Court illustration of Jared Lee Loughner – CBS/ROBLES
FORCIBLY MEDICATING PRISONERS
THE TRUTH IS STRANGER THAN FICTION
By Arthur Clemens, Jr. | Originally published: 24Nov2014
Our legal system is based in part on laws passed by the Congress, in part on the Constitution, and in part based on precedents set by the Supreme Court and lower Courts.
For example, Brown vs Board of Education, handed down in 1954, established the formerly held concept of “separate but equal” which made legal the practice of segregating schools on the basis of race, was not a valid legal concept, so the case set a precedent which eventually ended segregated schools in the United States.
Then there was the case of Roe vs. Wade, which established women had the legal right to obtain an abortion, and since that time, there has been a continuing controversy over this decision, with pro and anti-abortion groups continually defending or criticizing this decision.
So it can be seen from these cases, just how powerful the Supreme Court is, and how they can make decisions which set precedents that have the force of law.
There is a dark side to this power, and the public is not aware of some of the precedents the Supreme Court has handed down, and how they adversely affect the public interest.
For example, in the case of Agency Holding Corp. v. Malley-Duff & Associates, Inc., 483 U.S. 143, the Supreme Court established a four year Statute of Limitations in civil racketeering suits, even though the RICO Act does not contain a statute of limitations, much to the delight of mobsters and gangsters everywhere.
Another power of the Supreme Court is to refuse to consider a case, thus letting rulings of the lower courts stand. In the Loughner case, nobody appealed to the Supreme Court, so rulings by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals stand as they are.
Those who study the Loughner case, and previous precedents leading up to the Loughner ruling, must be concerned with the growing power of the psychiatry profession, and the acceptance by the Courts of psychobabble and mumbo jumbo has for all practical purposes cancelled out the legal protections the Bill of Rights affords citizens. It can be clearly seen these precedents make possible a purge, or political prisoner roundup operations by the government, similar to those conducted by the Soviet Union from 1953 until the Soviet Union officially ended.
For just as in the book Animal Farm by George Orwell, there is a tendency for the pigs to merge with the farmers, at the expense of the farm society as a whole.
So we search for historical background to support our premonitions.
Those who do not learn from the mistakes of history are doomed to repeat them- George Santayana
In order to get a good historical perspective on the Loughner case, it is helpful to visit other historical eras, and study other historical events of a similar nature.
WITCH HUNTS AND WITCH BURNINGS
THE TIME: 1480 AD – 1740 AD
THE PLACE: EUROPE
First, let us look at the age when large numbers of helpless old women were burned at the stake for being witches. Some estimates put the number of witch burnings in Europe between 1480 and 1740 to be as high as 100,000.
What kind of mentality did the public have in those days which allowed this bizarre and monstrous behavior by government and church officials to go on unchallenged?
One clue to the logic of witch hunting and burning comes in the form of a passage from The Mysterious Stranger by Mark Twain, who suggests the overwhelming majority of the public was opposed to witch burning, but they said nothing, and even came out to cheer when somebody was burned, because they were afraid they might be next.
Another possible explanation to the bizarre phenomenon of witch burning is there was in fact a belief on the part of a fairly large segment of the population there were actually witches lurking behind ever rock and tree, who needed to be hunted down and rooted out for the safety and security of society.
In this regard there is definitely a historical parallel between the attitude of a large segment of society today toward the Loughner case, including attitudes toward “mental illness” in general, and the attitude of a large segment of medieval society towards witch hunting and witch burning.
This bizarre logic is not questioned by the public, the press, or the legal profession, with the possible exception of a few voices in the wilderness, to include the authors of this book.
It is our opinion there is no drug that can cause an incompetent person to be competent, just as there are no drugs that can cause a stupid person to be a genius. So this claim by the government is a total fraud.
There are drugs that can cause a disruptive or violence prone person to be passive, but such drugs can also cause an alert person to be unable to think and concentrate, so he cannot assist in his own defense when he is on the drug. These same drugs are well known to cause a medical condition known as tardive dyskinesia, which is similar to Parkinson’s disease.
Additionally, these same drugs are known to cause violent and/or suicidal tendencies, particularly shortly after a person is taken off the drugs, in many recorded cases. So the psychiatry profession has the capability to cause problems which they then present themselves as the saviors who can solve the problems they cause.
There are also drugs which can cause extreme pain and nausea, and can be used for force a prisoner to confess to a crime, or to do whatever the prisoner’s captors want him to do.
So the claim by the government Loughner was incompetent and needed to be forcibly drugged each and every day for months, in order to be competent for trial is false. When he changed his plea to guilty, suddenly he was determined to be competent, and this is the same logic as the trials used to convict helpless old women to be witches.
For the record, we are not comparing alleged assassins to alleged witches, but we are comparing the procedures used to convict both.
There was one thing Loughner did, according to official court records, which indicates to us he was in fact competent before he was forcibly drugged every day for several months.
There was a hearing conducted on June 14, 2011, at US Medical center for Federal Prisoners in Springfield, Missouri, where he had been transported after his initial arraignment in Tucson, AZ, for “observation”, and possibly to send him far away from any potential witnesses which might be called to such a hearing, or otherwise to aid in his defense.
The purpose of this hearing was to determine whether or not he was to be forcibly drugged each and every day for the foreseeable future.
The hearing was presided over by a psychiatrist representing the interests of his profession, Dr. Carlos Tomelleri, and not a judge.
Loughner was not allowed to have an attorney present or call witnesses. Instead, he was allegedly represented by a prison stooge with no legal training, John Getchell.
THE HEARING WAS HELD IN HIS JAIL CELL.
The hearing was held by the authority of 28 CFR 549-43, which is not a federal law passed by the elected members of Congress, but a regulation devised by the same people who enforce it, and it negates the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
Loughner’s response to this hearing was to do what little he could to barricade himself inside his cell, and whenever they asked him a question he would say “I plead the Fifth.”
These actions by Loughner indicate to us he considered this sham hearing to be a violation of his constitutional rights, and as a defendant facing a murder charge, he had the right to remain silent at any and all hearings and trials.
Unfortunately, the reality was Loughner had absolutely no constitutional rights of any kind, and his behavior was viewed by the psychiatrist holding the hearing, and later upheld by a 2 to 1 majority of the Ninth Court of Appeals, to be absolute proof he was both incompetent and dangerous, and thus needed to be forcibly drugged every day until he got these bizarre notions about Constitutional rights out of his head.
The way we see it, there is little difference between the procedures used to convict helpless old women of the crime of witchcraft, and those used to convict Loughner.
Although the public considers itself to be living in an enlightened modern age today, they are in some ways just as ignorant as was the public during the days of witch burning.
For evil triumphs when good men do nothing.
THE ASSASSINATION OF SERGEY KIROV
TIME; DECEMBER 1, 1934
PLACE; SOVIET UNION
Those who do not learn from the mistakes of history are doomed to repeat them – George Santayana
Since the Roll-Giffords shooting is a case of a political assassination, we search for historical parallels.
One such parallel is the assassination of Sergey Kirov by Leonid Nikolaev in St. Petersburg, Soviet Union, on December 1, 1934.
Kirov was a very able and popular member of the Communist Party. As his popularity grew, so Stalin increasingly viewed him as a threat to take his place as the leader of the Soviet Union.
Shortly after Kirov was assassinated, Nikolaev was arrested. According to the movie Stalin, starring Robert Duvall as Stalin, and also according to some historical accounts, Stalin had a meeting with his handpicked assassin. At this meeting, Stalin congratulated Nikolaev on doing such a fine job, and told him if he confessed to the killing of Kirov, without mentioning Stalin had anything to do with it, that he would give the assassin a pardon.
So Nikolaev figured this was the best way out of the difficult situation he found himself in, and made the confession to Stalin’s standards.
Then Stalin, being a man of his word, promptly had Nikolaev taken out and shot before he could change any of the details of his confession and implicate Stalin.
Then Stalin’s propaganda machine started putting out stories Nikolaev worked for foreign capitalists who were attempting to overthrow communism, and the assassination of Kirov was part of this ongoing conspiracy.
Stalin then undertook the biggest and bloodiest purge in the history of government. Thousands of government officials, communist party members, military officers, and others were taken out and shot, after they received what was known as a show trial. Many of the Communist Party members were part of the original Bolshevik revolution in 1917.
Many more were hauled off to forced labor camps in such places as Siberia, and a high percentage of these were worked to death.
Complicity in Kirov’s assassination was a common charge in the show trials of the great purge. (See Wikipedia Encyclopedia) And the justification for this purge was that the accused allegedly conspired to kill the great hero of Communism, and therefore had to be rooted out.
In reality, of course, Stalin had anyone killed who voiced or otherwise conveyed the opinion Kirov or anyone else might make a better leader of the Soviet Union than Stalin.
One tool Stalin used to identify those to be eliminated, was the tap he had on everybody’s phone, similar to the tap the United States government has on the phones of all American citizens, and other monitoring activities.
So it can be seen whenever there is a political assassination, there is somebody who gains from it.
In the Loughner case, it appears there are four possibilities:
(1) That Loughner was brainwashed to commit the crime.
(2) That Loughner was paid to commit the crime.
(3) That someone other than Loughner committed the crime.
(4) That Loughner wanted to be famous, so he planned all the details of the crime and committed it all by himself, and he was willing to throw away the rest of his life in return for the fame he received for committing this crime.
The way the government has handled this case does not eliminate any of these possibilities.
The way the press reports the case to the public, only possibility four is presented for the consideration of the public.
Even worse, the Loughner case stands as a precedent which makes it much easier for the government to engage in purges and political prisoner roundup operations in the future. The very likely possibility exists the Roll assassination was planned by someone other than Loughner for the purpose of setting the precedents which have in this case make a mockery and a joke out of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, and the precedent of the case has made possible a purge similar to the Great Purge of Stalin.
Then there is the possibility instead or a large purge, there will be and/or is ongoing, a purge of a few select individuals, whose leadership qualities make them a threat to the established order, using the same technology has now been legalized by this precedent.
POST-STALIN ERA ROUNDUP OF POLITICAL PRISONERS IN THE SOVIET UNION
TIME: March 5, 1953 to December 26, 1991
PLACE: SOVIET UNION
After the death of Stalin in 1953, members of the Soviet Politburo, or ruling committee of the Soviet Union, (consisting of five and sometimes more members) agreed mass murders were not the way to go in determining who would lead the Soviet Union.
The Soviet Politburo was founded by Lenin after the revolution of 1917 by the Bolsheviks Leonid Nikolaev, or Soviet Communist Party. Lenin’s idea was the vast stretches of the Soviet Union would be ruled by the consensus of a ruling committee. However, Stalin’s idea was the Soviet Union would be ruled solely by him, with the politburo being a mere rubber stamp for his absolute rule. But with the death of Stalin, the politburo reasserted itself, and of course everybody was careful not to allow another Stalin type to take over.
The Soviet Union was locked into a Cold War with the United States, and such tactics as mass murders would lead to very bad publicity for the Soviet Union.
But the ruling committee still had the problem of what to do with dissenters and dissidents who criticized government policies, and the idea of Communist Party control without free elections.
So they turned to the psychiatry profession to solve the problem. Dissidents and dissenters were often simply declared to be insane and sent to so-called mental hospitals where they were forced to take sickening and nauseating drugs, until they changed their attitude, the same way Winston learned to love Big Brother in the book 1984, by George Orwell.
We reprint the following May 15, 1984 article from the London Times as an example of one such political prisoner:
PRISONERS OF CONSCIENCE
USSR: VLADIMIR KHAILO: BY Caroline Moorehead
Vladimir Khailo, aged 51, is a former member of the fire brigade at Krasny Luch in the Ukrainian republic and the father of 15 children. Since September, 1980 he has been forcibly confined to a special psychiatric hospital, the most severe type of psychiatric institution in the Soviet Union for those “who represent a special danger to society”. A dissenting Baptist, he belongs to a congregation which refuses to accept stringent state restrictions on religious practice. In 1974 and 1977 he applied for permission to emigrate.
His congregation broke away from the official Baptist Church after the parent body adopted statutes in 1960 providing for secular registration, control over sermons and the appointment of clergy, and a strongly centralized administration. About 2,000 of these congregations, throughout the Soviet Union have refused registration and are now considered illegal.
After Mr. Khailo and his wife, Maria, began to conduct religious services in the homes of fellow believers, the family became the target of official harassment. In 1977 their children stopped attending school for fear of victimization.
The exact charge against Mr. Khailo has never been made public. He has been diagnosed as schizophrenic and ruled not responsible for his actions. Like other prisoners of conscience indefinitely confined to psychiatric hospitals, he has been treated with anti-psychotic drugs which have severe side-effects. His wife, who on a visit to her husband in 1981 failed to recognize him, says he is now in poor health, with fainting fits, heart-pains and impaired vision.
The following email was received by co-author Arthur J. Clemens Jr., from a relative of Vladimir Khailo, some time around 2003, which describes how a large number of political prisoners held in the Soviet Union at the time of the Chernobyl disaster were released by Mikael Gorbachev through the efforts of Nobel Prize winner Andrei Sakkarov. Clemens was sent this email after he had posted a message on the Sevastopol, Ukraine message board found at sevastopol.org. The website no longer allows such messages to be posted, and Sevastopol is now part of Russia.
> Dear Arthur,
> Thank you very much for the article, It was just
> what I was looking for. My
> name is Larisa, I am Vladimir Khailo’s daughter in
> law. For a while now I’ve
> been researching my father-in-law. Vladimir was
> freed from the psychiatric
> prison in 1987. Vladimir was a very close friend to
> Andrey D. Sakarov, and
> when the Chernoble incident occurred, Gorbachev gave
> an order for Sakarov to
> be freed from prison, so he could help with the
> incident. Sakarov agreed
> under one condition that Vladimir Khailo and other
> Christian and political
> leaders be freed. Vladimir was freed but told to
> leave the Soviet Union and
> never come back.
>Vladimir has been living in the states for 15
> years now and it hasn’t
> been any easier. The same people who put him behind
> bars in the Soviet Union
> and in the States now. They have made his life very
> difficult here. They are
> the Religious Mafia-Communist, who still work for
> the Communist Party. Under
> the pretend of churches, and missions, and
> charities, they collect and
> provide money to arm and build weapons in the former
> Communist world.
> Vladimir Khailo has be persecuted by them here. He
> has been made to look
> insane, for telling the truth. So the people who
> were really persecuted are
> degraded, and belittled by those who persecuted
> them. They, the persecutors,
> have taken their reputation and are making money of
> I’m sorry for the long letter, I’m just trying to
> get information and I have
> limited resources, because almost no one believes
> anything my Father went
> through or speaks of and I’m trying to prove that it
> is the truth.
Khailo died in Elkhart, IN, USA on June 8, 2013 at the age of 81.
So it can be seen the technology of using so-called psychiatry for the purpose of detaining political prisoners, and for other political purposes, was developed and perfected in the former Soviet Union. So the question arises, was this technology used to extract a guilty plea from Loughner?
US GOVERNMENT MIND CONTROL ACTIVITIES
TIME: 1953 to Present
PLACE: United States and Canada
According to public records, the CIA started a research project known as MKULTRA in 1953, and it was officially ended in 1973, when President Nixon ordered all records of the program destroyed. The purpose of the program was to develop mind control capabilities for use by the United States government and specifically the CIA, which administered the project.
President Eisenhower ordered this research started due his concern about recently freed prisoners of war who had been brainwashed by their Chinese captors during the Korean War.
The program managed to remain completely secret from the public, and even Congress, until 1975, when the Church committee found out about it and investigated it. The committee was hampered in its efforts because of Nixon’s destruction order.
A cache of around 20,000 documents were uncovered in 1977, due to the FOIA request by two public spirited citizens, lawyer John Cary Sims and Dr. Sidney Wolfe, case named CIA vs Sims and Wolfe.
The ruling in this case by the Supreme Court, which protected the CIA from producing most of the documents, is truly shocking and astounding, For all practical purposes, the Supreme Court ruled “National Security” is defined as government officials having a license to kill or maim ordinary citizens, to include brainwashing them, instead of ordinary innocent citizens having the right to life, and liberty. But our government does continue to perpetuate the illusion of being a Constitutional democracy.
There is the known history of the CIA MKULTRA mind control program, and the unknown history, thanks in part to said Supreme Court ruling. Officially, the program was terminated in 1973. But such assurances by our government are meaningless, considering the long history of absurd lies our government leaders have told us, such as there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, the United States Navy was attacked by North Vietnam in the Gulf of Tonkin, and on and on. So we can reason it is very likely the MKULTRA program is an ongoing and continuing program, and the experimental phase has moved on for the most part to the actual practice phase. The technology developed by this program is also in the hands of unknown private parties.
As stated in said published case, one of the activities the CIA was involved in as part of the MKULTRA program, was to go around putting LSD in the drinks of ordinary innocent citizens chosen at random in bars and public places, both in the United States and Canada, without their knowledge or permission, in order to observe what happened to them. As a result, at least two people died, and hundreds suffered severe brain damage. However, the names of these citizens were not part of the published record of the case, and no government official was ever prosecuted for murder or maiming. So for all practical purposes, the Supreme Court granted the CIA a license to kill.
It can be seen these experiments developed for the CIA the capability to render any citizen temporarily insane. Such a capability came in handy during the Vietnam War, when the CIA sent agents to infiltrate various peace movements, who incited violence during peaceful protests, and discredit said movements, to include neutralizing peace movement leaders.
Then there is the unknown history of the MKULTRA program, and we can only deduce and speculate about what capabilities the CIA might possess in this area.
Truth is stranger than fiction, but it is because Fiction is obliged to stick to possibilities; Truth doesn’t ― Mark Twain
There have been a number of fictional movies which give us clues as to what brainwashing capabilities the CIA and/or other parties might possess. These include The Manchurian Candidate, both versions, the IPCRESS File, Conspiracy Theory, the Parallax View, Clockwork Orange, and others. Clockwork Orange in particular shows how easy it is for prison officials to obtain a confession from an innocent person by forcibly drugging the prisoner until he confesses.
Conspiracy Theory, starring Mel Gibson and Julia Roberts, actually names the MKULTRA program. Gibson keeps his food locked up in his icebox so nobody can put LSD in it.
In regard to the original Manchurian Candidate movie, where Lawrence Harvey was brainwashed to kill on command, the movie was taken off the market shortly after the assassination of President Kennedy, and kept off the market until 1988, and it was rumored Frank Sinatra was the moving force behind this censorship because of its similarity in many ways to the assassination of his close friend President Kennedy, and he did not want to give the public the impression the movie inspired the assassination.
So we see Loughner could have been similarly brainwashed, particularly since the doctor he was seeing was Dr. Thomas Brittain, who also worked for the Defense Department. One person who might have found out information on this subject was writer Jeffrey Zaslow, who did a great deal of research on the shooting for a book entitled Gabby: A Story of Courage and Hope. Unfortunately, both of these men are dead, and died within a short period of time from each other. Zaslow died in a mysterious car crash.
Then there is the testimony of Chris Denicola of Tucson, AZ, before Congress in 1995, regarding her claim she was brainwashed as a young child to be an assassin, which can be viewed on YouTube.
Assuming Loughner was brainwashed to kill, it would be logical whoever did the brainwashing would not want Loughner’s case to go to trial, but instead, it would require more brainwashing to extract a guilty plea so he would forever be silenced. Taking him out and shooting him, as Stalin would have done, was simply not an option in our society.
MEDIA COVERAGE OF POLITICAL PRISONER IN THE UNITED STATES
TIME: 1953 to Present
PLACE: United States
During the time of political repression in the former Soviet Union, to include the extensive use of psychiatry and forced drugging of dissidents, there were quite a few articles in the western press describing these activities and exposing the Soviet Union’s policies in this area.
The London Times and the New York Times in particular published many articles naming political prisoners being held, similar to the article published about Vladimir Khailo. See previous article.
In the meantime, there was a complete and total silence by the American press, on the subject of similar cases in the United States.
Does this mean there are no political prisoners in the United States?
Or does this mean the media absolutely refuses to report news stories about political prisoners in the United States?
There does appear to be one small crack in this total wall of media silence, in the form of a very brief article in the New York Times, published on July 20, 1978.
> NEW YORK TIMES July 20, 1978, pA6.”MOSCOW, July
> > The
> > > official
> > > Soviet press agency, Tass, has accused major
> > United
> > > States newspapers
> > > of adhering to a “gentlemen’s agreement” by
> > failing
> > > to follow up on
> > > Andrew Young’s controversial remarks about
> > political
> > > prisoners in the
> > > United States. The press agency said
> > > that coverage of the
> > > story by the American press demonstrated that
> > > regard to human rights
> > > violations in the United States, news
> > organizations
> > > were acting
> > > according to the so-called principal “see nothing, hear nothing, say nothing.”
> > > Mr. Young, the chief United States delegate to the United Nations, said
> > > in an interview published in the Paris
> newspaper, Le Matin last week
> > > that he believed there were “hundreds, perhaps
> > > thousands” of political
> > > prisoners now in United States jails. The remark,
> > > coming during a
> > > round of trials of dissidents in the Soviet Union,
> > > drew a rebuke from
> > > President Carter. Some American Congressmen
> > called
> > > for Mr. Young’s
> > > resignation.
> > >
> > > End
So we can only speculate as to whether Loughner is an innocent political prisoner, an assassin who is held incommunicado in order to protect other guilty parties, or is an insane lone wolf assassin, and the American press would have us believe.