits politically analyzing the irrelevant IIPA. What a
time they were having until Citizen Spook came along and outed their ruse.

And what timing that the AIPAC indictments should come out a few days after
Citizen Spook published this anaylsis, (see TREASONGATE: The Controlling
Law, Part 2: THE DEATH PENALTY, 18 USC 794 and the shift from GWOT to
GSAVE ). Those indictments were based on 18 USC 793.

But more interesting and more juicy for the media is the simple application
of 18 USC 794(b) which provided for the death penalty or life in prison for
perpetraitors of espionage "in time of war".

We discussed the diplomatic policy shift from GWOT, global war on terrorism,
to GSAVE, global struggle against violent extremism, and how that shift may
be evidence of the Bush admin having worries about prosectuion under the
controlling espionage laws.

We discussed that 794(b) is met under this fact pattern of the Plame affair
since it only requires that the information communicated by the perp be
"related to the public defense" and that the perp must intend for that info
to be communicated to the "enemy". We distinguised between the term "enemy"
and the term "foreign nation" because "enemy" is much broader and does
include "the terrorists".

We also discussed that federal case law has held that giving the relevant
info to the press is no different than giving it directly to a spy for
purposes of the intent requirement of that law.

So why hasn't the main stream media and most of the blogosphere picked up on
this story?


I submit that you may begin to "out" everybody in the media and blogosphere
based upon their decision to cover 18 USC 794 or not to cover it.

Those who don't cover it, are knowingly or unknowingly, aiding and abetting
treason. Coverage of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act was
exhaustive, from CNN, NBC, ABC, CBS, MSNBC, the liberal blogs, the
conservative blogs, etc. It was everywhere as the debate raged on about what
was classified and who knew what at what time.

Crapola was fed to the masses. The IIPA is not the espionage act and does
not lead to treason convictions. C'mon people, we have a little body of law
which is called


Let's use it.

Many small web blogs did cover my report on 18 USC 794, and for that, we the
people, owe them a debt of gratitude. The only main stream alternative web
site which covered my report on 18 USC 794 and the death penalty was Jeff
Rense. Rense had an entire section based upon TREASONGATE, which linked to
four of my reports. That section has now been removed at I dont
know why, but I've written Jeff and asked him if there was a problem.

But here we have the biggest story in US history. Treason was perpetrated on
this country by the White House. We know the memo listed Plame's ID as
"secret" and that classification is prima facia proof of how important it
was to national security. She was working on WMD. All of the requirements of
18 USC 794(b) have been met with much more convincing power than under the
IIPA, so why has our very own United States Code been ignored.

It's frightening to finally see how deep the rabbit hole goes isn't it.

This information, this law, this US Code, is not speculation or theory. This
is the law and it's rock solid.

Where is the press now?

Where is the blogosphere?

Where is the feeding frenzy?

We had it for the IIPA, but for our very own US Code, it's gone, voila.

You knew the info is being controlled, but now you know that it's infected
many of your favorite blogs and so called liberal journalists. We've given
them a story here at Citizen Spook. Why aren't they running with it?

It's a simple Code, much easier to explain to the people than the IIPA, but
it's not as easy to spin and argue about. It's clear, the White House is
guilty as sin under 18 USC 794 (and 793) and the penalty is frightening to

Take over the blogs.

Take over the comments.

Write letters to the editor.

Where are the big time liberal pundits who are supposed to be fighting
against this administration?

Where is the Conyers Blog?

Where is Raw Story?

Where is The Brad Blog?

Where is Daily Kos?

Where is The Huffington Post?

Where is Air America Radio?

Yes, the rabbit hole is deep, but it ends right here.

If the same amount of energy that went into the analysis of the IIPA was
applied to 18 USC 794, the White House would be in serious trouble and would
be forced to change their plans. They wouldn't have the same time they have
now, time to create intricate diversions, time to commit more treason.

America, you have the means to fight this information war and you have the
means to demand the media step up and tell the people what laws have been
broken. And in doing this you can make them squirm, and you can force their
hand and make them act with less time to plan. By exposing the truth, you
force them to move faster, to rush their plans and in doing that they are
more prone to make a mistake.

Nobody does anything as thorough when they are rushing, compared to when
they have time to plot. By ignoring discussion about 18 USC 794 and the
death penalty or life in prison, the main stream media and blogosphere are
aiding and abetting the enemy by giving it time and resources to plot
further treason.

The IIPA discussion was a calculated ruse designed to distract you from the
real controlling law, 18 USC 793 and 794.

What are you going to do about it America?

Make some noise, make a lot of noise. If you don't, you have nothing to
complain about when they survive this and thereafter bring you tyranny
beyond your vision.

What doesn't kill them (by this I mean the law) makes them stronger. They
destroyed a network of USA intelligence operations, operations that must
have been getting close to uncovering treason worse than the treason they
committed by outing Plame and Brewster Jennings et als.

This is war people. There are no civilians in an information war. You're
either for the truth and the law, or your against it.

by Citizen Spook


coming soon: Citizen Spook on "Treasongate Deciphered", this will blow your

citizenspook (at)

posted by citizenspook at 8:59 AM 1 comments

Sunday, August 14, 2005

TREASONGATE: The Federal Grand Jury, FOURTH BRANCH of the US Government

If Patrick Fitzgerald is somehow illegally removed as Special Counsel in the
Treasongate proceedings, the grand jury(s) he has impaneled will serve at
the mercy of Fitzgerald's replacement, an individual who will have been
brought in to shield the Bush administration from criminal prosecution for
its many treasons. If that grand jury is aware of their true Constitutional
power, it's possible they might stand up, fight, and win a legal battle that
is long overdue.

Furthermore, all of us may one day serve as grand jurors in federal court,
and I hope this article will educate the reader to his/her true power as
granted by the Constitution. For that power, despite having been hidden for
many years behind the veil of a legislative fraud, still exists in all of
its glory in the 5th Amendment to the Constitution. The US Supreme Court has
confirmed and reinforced that power.

So please, copy this report and paste it far and wide. It is not spin. It is
not false. It is not for sale, it is not copyrighted by me, so paste and
quote it freely. This report is the truth and we need truth, now, more than

The Constitutional power of "we the people" sitting as grand jurors has been
subverted by a deceptive play on words since 1946 when the Federal Rules of
Criminal Procedure were enacted. Regardless, the power I am going to explain
to you still exists in the Constitution, and has been upheld by the United
States Supreme Court despite the intention of the legislature and other
legal scholars to make our power disappear with a cheap magic trick.

Repeat a lie with force and repetition and the lie becomes known as truth.
In the case of the 5th Amendment to the Constitution, the power of the grand
jury, to return "presentments" on its own proactive initiation, without
reliance upon a US Attorney to concur in such criminal charges, has been
usurped by an insidious play on words.

Most of this article is going to quote other scholars, judges and
legislators as I piece together a brief but thorough history of the federal
grand jury for your review. But the punch line is my personal contribution
to the cause:


My input into this vital fight is no more than the analysis of a few
carefully used words. It only took a small sleight of pen back in 1946 to
hide our power, and it won't take more than a few words to take that power
back. But a proper overview is necessary for most of you who are unfamiliar
with the issue at hand. So let me provide you with some history and then
we'll see what went wrong and how to correct it.


I want to draw your attention to a law review article, CREIGHTON LAW REVIEW,
Vol. 33, No. 4 1999_2000, 821, IF IT'S NOT A RUNAWAY, IT'S NOT A REAL GRAND
JURY by Roger Roots, J.D.

"In addition to its traditional role of screening criminal cases for
prosecution, common law grand juries had the power to exclude prosecutors
from their presence at any time and to investigate public officials without
governmental influence. These fundamental powers allowed grand juries to
serve a vital function of oversight upon the government. The function of a
grand jury to ferret out government corruption was the primary purpose of
the grand jury system in ages past."

The 5th Amendment:

"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous
crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury."

An article appearing in American Juror, the newsletter of the American Jury
Institute and the Fully Informed Jury Association, citing the famed American
jurist, Joseph Story, explained :

"An indictment is a written accusation of an offence preferred to, and
presented, upon oath, as true, by a grand jury, at the suit of the
government. An indictment is framed by the officers of the government, and
laid before the grand jury. Presentments, on the other hand, are the result
of a jury's independent action:

'A presentment, properly speaking, is an accusation, made by a grand jury of
its own mere motion, of an offence upon its own observation and knowledge,
or upon evidence before it, and without any bill of indictment laid before
it at the suit of the government. Upon a presentment, the proper officer of
the court must frame an indictment, before the party accused can be put to
answer it.' "

Back to the Creighton Law Review:

"A 'runaway' grand jury, loosely defined as a grand jury which resists the
accusatory choices of a government prosecutor, has been virtually eliminated
by modern criminal procedure. Today's "runaway" grand jury is in fact the
common law grand jury of the past. Prior to the emergence of governmental
prosecution as the standard model of American criminal justice, all grand
juries were in fact "runaways," according to the definition of modern times;
they operated as completely independent, self_directing bodies of
inquisitors, with power to pursue unlawful conduct to its very source,
including the government itself."

So, it's clear that the Constitution intended to give the grand jury power
to instigate criminal charges, and this was especially true when it came to
government oversight. But something strange happened on the way to the
present. That power was eroded by a lie enacted by the legislative branch.
The 5th Amendment to the Constitution still contains the same words quoted
above, but if you sit on a grand jury and return a "presentment" today, the
prosecutor must sign it or it probably won't be allowed to stand by the
judge and the criminal charges you have brought to the court's attention
will be swept away. And the reason for this can be found in a legislative
lie of epic proportions.

Mr. Roots weighs in again:

"In 1946, the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure were adopted, codifying
what had previously been a vastly divergent set of common law procedural
rules and regional customs.[86] In general, an effort was made to conform
the rules to the contemporary state of federal criminal practice.[87] In the
area of federal grand jury practice, however, a remarkable exception was
allowed. The drafters of Rules 6 and 7, which loosely govern federal grand
juries, denied future generations of what had been the well_recognized
powers of common law grand juries: powers of unrestrained investigation and
of independent declaration of findings. The committee that drafted the
Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure provided no outlet for any document
other than a prosecutor_signed indictment. In so doing, the drafters at
least tacitly, if not affirmatively, opted to ignore explicit constitutional

Rule 7 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure (FRCP):

"An offense which may be punished by death shall be prosecuted by
indictment. An offense which may be punished by imprisonment for a term
exceeding one year or at hard labor shall be prosecuted by indictment..."

No mention of "presentments" can be found in Rule 7. But they are mentioned
in Note 4 of the Advisory Committee Notes on the Rules:

"4. Presentment is not included as an additional type of formal accusation,
since presentments as a method of instituting prosecutions are obsolete, at
least as concerns the Federal courts."

The American Juror published the following commentary with regards to Note

"[W]hile the writers of the federal rules made provisions for indictments,
they made none for presentments. This was no oversight. According to
Professor Lester B. Orfield, a member of the Advisory Committee on Rules of
Criminal Procedure, the drafters of Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure Rule
6 decided the term presentment should not be used, even though it appears in
the Constitution. Orfield states [22 F.R.D. 343, 346]:

'There was an annotation by the Reporter on the term presentment as used in
the Fifth Amendment. It was his conclusion that the term should not be used
in the new rules of criminal procedure. Retention might encourage the use of
the run_away grand jury as the grand jury could act from their own knowledge
or observation and not only from charges made by the United States attorney.
It has become the practice for the United States Attorney to attend grand
jury hearings, hence the use of presentments have been abandoned.' "

That's a fascinating statement: "Retention might encourage...the grand jury
[to] act from their own knowledge or observation." God forbid, right
America? The nerve of these people. They have the nerve to put on the record
that they intended to usurp our Constitutional power, power that was
intended by the founding fathers, in their incredible wisdom, to provide us
with oversight over tyrannical government.

And so they needed a spin term to cast aspersions on that power. The term
they chose was, "runaway grand jury", which is nothing more than a
Constitutionally mandated grand jury, aware of their power, and legally
exercising that power to hold the federal beast in check, as in "checks and

The lie couldn't be inserted into the Constitution, so they put it in a
statute and then repeated it. And scholars went on to repeat it, and today,
as it stands, the grand jury has effectively been lied into the role of
submissive puppet of the US Attorney.

The American Juror publication included a very relevant commentary:

"Of course, no statute or rule can alter the provisions of the Constitution,
since it is the supreme law of the land. But that didn't prevent the federal
courts from publishing a body of case law affirming the fallacy that
presentments were abolished. A particularly egregious example:

'A rule that would permit anyone to communicate with a grand jury without
the supervision or screening of the prosecutor or the court would
compromise, if not utterly subvert, both of the historic functions of the
grand jury, for it would facilitate the pursuit of vendettas and the
gratification of private malice. A rule that would open the grand jury to
the public without judicial or prosecutorial intervention is an invitation
to anyone interested in trying to persuade a majority of the grand jury, by
hook or by crook, to conduct investigations that a prosecutor has determined
to be inappropriate or unavailing.' [7]

What is the result? Investigating seditious acts of government officials can
be deemed inappropriate or unavailing by the prosecutor, or the judge can
dismiss the grand jurors pursuing such investigations. Consequently, corrupt
government officials have few natural enemies and go about their seditious
business unimpeded.

By the way, they made a rule to take care of runaways too, in 1946: Rule

'At any time for cause shown the court may excuse a juror either temporarily

permanently, and in the latter event the court may impanel another person in
place of the juror excused.' Now judges can throw anyone off a grand jury,
or even disimpanel a grand jury entirely, merely for exercising its

Now let me add my two cents to this argument:

Most of the discussion about Note 4 to Rule 7 of the FRCP takes for granted
that the common law use of "presentments" (as codified in the 5th Amendment)
was made "illegal" in 1946 by this act. Nothing could be more false. Note 4
does not contain language that makes the use of presentments "illegal",
although it had chosen its words carefully to make it appear as if that is
what the legislative branch intended. But let's look at Note 4 again:

"4. Presentment is not included as an additional type of formal accusation,
since presentments as a method of instituting prosecutions are obsolete, at
least as concerns the Federal courts."

The key word is, "obsolete". Obsolete means "outmoded", or "not in use
anymore", but it does not mean "abolished" or "illegal". And therein lies
the big lie. The legislature knew it could not directly overrule the
Constitution, especially with something so clearly worded as the 5th
Amendment, which grants a power to the people which has a long and noble
purpose in criminal jurisprudence. But the federal beast legislative branch
sought more power to protect themselves from the oversight of "we the
people", and in its vampire like thirst for more governmental control, it
inserted this insidious Note 4 in the hope that scholars and judges would
play along with their ruse, or in the alternative, their ruse would appear
to be legally viable.

Let's look at some authoritative legal resources which discuss Note 4:


"Finally, federal grand juries' subservience to prosecutors was exacerbated
when the federal system eliminated the use of presentments, which allowed a
grand jury to bring charges on its own initiative. (N35) Now, federal grand
jurors cannot return charges in the form of an indictment without a
prosecutor's consent. (N36) Elimination of the presentment demonstrates the
historical trend towards elimination of proactive features in the grand jury

Did Brenner fall for the lie or did she cleverly further it when she said,
"[T]he federal system eliminated the use of presentments"? The federal
system did no such thing. Note 4 said the use of presentments was
"obsolete". First of all, Note 4 is not a law in itself. It is a Note to a
law, and the law as written, does not have anything to say about
presentments. You see the leap Brenner has made? The Constitution provides
for "presentments", then the FRCP are enacted and the Rules therein do not
mention presentments, nor due they ban presentments, and if they did, such a
ban would be unconstitutional, since an administrative enactment regarding
procedure can not overrule the Constitution.

Regardless, it's irrelevant, since the FRCP does not mention "presentments".
Note 4 simply states that "presentments" allowed for in the 5th Amendment of
the Constitution have become "obsolete", or outmoded, which is not to say
that they were "eliminated". Shame on you Susan Brenner. You know damn well
that the Constitution can only be changed by an official Amendment to it.
Nothing can be "eliminated" from the Constitution by an administrative note.

The use of presentments had become obsolete because the grand jurors were
not aware of their power. So the use of "presentments" became more and more
rare, and then in 1946 the legislative branch seized upon the moment to make
this power disappear by waving its magic wand over the Constitution.

Mr. Root got it wrong in the Creighton Law Review as well:

"Before the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure - which made
independently_acting grand juries illegal for all practical purposes - grand
juries were understood to have broad powers to operate at direct odds with
both judges and prosecutors..."

The FRCP did not make it "illegal for all practical purposes". That's
patently false. I don't know if Mr. Root, and/or Susan Brenner, were acting
as the magician's assistant, but I can't imagine how these educated scholars
could be so incredibly ignorant of basic Constitutional law. Give me a damn

But if enough people repeat the lie, the lie appears to be the truth.

But we have it on good authority, the Supreme Court, that the lie has no
legal effect.

Justice Powell, in United States v. Calandra, 414 U.S. 338, 343 (1974),

"The institution of the grand jury is deeply rooted in Anglo_American
history. [n3] In England, the grand jury [p343] served for centuries both as
a body of accusers sworn to discover and present for trial persons suspected
of criminal wrongdoing and as a protector of citizens against arbitrary and
oppressive governmental action. In this country, the Founders thought the
grand jury so essential to basic liberties that they provided in the Fifth
Amendment that federal prosecution for serious crimes can only be instituted
by "a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury." Cf. Costello v. United
States, 350 U.S. 359, 361_362 (1956). The grand jury's historic functions
survive to this day. Its responsibilities continue to include both the
determination whether there is probable cause to believe a crime has been
committed and the protection of citizens against unfounded criminal
prosecutions. Branzburg v. Hayes, 408 U.S. 665, 686_687 (1972)."

The Note 4 lie is smashed on the SCOTUS altar, "The grand jury's historic
functions survive to this day." Take that Note 4!

The wonderful irony of the situation concerns the ultimate neocon Justice,
one known as Antonin Scalia, who effectively codified the unique independent
power of the Fourth Branch into the hands of all citizens sitting as federal
grand jurors. In discussing that power and unique independence granted to
the grand jury, the United States Supreme Court, in United States v.
Williams, 504 U.S. 36 at 48 (1992), Justice Scalia, delivering the opinion
of the court, laid down the law of the land:

"'[R]ooted in long centuries of Anglo_American history," Hannah v. Larche,
363 U.S. 420, 490 (1960) (Frankfurter, J., concurring in result), the grand
jury is mentioned in the Bill of Rights, but not in the body of the
Constitution. It has not been textually assigned, therefore, to any of the
branches described in the first three Articles. It "`is a constitutional
fixture in its own right.'" United States v. Chanen, 549 F.2d 1306, 1312
(CA9 1977) (quoting Nixon v. Sirica, 159 U.S. App. D.C. 58, 70, n. 54, 487
F.2d 700, 712, n. 54 (1973)), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 825 (1977). ' "

I submit to you that this passage sets the stage for a revolutionary knew

necessary and Constitutionally mandated to "we the people", THE FOURTH
BRANCH of the Government of the United States. Besides, the Legislative,
Executive, and Judicial branches, I submit that there is a fourth branch,
THE GRAND JURY, and "we the people" when sitting as grand jurors, are, as
Scalia quoted in US v. Williams, " a constitutional fixture in its own
right". Yes, damn it. That is exactly what the grand jury is, and what it
was always intended to be.

Scalia also stated, that "the grand jury is an institution separate from the
courts, over whose functioning the courts do not preside..." Id.

And finally, to seal the deal, Scalia hammered the point home:

"In fact, the whole theory of its function is that it belongs to no branch
of the institutional Government, serving as a kind of buffer or referee
between the Government and the people. See Stirone v. United States, 361
U.S. 212, 218 (1960); Hale v. Henkel, 201 U.S. 43, 61 (1906); G. Edwards,
The Grand Jury 28_32 (1906). Although the grand jury normally operates, of
course, in the courthouse and under judicial auspices, its institutional
relationship with the Judicial Branch has traditionally been, so to speak,
at arm's length. Judges' direct involvement in the functioning of the grand
jury has generally been confined to the constitutive one of calling the
grand jurors together and administering their oaths of office. See United
States v. Calandra, 414 U.S. 338, 343 (1974); Fed.Rule Crim.Proc. 6(a). [504
U.S. 36, 48] "

This miraculous quote says it all, "...the whole theory of its function is
that it belongs to no branch of the institutional Government, serving as a
kind of buffer or referee between the Government and the people." The
Constitution of the United States, as interpreted by the Supreme Court,
gives rise to a FOURTH BRANCH of Government, THE GRAND JURY. We the people
have been charged with oversight of the government in our roles as grand

And at this critical time in American history, we must, for the protection
of our constitutional republic, take back our power and start acting as
powerful as the other branches of government.

The law is on our side. So please spread this knowledge as far and wide as
you can. We the people have the right and power under the 5th Amendment of
the Constitution to charge this government with crimes by returning
presentments regardless of whether the US Attorneys or the federal judges
agree with us. As the Supreme Court has so brilliantly stated, we are the
"buffer between the Government and the people."

Take the reins America. Pass it on. The Fourth Branch is alive and kickin'.

by Citizen Spook


citizenspook (at)

posted by citizenspook at 6:35 PM 1 comments

TREASONGATE:MI6 Chicago Subway Bomb Scare UPDATE

Please see PART 1 and PART 2 of this series for the recap.

On August 2nd, I called the US Marshal's Office in the Dirksen Federal
Courthouse and asked for the press relations department. I didn't know
whether they had a media relations person, but they transferred me to an
answering machine and I left a message asking for information concerning
whether or not there had been an evacuation of the Dirksen building on July
18th, 2005. I also asked if there had been any bomb threats or fire drills
on that day as well as July 29th.

I've been waiting for a response, but as of today the media relations person
has not got in touch.

Back on August 2nd, I also spoke with four other employees at the Dirksen
Federal Courthouse.

The duty paralegal said he was not in on July 18th and July 29th.

I introduced myself as blogger/journalist. The receptionist at the main
number for the courthouse was very cagy:

CS: Was there an evacuation at the courthouse due to a bomb threat on July
18th or July 29th?

Female Receptionist: I'm sorry sir, you have to speak to the paralegal.

CS: This has nothing to do with the paralegal, I just want to know if the
building was evacuated.

Female Receptionist: I'm sorry sir, I don't know.

CS: Did you report to work at the courthouse on those days?

Female Receptionist: I don't remember sir.

CS: You don't rember if you were at work, or you don't remember if there was
an evacuation or bomb threat?

Female Receptionist: I took some days off recently, maybe I wasn't here.

CS: July 29th was only four days ago, can't you remember if you went to work
four days ago?

Female Receptionist: No sir, I can't remember. I told you, I don't know.
Would you like to be transferred to the duty paralegal?

CS: The whole Red line was shut down. You don't remember that happening?

She hung up.

I then called the US Marshal's office and spoke to a female receptionist
there. I introduced myself, again, as a blogger/journalist:

CS: Can you tell me if there were any bomb threats or evacuations for any
reason at the Dirksen Federal Courthouse on July 18th or July 29th?

US Marhsal Operator: I believe...ah, I don't know sir.

CS: Were you at work?

US Marshal Operator: No, I wasn't here. Let me transfer you.

That got my attention because I thought she was going to finish her
sentence, but then she stopped herself.

She transferred me to Melody Waldren, the Supervisor of Warrants for the US
Marshal's office:

CS: Can you tell me if there were any bomb threats or evacuations for any
reason at the Dirksen Federal Courthouse on July 18th or July 29th?

Woldren: Not that I am aware of.

CS: Was the US Marshal's office involved in a shoot out with British MI6
agents trying to bomb the Red line just below the Dirksen Federal Courthouse
on July 18th?

Waldren: No, sir.

CS: Were you aware of the bomb threat in the Red line on July 18th which
caused the most CTA travel chaos in the last ten years?

Woldren: No, sir. I don't know anything about it.

She didn't know about the CTA Red line shut down although it's been
established from many eyewitness sources (see parts 1 and 2) that Chicago
Police were all over that part of town standing guard at Red line entrances.

Tom Flocco did a radio interview on August 7th with WLW 700 AM, a clear
channel station. A caller asked Flocco about the July 18th subway bomb story
and then related an incident that happened to him on Saturday July 23rd in

The caller said that he was at the intersection of Clark and Adams, the
block where the Dirksen building is located that afternoon. He said there
were barricades up on that block. The caller asked some people what was
going on, and they told him, "They're filming a movie."

When he returned from the lake at 2:30 p.m., a large haze of smoke
surrounded the Dirksen building. He said two men were standing at the
barricades wearing orange vests and they told him to move along quickly as
he waited for the light to change. He was under the impression that the men
wanted him out of there fast.

I also never received an email from the CTA with copies of the "Customer
Alerts" they published on July 18th and July 29th as I requested.


by Citizen Spook

citizenspook (at)


posted by citizenspook at 6:28 PM 1 comments

Citizen Spook was spooked....

[UPDATE: August 16, 2005, 1:00p.m.

Somebody used my e mail account, citizenspook (at) to open a Paypal
account. I just found out about this. Obviously, it's an uncomortable
feeling. But it tells me I am stepping on the wrong toes. The information
war rages on.]

Citizen Spook is no longer on the run. I was "spooked" at a public library
while trying to post to the blog of a heavyweight "left wing"
journalist/double agent. This will be the subject matter of a pending
Citizen Spook report. This report will expose the Treasongate/Plame outing
unlike anything else you have read. Citizen Spook has deciphered the hidden
code of Treasongate.

I am now back at home near friends and family in a major metropolitan area
where I will be sure to have my mug logged into the system regularly (for
obvious reasons). Citizen Spook is a pacifist who renounces all forms of
violence. The revolution can be won with words and the law, which is on our
side. I believe in the Constitution. I also believe that the majority of our
local, state and federal law enforcement services, as well as our military,
are brave patriots who will never be corrupted by the tyrannical neocon
fascist regime. Unfortunately, the chain of command has been hijacked by an
illegal junta, so it is our job to educate our fellow citizens to the law.
This is the only role Citizen Spook seeks to play __ educator of laws and
facts. There are thousands of public internet access sites within 100 miles
of where I live. I intend to use every one of them to bring you the truth,
facts and law in simple language.

Citizen Spook

citizenspook (at)

posted by citizenspook at 5:43 PM 4 comments

About Me


Citizen Spook is a pacifist who renounces all forms of violence. The
revolution can be won with words and the law, which is on our side. I
believe in the Constitution. I also believe that the majority of our local,
state and federal law enforcement services, as well as our military, are
brave patriots who will never be corrupted by the tyrannical neocon fascist
regime. Unfortunately, the chain of command has been hijacked by an illegal
junta, so it is our job to educate our fellow citizens to the law. This is
the only role Citizen Spook seeks to play __ educator of laws and facts.
Citizen Spook does not accept adveritising or payment of any kind for
writing this blog. You are welcome to repost entire articles or links.

View my complete profile


Google News



Previous Posts

TREASONGATE: Total Media BLACK OUT of 18 USC 794, Federal Espionage Statute

TREASONGATE: The Federal Grand Jury, FOURTH BRANCH of the US Government

TREASONGATE:MI6 Chicago Subway Bomb Scare UPDATE

Citizen Spook was spooked....

TREASONGATE: The US Attorney General's Office AND President Bush Have NO
LEGAL AUTHORITY To Remove Patrick Fitzgerald As Special Counsel

TREASONGATE: The Controlling Law, Part 2: THE DEATH PENALTY, 18 USC 794 and
the shift from GWOT to GSAVE


TREASONGATE: July 18th Chicago Subway/Dirksen Federal Courthouse Bomb Plot

TREASONGATE: July 18th Chicago Subway/Dirksen Federal Courthouse Bomb plot
involving British MI6 assets _Part 1:CHICAGO POLICE IMPLICATED IN COVER UP?

TREASONGATE: The Controlling Law _ Big Trouble For The White House Staff.


July 2005

August 2005



Tuesday, August 02, 2005

TREASONGATE: July 18th Chicago Subway/Dirksen Federal Courthouse Bomb Plot

By Citizen Spook, August 2nd, 2005

[UPDATE, August 5th, 2005. Chicago Tribune reported on July 29, 2005, 1:31

"Police activity shut down the CTA Red Line subway during the lunch hour
today, forcing trains to detour over the elevated structure through the
Loop, officials said.The re_route began about 12:25 p.m. due to undisclosed
police activity in the Red Line subway tunnel, a CTA spokeswoman said."]

Yesterday, August 1, 2005, official spokespersons from the Chicago Transit
Authority's Media Relations department told Citizen Spook that the Chicago
Police Department requested the CTA shut down the Red line on July 29th
between 12:30 p.m. and 1:40 p.m. to accommodate "police activity", an
"underground investigation".

A spokesman for Chicago Police, News Affairs Division, told Citizen Spook
the July 29th "police activity" was in response to a "bomb threat", but CTA
officials firmly denounced that in two separate interviews conducted just
before and just after Citizen Spook spoke to Chicago PD.

The CTA spokeswoman stated unequivocally, "There was no bomb threat on July

A recap from the CTA Tattler blog:

"The Chicago Tribune is reporting today that the Red Line subway was shut
down at about 12:30 today due to 'police activity.' The CTA Web site reports
that the subway was reopened at about 1:40 p.m. The Red Line ran above
ground on the Brown Line tracks until then..."

[The CTA customer alert about Red line "police activity" on July 29th has
been removed from the CTA web site.]


On August 1st, between noon and 1:30PM, I conducted three "on the record"
interviews with official spokespersons in the Media Relations department of
the Chicago Transit Authority (CTA) and two "on the record" interviews with
the Chicago Police Department, Division of News Affairs.

I attempted to get answers to the questions raised in Part 1 of this report.
But the story only became murkier as more serious questions were raised by
the two municipal agencies' issuance of conflicting versions of events
pertaining to the Chicago subway incidents of July 18th and July 29th.


I contacted the CTA and conducted an interview with an official spokeswoman
who went on the record and also gave me her name. However, after the
interview was completed, the woman asked me not to print her name. I
informed her that the request, coming after the interview had been
completed, was troublesome since she agreed to be interviewed, and she
willingly gave her name. She asked me to identify her as, "an official
spokeswoman from the Media Relations Department of the CTA." I agreed to
keep her name out of the report, but in a follow up interview I was able to
put her superior, Sheila Gregory, on the record.

I first asked the unnamed CTA spokeswoman about the July 18th bomb threat
and whether she was aware that the Chicago Tribune had published conflicting
accounts of what caused the bomb scare. I related to her that a "suspicious
package" was blamed in the July 19th Tribune article by Kyra Kyles, while a
"phoned in" bomb threat was blamed in the July 22nd article written by
Virginia Groark.

The unnamed CTA spokeswoman informed me she was not on duty at the time of
the July 18th bomb scare. She suggested I speak with her superior. I then
asked the unnamed CTA spokeswoman if a bomb threat was responsible for the
Red Line being shut down on July 29th. She said with certainty, "Not that
time. No. That did not involve a bomb threat. We were asked to close the Red
line on July 29th so the police could conduct an investigation."

CS: "And there was no bomb threat involved?'

CTA spokeswoman: "No, not on July 29th."

CS: "Are you certain?"

CTA spokeswoman: "It was shut down for police activity."

I asked if it was common for the police to interrupt service for police
activity if there was no bomb threat. She said it was uncommon and that
usually the Chicago Police would be responding to a bomb threat or some
other disturbance in the system. She said she couldn't recall, in the all
the years she worked there, another incident where the Police shut down a
CTA line just to conduct an investigation.


Roosevelt Station on the Red line is in District 1 of the Chicago Police
Department, but the female officer who answered the phone at the District 1
office refused to comment and insisted I speak to Chicago PD Headquarters.


I called Chicago Police Headquarters and was referred to Officer Kubiak, a
female police officer at the News Affairs division. I asked if she knew why
the Chicago Police had given conflicting versions of the bomb threat on July
18th to the Chicago Tribune. She backtracked the info, asked me the names of
the Tribune writers, the dates the stories appeared and the content. I
answered her questions, and she took my e mail address and said she'd try to
get back to me.

I then told Officer Kubiak that an official spokeswoman from the CTA
informed me that the police had requested the Red Line be shut down on July
29th to conduct an investigation. I asked whether that investigation had
anything to do with the July 18th bomb scare.

It was at this point things took a turn to the bizarre. Officer Kubiak
seemed alarmed by this statement.

Officer Kubiak: "You have an anonymous source at the CTA?"

CS: "It was an official spokeswoman for the CTA operating out of the Media
Relations department. She asked not to be identified by name in my story."

Officer Kubiak: "So you don't print her name in the story, but will you tell
me her name?"

CS: "No, I don't want to do that."

Officer Kubiak: "And you expect me to comment on what an anonymous
spokeswoman told you?"

CS: "No, Officer Kubiak, I expect you to tell me what happened on July 29th.
I'm looking for the official word from the Chicago Police as to why the Red
Line was shut down. You don't need to know the name of my CTA source to
answer that question."

Officer Kubiak asked me to hold on.


A few minutes later, a man took over for Officer Kubiak. He asked for my
name. I told him, "Citizen Spook." He said, "No, I want your real name." And
I replied, "I write a blog called Citizen Spook, that is the name I write
under. And I will be reposting this story at the CTA Tattler site. Who has
Officer Kubiak transferred me to?"

And the man replied, "In that case, you can call me, 'Officer B' ".

I didn't push for his name because Officer Kubiak was on the record as
transferring me to him, and it felt to me that "Officer B" was hostile to my

I then ran down the two Tribune stories and inquired why the Chicago Police
gave two conflicting accounts to the Tribune. I explained to him that,
according to commuter reports, this was the worst travel day on the CTA in
the last ten years. And he didn't take issue with that statement.

Officer B told me that on July 19th, "the best information" was that "a
suspicious package" was left on the platform, but three days later the
information had changed and the cold hard facts were a "phoned in bomb

He was clearly parsing the issue.

CS: "That doesn't make sense. The July 22nd Tribune story by Virginia Groark
doesn't mention a suspicious package. Was the bomb scare caused by a
suspicious package or was it caused by a phoned in bomb threat?"

Officer B went silent for about five seconds.

Officer B: "It was a phoned in bomb threat about a suspicious package. How
does that sound to you?"

It sounded like total bunk, and I immediately put him on a bluff then
quickly turned his attention to July 29th.

CS: "So why did Chicago Police request the CTA shut the Red Line down on
July 29th?"

Officer B: "There was a threat."

CS: "Was it a bomb threat?"

Officer B: "Yes, a bomb threat."

CS: "That completely contradicts the CTA's version of events. They deny
there was a bomb threat on July 29th."

The line went dead. I don't know why. I can't say the man hung up on me, but
I sure didn't hang up on him.

I called the Chicago Police back, got Officer Kubiak again, but she wouldn't
talk to me and quickly put me on hold for a few minutes.

I decided to call the CTA back immediately for a reply comment rather than
wait on hold indefinitely while CPD figured out what to say next.

Considering the magnitude of the July 18th CTA service disruption, the fact
that it was the subject of a media black out, Officer B's attitude and
inability to give a rational explanation of what happened along with his
offering a contradictory version than the CTA's account of the Red line shut
down on July 29th, I got the distinct impression that a cover up was under

My second interview with CTA officials totally reinforced that conclusion.


I got back on the line with the same official CTA spokeswoman I'd spoken to

CS: The Chicago Police are saying the Red Line was shut down on July 29th
due to a bomb threat.

CTA spokeswoman: "No.

CS: "No? Do you still maintain that there was no bomb threat on July 29th?"

CTA spokeswoman: "The police asked us to shut the Red line down for police

CS: "And they never mentioned a bomb threat on July 29th?"

CTA spokewoman: "There was no bomb threat."

CS: "Since the Police are contradicting the CTA's version, I really need to
get a name to put on this story. I don't want to use your name, but I must
speak to somebody from the CTA who will go on the record."


I was put on hold and another woman picked up the phone, introduced herself
as Sheila Gregory from Media Relations. She was the unnamed spokeswoman's
superior. Sheila Gregory agreed to give her name and be interviewed on the

We had a very long conversation. We had a very bizarre conversation.

I first inquired about the July 29th Red line shut down and recapitulated
the account given by the other spokeswoman. Sheila Gregory was very specific
in her response.

Gregory: "We were not informed by the Police why they wanted the Red Line
shut down on July 29th. They just said 'police activity.' "

CS: Were you aware of any bomb threats on July 29th?'

Gregory: "The Police told us to clear the Red line for 'Police activity'.

I then asked her about the bomb threat of July 18th and this is where it
gets nebulous. No matter how I phrased the question, and I phrased it many
different ways, Sheila Gregory would not confirm or deny that there was a
bomb threat on July 18th.

Gregory: "It's not our job to conduct investigations like that. You really
need to speak with the Police about that."

CS: "I'm not asking if you conducted an investigation. I'm asking if you
personally, or the CTA officially, were aware of a bomb threat at Roosevelt
station or anywhere in the CTA subway on July 18th?"

Gregory: "We don't conduct criminal investigations. We are here for customer

CS: "So there was no bomb threat that you are aware of?"

Gregory: "You would have to ask the Police."

CS: "I'm asking if you personally were aware of a bomb threat on July 18th?"

Gregory: "I know what you're getting at, it's not Media Relations' job to
conduct this kind of investigation. You need to speak with CPD."

I tried it one more time.

CS: "Can you just give me a yes or no answer? Were you aware of a bomb
threat on July 18th in the Red line subway?"

Gregory: "I know you're looking for a quote, but you have to ask the

CS: "You do understand that the spokeswoman I spoke with earlier told me
there was no bomb threat on July 29th. I'm going to print that. She doesn't
want her name used, so I need to know from you, with respect to July 29th,
if there was no bomb threat."

Gregory: "There was police activity underground on the Red line. We were not
told by the police what that activity was."

CS: "But the other spokeswoman insisted there was no bomb threat on July
29th. Limiting your answer to just July 29th, can you confirm that?"

Gregory: "The police asked us to shut the Red line so they could go
underground for police activity. "

CS: "Did they tell you personally or the CTA officially that there was a
bomb threat on July 29th."

Gregory: "They only told us to shut the red line down for police activity."

CS: "Police activity underground in the Red line subway?"

Gregory: "Yes."

CS: "If you don't want me to print the spokeswoman's name, I need you to
confirm that the CTA was not aware of a bomb threat on July 29th."

Gregory: "We were not aware of a bomb threat on the 29th."

CS: "And on July 18th, were you aware of a bomb threat."

Gregory: "You need to ask the police about that. It was their

A final attempt.

CS: "Are you telling me that on the most chaotic travel day in the last ten
years of CTA service, a day when the entire subway was brought to a stand
still with thousands of commuters stranded, neither you nor the CTA can tell
me whether the Chicago Tribune stories of July 19th and 22nd were accurate
regarding there being a bomb threat?"

Gregory: "It's not our responsibility to investigate that. The police
requested we shut the Red Line down and that's what we did. You really need
to speak to them. I gave the Tribune the same information I'm giving you

CS: "Who did you speak to at the Tribune?"

Gregory: "I spoke to Virginia Groark."

CS: "And you didn't confirm that a bomb threat took place in the Red line of
the CTA on July 18th?"

Gregory: "That's right. I told her to speak to the police."

Sheila Gregory did not deny that July 18th was the most chaotic CTA travel
day in the last ten years.

This was insane. Regarding the July 29th incident, The CTA was willing to
officially go on the record, through Gregory and the unamed spokeswoman, to
contradict the Chicago Police Department's allegations that they shut the
Red line down due to a bomb threat on July 29th.

But the CTA would not go on the record to confirm Chicago Police statements
that there it was a bomb threat on July 18th which caused the most chaotic
travel day in the last ten years.


I also asked Gregory why the CTA removed from its web site official CTA
statements posted there on both July 18th and July 29th. She said it was
"standard protocol" to remove such messages.

But the "press release" archive at the CTA site goes back to 1998.

She said, "The messages were customer alerts and we don't have a customer
alert archive."

But the customer alerts listed at the CTA web site go back to 2004. She said
some customer alerts had more impact than others.


Why has the CTA refused to confirm Chicago Police assertions that a bomb
scare took place in the Re line subway on July 18th?

Please recall the commuter reports in Part 1 of this story, commuter reports
which unanimously testify to the CTA's inability to provide useful
information to commuters on July 18th. And nothing has changed since then.
The CTA isn't talking about July 18th.

July 29th is another story. The first CTA spokeswoman would not back down
from her original statement, even in the face of the Chicago Police, News
Affairs division, assertion that the Red line was shut down on July 29th due
to a bomb threat.

She insisted that was not the case, and her superior, Sheila Gregory
affirmed that reply. Gregory was "not aware" of a bomb threat on July 29th,
and this is much different than what she said about July 18th. For the July
18th incident , she would not say whether she, or the CTA, was aware of a
bomb threat or not aware of a bomb threat.

At one point she said, "I know you're trying to elicit a specific response
for your story."

CS: "To be honest with you, it's a juicier story if you keep refusing to
answer the question. It's a simple question. Either you know of a bomb
threat or you don't. If you would say you were aware of a bomb threat, it's
really a non issue because that would concur with the Tribune and the
Chicago Police. But your evasiveness raises serious questions."

She kept to her pat statemement for all inquiries aboutJuly 18th. "You need
to speak to CPD."

The July 19th Tribune report by Kyra Kyles doesn't mention a "phoned in"
bomb threat.

The July 22nd Tribune report by Virginia Groark doesn't mention a
"suspicious package".

Officer B said the July 18th bomb scare was caused by "a phoned in bomb
threat about a suspicious package".

The CTA won't say whether they are aware of a bomb threat on July 18th.

If there was no bomb scare on July 29th, why were the Chicago Police going
underground on the Red line?

This is the line which runs under the Dirksen Federal Courthouse where
Patrick Fitzgerald's Grand Jury investigation is centered, the same red line
that was shut down on July 18th.

If I were Patrick Fitzgerald, I'd pay attention to the Red line.

by Citizen Spook

citizenspook (at)


Citizen Spook would like to hear from anybody who was using the CTA on July
18th or July 29th. Please e mail citizenspook (at)

other sites with relevant information and reports

Please see Mr. Flocco's incredible story of August 2nd, 2005, "Bush and
Cheney Indicted"

This work is in the public domain
Add a quick comment
Your name Your email


Text Format
Anti-spam Enter the following number into the box:
To add more detailed comments, or to upload files, see the full comment form.


Criminals Protect Criminals!
19 Aug 2005
Rove should be in prison for his treasonist mouth.
Bush should be in prison for his constant lies.
Cheney should be in prison for his no-bid buddies.
The Republican Congress should be in prison for ignoring the Impeachment of their prez.
The country is brain dead.