POLICE FRAMING CHRISTOPHER BOLLYN

RECORDING POLICE BRUTALITY

CHRISTOPHER BOLLYN - JOURNALISTE SANS FRONTIÈRES

http://www.bollyn.com/political-assassinations/#article_13364

The Trial of Investigative Reporter Christopher Bollyn

June 29, 2007

Christopher Bollyn Speaks Out
On His Failed Attempt to Obtain Justice

A positive and substantial result of this sordid affair is that it has separated the wheat from the chaff; it has clearly distinguished friend from foe. Determining friend from foe among the patriot community and in the 9-11 truth movement is essential and my case has done exactly that. Click here to read on.

A Salem Witch Trial, Part I
By Linda Shelton, PhD, MD, Independent Court Observer

"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."
Read about Dr. Shelton's observations of the trial here

A Salem Witch Trial, Part II
Travesty of Justice

"To me the trial seemed like a crucifixion of someone with alternative views and had almost nothing to do with assault or resisting arrest.

"In this country one cannot be legally convicted based on gross defamation of the defendant, denigration of the defendant’s character without basis, and mis-characterization of the evidence presented.

"This is what has happened in the Bollyn case, making it a travesty of justice. The defendant was so thoroughly defamed and denigrated without basis that this highly prejudiced the jury into ignoring the evidence."

NEW! Linda Shelton needs your help!

Read about her own Witch Trial here

"Anatomy of Assassination of Character and Prosecutorial Misconduct"

See also:

US Juries Get Verdict Wrong In One of Six Cases: Study

So much for US justice: juries get the verdict wrong in one out of six criminal cases and judges don't do much better, a new study has found. And when they make those mistakes, both judges and juries are far more likely to send an innocent person to jail than to let a guilty person go free, according to an upcoming study out ofNorthwestern University.

"Those are really shocking numbers," said Jack Heinz, a law professor at Northwestern who reviewed the research of his colleague Bruce Spencer, a professor in the statistics department. Click here to read the full article.

* * *

Try me, good King, but let me have a Lawful Trial,
and let not my sworn Enemies sit as my Accusers and Judges;
yes, let me receive an open Trial,
for my Truth shall fear no open shame.

From a Letter of Anne Boleyn
to Henry VIII

Bollyn vs Chicago Tribune

August 20, 2006

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

Dear Chicago Tribune:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Christopher Bollyn

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

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

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

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

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

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

This article was originally posted at:
http://www.rumormillnews.com/cgi-bin/archive.cgi/noframes/read/92114

ADL Link to Bollyn Case by M.C. Piper

August 27, 2006

Source: American Free Press

ADL Link to Local Police Agencies Uncovered in Chris Bollyn Affair
The Anti-Defamation League (ADL) of B'nai B'rith has had its eye on AFP correspondent Christopher Bollyn for a long time. In light of the recent attack on Bollyn, in his own front yard, by officers of his hometown police department in Hoffman Estates, Ill., it is fitting to outline what we know about past ADL efforts to undermine Bollyn.
What follows is Michael Collins Piper's abbreviated account of a previous ADL campaign against both Bollyn and Piper, demonstrating that the ADL maintains intimate contact with police officials in suburban Chicago where the attack on Bollyn took place. As Piper notes, this certainly raises the question as to whether the thugs who attacked Bollyn had been "advised" by the ADL about Bollyn.

By Michael Collins Piper
For the first five months of the year 2000 the otherwise quiet Chicago suburb of Schaumburg, Ill., was wracked by a stormy debate over censorship, centering around my book Final Judgment, which charges Israeli involvement in the assassination of President John F. Kennedy.
The frenzy began when a local library patron, Christopher Bollyn, tried to donate a copy to the Schaumburg Township District Library (STDL). Trained in Middle East studies, Bollyn is fluent in Hebrew and Arabic, among other languages. In addition, his late mother was one of the library's founders, his wife was a volunteer at the library, and Bollyn himself had worked at the library as a young man. Despite all this, the library rejected the donation.
However, Bollyn attended a library board meeting to press the matter, and, at that time, pointed out that several library directors were partisans of Israel. He charged that the book was rejected because of the Israeli lobby's fervent objections to the book.
Already involved behind the scenes, the Chicago office of the ADL publicly stepped into the picture, with ADL spokesman Richard Hirshhaut attacking Bollyn.
"We believe this is a cynical ploy, an attempt to create a First Amendment issue as a subterfuge for an effort to exploit the goodwill and fair-mindedness of the public library system," said Hirshaut. "The library should not be forced to put itself in a position of being a warehouse or central address for every bigot with an agenda."
Hirschaut had previously been based in the San Francisco office of the ADL at the very time - seven years previously - that the ADL came under intense public scrutiny for its improper involvement with at least one member of the San Francisco Police Department. Following that scandal, in which Hirschaut was under criminal investigation for his involvement in the ADL-connected police scandal, Hirschaut was moved to Chicago.
In fact, Hirschaut and the San Francisco ADL office were keeping tabs on Bollyn as far back as the early 1990s when Bollyn, then a college student in the San Francisco Bay area, was leading protests against the first U.S. war against Iraq, which was being promoted by the Israeli lobby.
In any case, the brouhaha between Bollyn and the ADL and the Schaumburg Library attracted the attention of the media. No less than five area newspapers and the PBS affiliate reported on the controversy. The mess dragged on for some five months, with Bollyn insisting that the library accept the copy of Final Judgment.
In response, the library appointed a special three-member "tribunal" to examine Final Judgment and determine whether it was "appropriate" for inclusion in the library. Heading the tribunal was Uri Toch, the library's official translator of Hebrew, which is the state language of Israel.
Toch and his tribunal declared the book "poorly written" and essentially called it a piece of garbage but finally consented to permit the book to be accepted by the library to avoid being accused of censorship.
At one point, Toch tried to get Bollyn arrested after Bollyn called the library and asked Toch, in the Israeli state language, where Toch had lived in Israel. Toch called the local police, crying that he felt "threatened."
By this juncture, I was personally tired of the attacks by the ADL on Bollyn, whom I had never even met in person and with whom I had never even spoken on the telephone, and I accepted Bollyn's invitation to come to the Schaumburg-Hoffman Estates area and speak publicly at the library where the Israeli librarian and the ADL had worked to suppress my book. Some 150 people turned out for the event - including a local police officer who happened to have been a reader of The Spotlight newspaper by which I was employed.
The officer advised me, confidentially, that the ADL had contacted the Schaumburg Police Department to "brief" them about me and about Bollyn. In response to the ADL briefing, the Schaumburg police chief at the time, Richard Casler, sent out word that one of the "top Nazis in America" (me) was coming to town and that this Nazi bigwig had invited "his followers" to come to a rally. To preserve the peace and prevent Bollyn and me from instigating another holocaust, perhaps, Casler ordered extra officers on duty.
When I learned of this tough cop's toadying to the ADL, I called his office, but Casler wouldn't come to the phone. He sent his deputy, Capt. Tom Ostermann, who refused to either admit or deny the chief had been in touch with the ADL. When Ostermann became exasperated and said he was "just a hard-working cop," I told him I thought the Schaumburg police would do the public a much better service by watching out for drug dealers rather than chasing down a fat guy with glasses whose only crime was to write a book.
The big problem is that the ADL's contacts with local law enforcement all over America have intensified. The ADL's web site on the Internet brags of its close "cooperation" with local police. The ADL brags of "advising" police departments about "gangs" and in techniques of fighting "terrorism."
Our police departments are being made adjuncts of the ADL's efforts to suppress dissent in America. Outspoken journalists such as Bollyn are the frontline targets. Don't let it happen in your town.

Originally published August 27, 2006, American Free Press, Washington, D.C.
http://www.americanfreepress.net/html/adl_link_to_local_police.html

Was Homeland Security Behind Attack On Bollyn?

August 31, 2006

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Trial of Investigative Reporter Christopher Bollyn

June 11, 2007

The Trial of Investigative Reporter Christopher Bollyn

By Dr. Linda Shelton, Phd, MD

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
http://www.rumormillnews.com/cgi-bin/archive.cgi?read=105561

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."

MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL

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 police...in 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

http://www.rumormillnews.com/cgi-bin/archive.cgi/noframes/read/106800

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.
Respectfully,
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 http://www.rumormillnews.com/cgi-bin/archive.cgi?noframes;read=104998

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?
Sincerely,
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
Email: bill.mcleod@hoffmanestates.org
Tel: (847)781-2604 Fax: (847)781-2669
Police Department – Chief of Police Clint Herdegen
Email: clint.herdegen@hoffmanestates.org
Tel: (847)882-1818 Fax: (847)882-8423
HEPD Spokesperson – Lt. Richard Russo
Officer responsible for preservation of the evidence
Email: Richard.Russo@HoffmanEstates.org
Tel: (847)781-2807 Fax: (847)882-8423
Village Manager – James H. Norris
Email: jim.norris@hoffmanestates.org
Tel: (847)882-9100 Fax: (847)781-2669
Corporation Counsel – Richard N. Williams
Email: richard.williams@hoffmanestates.org
Tel: (847)882-9100 Fax: (847)781-2669
Illinois State Senator for Hoffman Estates area
Honorable John J. Millner
Email: johnjmillner@aol.com
Tel: (217)782-8192 or (630)351-9340
Cook County State's Attorney's Office
Supervisor - Steven Rosenblum
Email: stateattorney@cookcountygov.com
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 http://www.rumormillnews.com/cgi-bin/archive.cgi?noframes;read=104752

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,

(signed)

Davy Cady

Chairman

cc:

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

Commentary: The Right Against Government Retaliation

May 13, 2007

Across the nation, judges, prosecutors and the police are running amok, engaging in a rape and pillage of the U.S. Constitution, abusing the laws, their briefcases, gavels, badges and their black robes to terrorize, retaliate and intimidate members of the citizenry who have the courage to stand up to their arbitrary and wrongful arrests, malicious prosecutions and rulings, who seek to expose the cover-ups of abuse and corruption in the justice system and challenge their abuse of parties whom appear before them seeking justice and redress of grievances.
The outing of the firing of federal prosecutors based on politics and the egregious prosecutorial misconduct by North Carolina prosecutor Mike Nifong in the Duke rape case are clear indications that our Republic is on a slippery slope to destroying democracy.
Police are abusing their powers, arresting people who dare to criticize the government, arresting people for taking pictures of police officers or simply taking pictures in public places, who wear a t-shirt bashing President Bush and for reporters who dare to look further than the news release handed out and work to expose government corruption. The prosecutors and low level courts are condoning it, resulting in ruining people’s lives, causing wrongful incarcerations, trying to label their critics as cuckoo, all in an effort to cover up their wrongful actions, in essence fueling the cancer of governmental interference and corruption that has become pervasive in today’s society.
Complete article online at: http://www.northcountrygazette.org/2007/05/13/commentary-the-right-against-government-retaliation/

The Bollyn Trial - Truth vs. Plea Bargain

May 4, 2007

A Lebanese Druze friend of mine told me that the lie is the mother of all sins because the lie allows all other sins and crimes to be committed.
To be falsely accused of crimes and forced to defend oneself against false testimony in court is a very challenging and stressful position for anyone. Seeing how the evidence that could exonerate me has been destroyed or withheld and how my accusers have crafted lies to use against me, I often feel quite discouraged and depressed about trying to fight for the truth in a trial.
The process is extremely costly and stressful, as I now realize, and something most people are simply unable or unwilling to go through. Most criminal cases in the United States are settled in a compromise plea bargain in which the defendant accepts some guilt and a reduced penalty even if he or she is completely innocent.
I don't want to accept a plea bargain because I am innocent - all I did was call 911 for help. I know that I did not assault, or intend to assault anyone when I was unexpectedly tackled and TASERed by plainclothed men in body armor in my front yard. There was no arrest prior to their assault and there was no resistance when they pinned me down and TASERed me. I did not commit the crimes I am accused of: aggravated assault and resisting a peace officer.
While I am accused of resisting a peace officer, the men who came to my house were not uniformed and did not identify themselves to me as Hoffman Estates police working undercover. They were loitering around in an unmarked car.
When I see the wall of lies I am facing, I often feel that it is quite hopeless to try and fight these charges. I know that I have many supporters who want me to succeed in this case and who have donated to help in this effort. I am very grateful for their support and know that without them I could not challenge these trumped-up charges.
But doubts and gnawing fears are never far away and I often ask myself if it is really worth the struggle. As Epictetus said: "It is not death or hardship that is a fearful thing, but the fear of death and hardship."
Today, I received a most inspiring letter from a supporter who tells me why I must fight these charges. This letter gives me substantial spiritual encouragement in this legal battle I face. While the letter is addressed to me, its universal message is for anyone who is forced, as I am, to defend him or herself against false accusations.
* * * * * * * *

May 3, 2007
Dear Chris,
I appreciate L.'s heartfelt letter to you of April 30, 2007, and the concern that it evinces for your family. I especially appreciate, however, its last two paragraphs. They illuminate the true mettle of her soul and show forth a Woman who is intent on plumbing the depths of injustice for the sake (some day) of (more) justice for us all (as well as for herself).
One could argue that the issue of a plea bargain is a political issue, but, I prefer to think of it fundamentally as a moral and, ultimately, as a spiritual issue. (All Bible quotes below are from the KJV translation.)
On the one hand, God requires us to "submit [our]selves to every ordinance of man [which was designed] for the Lord's sake [and/or which promotes His good purposes]" (I Peter 2:13a), to "confess …our faults" (James 5:16) when we violate such ordinances (as well as God’s own Laws and precepts), and to “agree with [our] adversary quickly whiles [we] are[e] in the way with him, lest at any time [he] deliver [us] to the judge and the judge deliver [us] to the officer, and [we] be cast into prison” (Matthew 5:25).
There are some things, however, that we must do in order to determine whether we have violated any such an “ordinance of man.” Firstly, we must not just presume that we are innocent when we are not, for God hates presumption (see Numbers 15:30; Psalm 19:13; II Peter 2:10).
Secondly, we must earnestly have our souls “examined” by God through prayer (see Psalm 26:2; 139:23-24), by our own deep soul-searching (see I Corinthians 11:28a; II Corinthians 13:5), and by the counsel or admonitions of our friends and/or enemies (see Proverbs 27:6,17; I Corinthians 9:3).
And thirdly, if we survive all of this examination and come out with a well-informed, tested, and yet still good conscience (see Acts 24:16; Romans 2:15; 9:1;13:5; II Corinthians 1:12; 4:2; I Timothy 1:5,19; Titus 1:15; Hebrews 9:14; 13:18; I Peter 3:16, 21), then we must draw the proper conclusions and conduct ourselves honorably in accordance therewith.
How then should we live? Again, on the one hand, God requires us not to be purposelessly or unnecessarily “contentious” (see Proverbs 26:21; Romans 2:8) and to "live peaceably with all men," but only "if it be possible [and] as much as lieth in [us]" (Romans 13:18), the capacity for which will vary with each individual, so the Scripture implies. So we see that there is some wiggle room here.
On the other hand, God also requires us to “know the truth" (John 8:32a; I Timothy 4:3), to “cho[o]se… the…truth” (Psalm 119:30a), to "belie[ve]...the truth" (II Thessalonians 2:13b), to "obey the truth" (Romans 2:8, Galatians 3:1, 5:7, I Peter 1:22), to “acknowledge[e] the truth” (II Timothy 2:25b; Titus 1:1), to "bear witness unto the truth" (John 18:37), to “testify of the truth” (III John 3), to "speak the truth" (Ephesians 4:15, I Timothy 2:7b), to "tell the truth" (Galatians 4:16), to "say the truth" (II Corinthians 12:6b), to "say nothing but the truth" (II Chronicles 18:15), to “lie not against the truth” (James 3:14), to not “err from the truth” (James 5:19), to “do the truth” (I John 1:6), to “walk in the truth” (John III:3), to “live” the truth (Galatians 2:20; Philippians 1:21; Hebrews 13:18b; I Peter 2:24b; 4:6c), and even to be indwelled by the “truth” (II John 2) so that “the truth…shall be with us forever” (II John 2), thus making us literally “of the truth,” which supreme spiritual Reality “assures our hearts before [God]” (I John 3:19), after which “the truth shall make [us] free” (John 8:32b).
Notice that the truth cannot simply “make us free,” if we just rely on attorneys, or on the actual facts, or on the inherent justice of the System, or on the common sense of jurors, or even on our own perfunctory prayers. “The truth shall make us free” only if we comply with all of the conditions as set forth in these paragraphs (and perhaps with some others as well).
Now I ask you: after you have been drenched in all the truths of the preceding paragraphs and after you have performed the requisite self-examination as indicated above, do you really believe it is the truth that you committed a crime on that fateful day last August?
If not, and knowing that to “lie against” and to “err from” “the truth” is to sin and that to sin – especially to be counted among “liars –…[is to] have…part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone, which is the second death” (Revelation 21:8), are you really prepared to confess to the court (and hence to all the world throughout all time) that you committed a crime?
Will you be able to live with such a betrayal, knowing how it could influence your children, should they ever conclude there from that they too can commit any old indiscretion or crime, lie about it, and get off lightly? Is that the kind of legacy that you wish to leave to them?
Or would you rather see them suffer some economic hardship (as have millions of other children throughout history who still grew up to become great men and women in spite of it) and grow up being incredibly proud of their father and being influenced, perhaps, to become, in their own ways, as great a prophet as their father is in (controversial) truth-telling?
Could you ask for more blessings for your children that they should grow up to become equally as indefatigable and on fire for the truth as you have been?
The Bible reports that John the Baptist told the (controversial) truth about the sins (which at that time included the unlawfulness) of King Herod and got beheaded for his (controversially) truthful efforts, and Jesus praised John for being the greatest prophet that Israel had, up until that time, ever produced (Luke 7:28a).
God warns us that a life of (controversial) truth-telling (and the telling of all really deep truth is controversial), i.e. that a life of prophecy – for truth-telling is what prophecy is biblically defined as – is not a bed of roses.
On the one hand, it is much easier in many instances not to prophesy or to tell the (controversial) truth. If, on the other hand, we are led to embark upon a career of prophecy – of telling the (controversial) truth – then we must be consistent (or, in biblical language, “non-dissembling”) in our truth telling (see Psalm 26;4; Proverbs 26:24; Jeremiah 42:20; Galatians 2:13).
“Let your communication be ‘yea, yea’ [or] ‘nay, nay.’ Whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil” (Matthew 5:37).
Telling the truth on the Internet but not in court doesn’t wash! God warns us that “all [who] will live godly…shall suffer persecution” (II Timothy 3:12), but in that persecution, “this is thankworthy, if a man for conscience toward [the truth] endure grief, suffering wrongfully. For what glory is it, if, when ye be buffeted for your faults, ye shall take it patiently? But if, when ye do well and suffer for it, ye take it patiently, this is acceptable with God. For even hereunto were ye called, because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example that [w]e should follow in his steps” (I Peter 2:19-21).
In other words, an honorable man (who honors the truth by consistently telling it) can take solace in God’s promise to honor him, if not in this vale of tears, then in heaven. Pie in the sky, you say? You don’t believe in the Bible?
Well, I say that even if an atheist could prove that there is no transcendent truth or God or heaven (which he can’t), that still wouldn’t negate the value to your children and to all others who are watching you of your heroic stand for truth, like that of Socrates, would it? Socrates could have run away (either by fleeing or by compromising the truth), but he chose to stand for and to tell the (controversial) truth (as he saw it), and his example shall continue to inspire the hearts of secularists (and Christians alike) throughout all time.
Isn’t that alone a worthy legacy for any honorable man and his family? Can economic hardship of one’s family ever justify a serious betrayal of the truth which a false confession of crime always entails? No, God honors those who honor Him, and as for children and/or wife left behind? “God setteth the solitary in families; He [also] bringeth out those which are bound with chains” (Psalm 68:6a+b).
Practically speaking, I do not wish to belittle the consequences to you and your family of a possible conviction and incarceration, which could conceivably happen, now that so many crimes and torts are being committed by state actors in your prosecution, but I still believe that:
1) you could easily convince a jury of your innocence – even without an attorney – just by prophetically telling the (controversial) truth and letting the chips fall where they may;
2) if convicted, you may be able to induce someone out there to finance your appeal, which must be overturned at some higher level, but if not, you would surely, as L. suggests, only get probation or supervision and, at most a nominal fine or a few days or weeks of community service.
None of these most likely worst-case consequences – not even a few months or a year in jail – would even come close in my view to the horrible prospect of confessing to the court and to all mankind (because, remember, you have the whole world watching your case, now that you’ve advertised it on the Internet) by means of a plea bargain that you have committed a crime.
Galileo was a great scientist, but his false confession cost him what – the loss of his self-respect and, much more importantly, the honor of truth, which he betrayed.
Finally, there is much left in your case that can be done: 2nd Motion to Dismiss, removal, etc. Don’t lose heart! Decide now, in your soul, that you’re in this battle for the long haul – whether in this country or wherever you may move to in the (probably false hope of finding refuge from the NWO) – and then the rest of your battle and life will have a surer foundation than they now have, and you’ll be happier, less depressed, and more blessed.
Faith in and an honorable stand for truth, my brother, is its own (and very rich) reward.
D.

St. John the Baptist by Leonardo - The Louvre

The Destruction and Withholding of Evidence

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)

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

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

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

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

FALSE EVIDENCE

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

DESTRUCTION OF VIDEO EVIDENCE

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Richard Russo of the Hoffman Estates Police Department

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

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

DENIED DUE PROCESS

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

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

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

THE TAMPERING OF THE 911 AUDIO TAPES

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The front door of the Bollyn home

Malice Exposed - Prosecuting a Journalist for his Writing

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-2007http://www.rumormillnews.com/cgi-bin/archive.cgi?read=102707

Timeline of Events Surrounding Police Assault on 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.
http://i60.photobucket.com/albums/h36/suzetteanne/Bollyn_Doctor_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, 2007http://www.rumormillnews.com/cgi-bin/archive.cgi/noframes/read/101044

Evidence of A Police Conspiracy to Injure Bollyn

March 6, 2007

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

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

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

To help establish the facts, I called the chief of the fire department to ask why the medics had not examined me after I had been assaulted and TASERed.
Deputy Chief Robert Gorvett, a local resident who grew up in Hoffman Estates, promptly returned the call and investigated the fire department/police transmissions and communications which preceded the assault.
In the assault, my right elbow was fractured and my body was subjected to 50,000 volts from a TASER gun placed directly over my lower back.
What Dep. Fire Chief Gorvett told me indicates that the police had provided false information to the central 911 dispatch - saying there was a "fight in progress" - which resulted in the dispatcher calling in fire department emergency vehicles. The 911 dispatch had heard this false police report and contacted the fire department at 20:01:06 - nearly three minutes before the undercover tactical unit had even arrived at my house.
The police log indicates that the undercover tactical unit only arrived on the scene at 20:03:56, only one second before the fire department, although an Officer Joseph Kruschel was logged in as being on the scene at 20:03:28.
Kruschel, however, evidently remained out of sight in order to allow the three-man tactical team to approach the Bollyn family first. This action indicates that there was a plan to provoke a confrontation. The three-man tactical unit was led by an officer named Michael Barber who had worked with the Department of Homeland Security in Katrina-ravaged New Orleans.
Barber was also the officer who TASERed me in front of my wife and 8-year-old daughter while I was handcuffed and forcibly restrained by two men who pinned me to the ground. Another officer named Timothy J. Stoy, a former jail guard at Cook County Jail, restrained me for the duration of the assault by kneeling with his full body weight (ca. 200 lbs.) on the temple of my head as Barber TASERed me. This tactic is employed to paralyze the victim by putting intense pressure on the nerve center on the side of the head.

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

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

Helje, who grew up in Soviet-occupied Estonia and who traveled widely in the Soviet Union, says that she never experienced such police brutality anywhere, although she was politically active and married to a well-known Estonian rock singer and political dissident against the Soviet occupation of Estonia. She and her former husband, Urmas Alender, who perished in the 1994 sinking of Estonia, had been monitored by the notorious KGB for years.
Gorvett looked into the fire department log and found that the first fire department vehicle was on the scene at 20:03:57 - exactly one second after the undercover police tactical unit arrived. This corroborates Helje's testimony that the fire department was on the scene before I was TASERed. Indeed, the fire department was on the scene before any contact was made between the police and my family.
Two days later, we asked Chief of Police Clint Herdegen to explain why so many police and the fire department had been called to the scene. He said the fire department medics are called when somebody has been TASERed.
So why were they on the scene before I was TASERed? And why were 11 police officers on the scene of a non-emergency 911 call? Anybody would wonder about such an overwhelming response to a simple call to the police concerning a suspicious vehicle in the neighborhood.
The police tactical unit that marched up my driveway was completely unwilling to identify themselves or explain their purpose at my home. The unidentified men appeared eager for a confrontation and within a minute of their arrival, they had assaulted and TASERed me. I had committed no crime and there had been no arrest, warnings, or orders given prior to the assault. Furthermore, I was completely unable to resist the attack by the three men in any way during the assault.
Twenty-nine seconds after arriving at my house, at 20:04:26, the fire department emergency crew notified dispatch that they were back in service, although they did not leave the scene. They gave the "back in service" notification before the tactical unit had assaulted and TASERed me - something they must have witnessed.
The medics' failure to examine me indicates that the fire department's policy is inadequate in regard to TASER victims. Gorvett told me that the department does not even have policy guidelines relating to medical treatment of TASER victims.
I told Chief Gorvett that many healthy people have died shortly after being TASERed and asked why the medics had not checked my health after I had been TASERed in front of professional medics, while I had been forcibly restrained. According to Chief Herdegen, the use of the TASER is why the fire department had been called to the scene in the first place.
Had the medics checked my condition they would have seen that I was not drunk or on drugs, as the fabricated police report alleges, and would have seen that my elbow was injured. They may have even noticed the superficial wounds caused by the TASER gun. But they didn't examine me. Why not?
Gorvett told me that the fire department records indicate that police officer Wesley Schultz, who was logged on the scene at 20:07:18, had told the fire department medics that their services were not needed. This is the same officer who came to my cell in the middle of the night to tell me that because I had been TASERed the medics would have to examine me. Concerned about my sore elbow, I waited for the medics for several hours - but they never came. As a result, my fractured elbow was not looked at until one day later when I went to the local hospital clinic.
While Schultz told me that the medics had been called to examine me because of being TASERed, Gorvett searched the log for the night of August 15, 2006, and found that there had been no calls from the police department to have the fire department medics assist or examine any detainee during the time I was incarcerated. (He actually found no calls from the police station between 20:01 and 01:42 the next morning.)
This evidence from the fire department indicates that the police had a very different agenda than simply responding to a non-emergency 911 call. The Hoffman Estates police can be reached by phone at (847) 882-1818.
As a result of this police attack, I was charged with resisting arrest and aggravated assault. I was attacked by people associated with American Free Press immediately after the police assault. Fighting these baseless charges has cost me a great deal of money and energy. I am convinced that this attack was orchestrated by people in the government who are opposed to my research and writings about 9/11 and other subjects. Not a single media outlet in the United States has discussed this brutal and unjustified police attack on an independent American journalist.
Where is the free press in America? After the assault, American Free Press fired me and has punished me by withholding the money they collected in my name for my legal defense. They also refuse to reimburse my business expenses incurred during the summer of 2006. Why did they turn against me so quickly?
It is only thanks to generous supporters that I am able to challenge this abuse of power by the police. People who want to support me in the struggle against police brutality and malicious prosecution are welcome to donate to my legal defense fund.
I am currently in the process of changing legal counsel and will appear in court on April 7 at 10:00 a.m. in Room 107 at the Cook County Circuit Court in Rolling Meadows to have attorney Paul P. Moreschi take over my case from Jack Smeeton.
Smeeton, who had withheld the evidence contained in the police report and transmission log from me, said, "They came. It's a fact." He clearly sided with the police and totally ignored the details and significance of this evidence that the police conspired against me. This material came into his possession only because I had filed FOIA requests for it before he was even retained as my legal counsel.
Smeeton completely disregarded Helje's testimony and said that I have no case. He was strongly opposed to a jury trial and urged me to accept a plea bargain in which I would accept guilt for resisting arrest.
When we first met Jack Smeeton at the court, he said he was English. Helje, a scholar of English language and literature, said that I was related to the family of Anne Boleyn, the second wife of Henry VIII. Smeeton said that he is related to Mark Smeaton, the court musician who, under torture, provided false testimony against Anne Boleyn in 1536.
See: http://tudorhistory.org/boleyn/
As a result of Mark Smeeton's false testimony, Anne Boleyn and five men lost their heads.
The evidence indicates that the Hoffman Estates police had a very different agenda with Christopher Bollyn than simply responding to his non-emergency 911 call about a suspicious vehicle.
The Hoffman Estates police can be reached by phone at (847) 882-1818.
Originally published as "New Evidence Emerges of Police Conspiracy to Assault & Taser Bollyn"
Posted By: ChristopherBollyn <Send E-Mail>
Date: Tuesday, March 6, 2007 18:44:18http://www.rumormillnews.com/cgi-bin/archive.cgi/noframes/read/100543

Establishing the Facts of the Police Assault

February 27, 2007

Transmission Log Reveals Extraordinary and Suspicious Police Activity

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

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

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

The Bollyn front door

About 30-35 minutes after I had seen this suspicious vehicle pass my house, these same men came onto my property. Not one, but all three armed men marched up my driveway in a confrontational manner.
Nothing told me that these strangers were actually police. They could have been anybody.
The way that these men approached my family was very provocative and threatening.
They had first been met by my wife and daughter on the driveway. They had refused to identify themselves or explain their business. I then came out of the house and met with the same treatment. The entire verbal exchange with me lasted about 15 seconds.
When I said I wanted to get my brother from the house to resolve this situation, they unexpectedly assaulted me from behind, handcuffed, and then TASERed me.
It is interesting to note that these men had assaulted me in less than one minute after arriving at my home. They clearly took the first opportunity to attack.
It was I, however, who was later charged with aggravated assault against a peace officer and resisting arrest.
For three men wearing jeans and body armor to handle a non-emergency 911 call is very unusual and unprofessional.
I obtained a log of the police transmissions concerning this police action after filing a FOIA with the Hoffman Estates Police Department. This log helps to establish the actions of the police prior to the assault.
The 2-page police log was scanned as two images. This document is not easy to understand unless you are familiar with police logs, but the description below should help.
Explanation of the Police Transmission Log
At the top of the Page 1 is a summary of the key events of this incident: 911 call received, call entered, police dispatched, police en route, and police on scene.
The dispatcher sent, at 19:47:41, a normal on-duty uniformed police officer named John Fitzgerald (6131C). Had Officer Fitzgerald handled this non-emergency call, and explained the situation to me, there would have been no confrontation of any sort.
However, according to the log, about thirty seconds after Fitzgerald was dispatched, at 19:48:09, an undercover tactical unit of three armed and non-uniformed men (6744) was apparently dispatched to assist (ASST).
About 14 minutes later, before any officer has come to my house, at 20:02:23, three more police cars are en route to assist (ASSTER), making for a total of 5 uniformed officers in 4 cars plus a special tactical unit en route to respond to a non-emergency 911 call about a suspicious vehicle. Isn’t this a waste of police resources?
At 20:03:28, the first police vehicle is on the scene. It is identified in the log as being 6132C with Officer Joseph Kruschel (#6222). This is odd because this is a normal marked police car with a uniformed police officer, which is what I had expected.
Officer Kruschel, however, obviously held himself at some distance from the house out of sight. Where was Officer Kruschel if he reported being on the scene and why did he not present himself at the Bollyn house?
About 30 seconds later, at 20:03:56, the unmarked car carrying the three-man undercover unit (6744) is logged in as being on the scene. Kruschel was nowhere to be seen.
Twenty seconds later, at 20:04:20, while these three men are talking with my wife, another police vehicle with an Officer Tony Wanic is en route to my house. Wanic is the 9th police officer in the 6th police vehicle responding to the same non-emergency 911 call.
Twenty-three seconds later, at 20:04:46, Officer John Fitzgerald, the officer first dispatched to handle the 911 call, pulls up quietly behind the unmarked car belonging to the undercover unit in front of my home. Fitzgerald remains in his car as I and my wife ask these unidentified men who they are and what they want.
The initial verbal exchange prior to their attack on me was very brief. The entire operation took some 3 or 4 minutes. I was instantly handcuffed and pinned to the ground with one man kneeling on my head with his full body weight. Fully restrained, I was then TASERed, for no reason.
My wife tried to photograph the assault but was physically blocked by Officer Felgenhauer, who threatened her with arrest if she dared to take any photos of Bollyn being assaulted.
This assault appears to have occurred between about 20:04 - 20:05. The TASER report, however, that I received from my FOIA request says that the TASERing occurred at 20:00:36, which does not correspond with the times found in the police log. At the time shown on the TASER report, the three men had not even arrived at my home.
Within two or three minutes, four more police vehicles arrive on the scene. The first two cars, 6134 and 6136, are carrying three officers who often work with children. The Bollyns have two young children. Seven police vehicles with 11 officers and two fire department vehicles are now on the scene.
It should be noted that nearly all of these vehicles were en route to the scene before the police assaulted me. Why would 7 police cars be dispatched to handle a non-emergency call in which a local resident is asking about a suspicious vehicle in his neighborhood?
One of the officers, Kathryn Cawley (#6280), who was not wearing a uniform, took 8-year-old Catherine Bollyn away from her mother without telling her. Helje was distracted by Officer Scott Lawrence and asked where her daughter had been taken. Why did they do that?
Officer Lawrence had followed my wife into our home without being asked in.
The log transmissions clearly show that an extraordinarily large number of police were involved in responding to my suspicious vehicle call long before they had even arrived at my home.
Image: This is part of the transmission log. This shows that a normal uniformed officer, John Fitzgerald, was properly dispatched to respond to Bollyn's 911 call - but that he and others police evidently conspired to hold uniformed personnel back and allowed the undercover tactical unit to engage the Bollyn family first. This armed unit of three men was precisely the object of Bollyn's fears. These are the men in car No. 6744, i.e. Barber, Stoy, and Felgenhauer.
The police chief, Clint Herdegen, told Bollyn that he had made the decision to send the tactical unit to respond to his non-emergency 911 call. This is an extremely unwise and unprofessional approach to such a situation.
That the police conspired to threaten and harm Bollyn is obvious by the fact that the first police car on the scene at Bollyn's house was 6132C driven by Off. Joseph Kruschel.
Such a conspiracy is a federal offense.

The 911 transcript is evidence of a police conspiracy.

Originally published as “Establishing the Facts - What Really Happened When Police Assaulted Bollyn”
By: ChristopherBollyn
Date: Tuesday, February 27, 2007
http://www.rumormillnews.com/cgi-bin/archive.cgi/noframes/read/100253

How the Undercover Hit Squad Hijacked the 911 Call

August 15, 2006
The three-man undercover tactical squad of Michael Barber, Timothy Stoy, and Darin Felgenhauer hijacked the response to Bollyn's 911 call taking it from the properly uniformed police officer named Fitzgerald, who had originally been dispatched. (Barber, it should be noted, is an agent of Michael Chertoff's Department of Homeland Security and served as an agent of DHS in New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina.) Barber's hijacking of the 911 response was clearly meant to provoke Bollyn because the unmarked undercover car with three armed men prowling his neighborhood was precisely the car that concerned Bollyn and that had prompted his 911 call.

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

12160

7 Rules for Recording Police - Know Your Rights !

Last week the City of Boston agreed to pay Simon Glik $170,000 in damages and legal fees to settle a civil rights lawsuit stemming from his 2007 felony arrest for videotaping police roughing up a suspect. Prior to the settlement, the First Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously ruled that Glik had a "constitutionally protected right to videotape police carrying out their duties in public." The Boston Police Department now explicitly instructs its officers not to arrest citizens openly recording them in public.

Slowly but surely the courts are recognizing that recording on-duty police is a protected First Amendment activity. But in the meantime, police around the country continue to intimidate and arrest citizens for doing just that. So if you're an aspiring cop watcher you must be uniquely prepared to deal with hostile cops.
If you choose to record the police you can reduce the risk of terrible legal consequences and video loss by understanding your state's laws and carefully adhering to the following rules.

Rule #1: Know the Law (Wherever You Are)

Conceived at a time when pocket-sized recording devices were available only to James Bond types, most eavesdropping laws were originally intended to protect people against snoops, spies, and peeping Toms. Now with this technology in the hands of average citizens, police and prosecutors are abusing these outdated laws to punish citizens merely attempting to document on-duty police.
The law in 38 states plainly allows citizens to record police, as long as you don't physically interfere with their work. Police might still unfairly harass you, detain you, or confiscate your camera. They might even arrest you for some catchall misdemeanor such as obstruction of justice or disorderly conduct. But you will not be charged for illegally recording police.
Twelve states-California, Connecticut, Florida, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, and Washington-require the consent of all parties for you to record a conversation.
However, all but 2 of these states-Massachusetts and Illinois-have an "expectation of privacy provision" to their all-party laws that courts have ruled does not apply to on-duty police (or anyone in public). In other words, it's technically legal in those 48 states to openly record on-duty police.

Rule #2 Don't Secretly Record Police

In most states it's almost always illegal to record a conversation in which you're not a party and don't have consent to record. Massachusetts is the only state to uphold a conviction for recording on-duty police, but that conviction was for a secret recording where the defendant failed to inform police he was recording. (As in the Glik case, Massachusetts courts have ruled that openly recording police is legal, but secretly recording them isn't.)
Fortunately, judges and juries are soundly rejecting these laws. Illinois, the state with the most notorious anti-recording laws in the land, expressly forbids you from recording on-duty police. Early last month an Illinois judge declared that law unconstitutional, ruling in favor of Chris Drew, a Chicago artist charged with felony eavesdropping for secretly recording his own arrest. Last August a jury acquitted Tiawanda Moore of secretly recording two Chicago Police Internal Affairs investigators who encouraged her to drop a sexual harassment complaint against another officer. (A juror described the case to a reporter as "a waste of time.") In September, an Illinois state judge dropped felony charges against Michael Allison. After running afoul of local zoning ordinances, he faced up to 75 years in prison for secretly recording police and attempting to tape his own trial.
The lesson for you is this: If you want to limit your legal exposure and present a strong legal case, record police openly if possible. But if you videotape on-duty police from a distance, such an announcement might not be possible or appropriate unless police approach you.

Rule #3: Respond to "Shit Cops Say"

When it comes to police encounters, you don't get to choose whom you're dealing with. You might get Officer Friendly, or you might get Officer Psycho. You'll likely get officers between these extremes. But when you "watch the watchmen," you must be ready to think on your feet.
In most circumstances, officers will not immediately bull rush you for filming them. But if they aren't properly trained, they might feel like their authority is being challenged. And all too often police are simply ignorant of the law. Part of your task will be to convince them that you're not a threat while also standing your ground.
"What are you doing?"
Police aren't celebrities, so they're not always used to being photographed in public. So even if you're recording at a safe distance, they might approach and ask what you are doing. Avoid saying things like "I'm recording you to make sure you're doing your job right" or "I don't trust you."
Instead, say something like "Officer, I'm not interfering. I'm asserting my First Amendment rights. You're being documented and recorded offsite."
Saying this while remaining calm and cool will likely put police on their best behavior. They might follow up by asking, "Who do you work for?" You may, for example, tell them you're an independent filmmaker or a citizen journalist with a popular website/blog/YouTube show. Whatever you say, don't lie-but don't let police trick you into thinking that the First Amendment only applies to mainstream media journalists. It doesn't.
"Let me see your ID."
In the United States there's no law requiring you to carry a government ID. But in 24 states police may require you to identify yourself if they have reasonable suspicion that you're involved in criminal activity.
But how can you tell if an officer asking for ID has reasonable suspicion? Police need reasonable suspicion to detain you, so one way to tell if they have reasonable suspicion is to determine if you're free to go. You can do this by saying "Officer, are you detaining me, or am I free to go?"
If the officer says you're free to go or you're not being detained, it's your choice whether to stay or go. But if you're detained, you might say something like, "I'm not required to show you ID, but my name is [your full name]." It's up to you if you want to provide your address and date of birth if asked for it, but I'd stop short of giving them your Social Security number.
"Please stop recording me. It's against the law."
Rarely is it advisable to educate officers about the law. But in a tense recording situation where the law is clearly on your side, it might help your case to politely present your knowledge of state law.
For example, if an insecure cop tries to tell you that you're violating his civil liberties, you might respond by saying "Officer, with all due respect, state law only requires permission from one party in a conversation. I don't need your permission to record so long as I'm not interfering with your work."
If you live in one of the 12 all party record states, you might say something like "Officer, I'm familiar with the law, but the courts have ruled that it doesn't apply to recording on-duty police."
If protective service officers harass you while filming on federal property, you may remind them of a recently issued directive informing them that there's no prohibition against public photography at federal buildings.
"Stand back."
If you're approaching the scene of an investigation or an accident, police will likely order you to move back. Depending on the circumstances, you might become involved in an intense negotiation to determine the "appropriate" distance you need to stand back to avoid "interfering" with their work.
If you feel you're already standing at a reasonable distance, you may say something like, "Officer, I have a right to be here. I'm filming for documentation purposes and not interfering with your work." It's then up to you to decide how far back you're willing to stand to avoid arrest.

Rule #4: Don't Share Your Video with Police

If you capture video of police misconduct or brutality, but otherwise avoid being identified yourself, you can anonymously upload it to YouTube. This seems to be the safest legal option. For example, a Massachusetts woman who videotaped a cop beating a motorist with a flashlight posted the video to the Internet. Afterwards, one of the cops caught at the scene filed criminal wiretapping charges against her. (As usual, the charges against her were later dropped.)
On the other hand, an anonymous videographer uploaded footage of an NYPD officer body-slamming a man on a bicycle to YouTube. Although the videographer was never revealed, the video went viral. Consequently, the manufactured assault charges against the bicyclist were dropped, the officer was fired, and the bicyclist eventually sued the city and won a $65,000 settlement.

Rule #5: Prepare to be Arrested

Keene, New Hampshire resident Dave Ridley is the avatar of the new breed of journalist/activist/filmmaker testing the limits of the First Amendment right to record police. Over the past few years he's uploaded the most impressive collection of first-person police encounter videos I've ever seen.
Ridley's calm demeanor and knowledge of the law paid off last August after he was arrested for trespassing at an event featuring Vice President Joe Biden. The arresting officers at his trial claimed he refused to leave when ordered to do so. But the judge acquitted him when his confiscated video proved otherwise.
With respect to the law Ridley declares, "If you're rolling the camera, be very open and upfront about it. And look at it as a potential act of civil disobedience for which you could go to jail." It's indeed disturbing that citizens who are not breaking the law should prepare to be arrested, but in the current legal fog this is sage advice.
"Shut it off, or I'll arrest you."
At this point you are risking arrest in order to test the boundaries of free speech. So if police say they'll arrest you, believe them. You may comply by saying something like "Okay, Officer. But I'm turning the camera off under protest."
If you keep recording, brace yourself for arrest. Try your best not to drop your camera, but do not physically resist. As with any arrest, you have the right to remain silent until you speak with a lawyer. Use it.
Remember that the camera might still be recording. So keep calm and act like you're being judged by a jury of millions of your YouTube peers, because one day you might be.

Rule #6: Master Your Technology

Smartphone owners now outnumber users of more basic phones. At any moment there are more than 100 million Americans in reach of a device that can capture police misconduct and share it with the world in seconds.
If you're one of them, you should consider installing a streaming video recording and sharing app such as Qik or Bambuser. Both apps are free and easy to use.
Always Passcode Protect Your Smartphone
The magic of both apps is that they can instantly store your video offsite. This is essential for preserving video in case police illegally destroy or confiscate your camera. But even with these apps installed, you'll want to make sure that your device is always passcode protected. If a cop snatches your camera, this will make it extremely difficult for her to simply delete your videos. (If a cop tries to trick you into revealing your passcode, never, never, never give it up!)
Keep in mind that Qik and Bambuser's offsite upload feature might be slow or nonexistent in places without Wi-Fi or a strong 3G/4G signal. Regardless, your captured video will be saved locally on your device until you've got a good enough signal to upload offsite.
Set Videos to "Private"
Both apps allow you to set your account to automatically upload videos as "private" (only you can see them) or "public" (everyone can see them). But until police are no longer free to raid the homes of citizens who capture and upload YouTube videos of them going berserk, it's probably wise to keep your default setting to "private."
With a little bit of practice you should be able to pull your smartphone from your pocket or purse, turn it on, enter your passcode, open the app, and hit record within 10 seconds. Keep your preferred app easily accessible on your home screen to save precious seconds. But don't try to shave milliseconds off your time by disabling your passcode.
Both apps share an important feature that allows your video to be saved if your phone is turned off-even if you're still recording. So if you anticipate that a cop is about to grab your phone, quickly turn it off. Without your passcode, police won't be able to delete your videos or personal information even if they confiscate or destroy your phone.
With the iPhone 4 and Samsung Galaxy Android devices I tested, when the phone is turned off the Qik app immediately stops recording and uploads the video offsite. But if the phone is turned off while Bambuser records, the recording continues after the screen goes black.
This Bambuser "black out" feature is a double-edged sword. While it could easily trick cops into thinking you're not recording them, using it could push you into more dangerous legal territory. As previously mentioned, courts have shown a willingness to convict citizens for secretly recording police. So if you're somehow caught using this feature it might be easier for a prosecutor to convince a judge or jury that you've broken the law. It's up to you to decide if the increased legal risk is worth the potential to capture incriminating police footage.
Other Recording Options
Cameras lacking offsite recording capability are a less desirable option. As mentioned earlier, if cops delete or destroy your footage-which happens way too often-you might lose your only hope of challenging their version of events in court. But if you can hold on to your camera, there are some good options.
Carlos Miller is a Miami-based photojournalism activist and writer of the popular Photography is Not a Crime blog. While he carries a professional-end Canon XA10 in the field, he says "I never leave home without a Flip camera on a belt pouch. It's a very decent camera that's easier to carry around."
The top-of-the-line Flip UltraHD starts at $178, but earlier models are available for $60 on Amazon. All flip models have one-button recording, which allows you to pull it out of your pocket and shoot within seconds. The built-in USB then lets you upload video to YouTube or other sharing sites through your PC.
Small businessman and "radical technology" educator Justin Holmes recommends the Canon S-series line of cameras. In 2008, his camera captured a police encounter he had while rollerblading in Port Dickenson, New York. His footage provides an outstanding real-life example of how a calm camera-toting citizen can intelligently flex their rights.
"I typically carry a Canon S5-IS," Holmes says. "But if I was going to buy one new, I'd go for the SX40-HS. If I were on a budget and buying one used, I'd go for S2-IS or S3-IS." The features he regards as essential include one-touch video, high-quality stereo condenser microphones, fast zoom during video, and 180x270 variable angle LCD. But the last feature he regards as "absolutely essential." With it the user can glance at the viewfinder while the camera is below or above eye level.

Rule #7: Don't Point Your Camera Like a Gun

"When filming police you always want to avoid an aggressive posture," insists Holmes. To do this he keeps his strap-supported camera close to his body at waist level. This way he can hold a conversation while maintaining eye contact with police, quickly glancing at the viewfinder to make sure he's getting a good shot.
Obviously, those recording with a smartphone lack this angled viewfinder. But you can get a satisfactory shot while holding your device at waist level, tilting it upward a few degrees. This posture might feel awkward at first, but it's noticeably less confrontational than holding the camera between you and the officer's face.
Also try to be in control of your camera before an officer approaches. You want to avoid suddenly grasping for it. If a cop thinks you're reaching for a gun, you could get shot.
Becoming a Hero
If you've recently been arrested or charged with a crime after recording police, contact a lawyer with your state's ACLU chapter for advice as soon as possible. (Do not publicly upload your video before then.) You may also contact Flex Your Rights via Facebook or Twitter. We're not a law firm, but we'll do our best to help you.
If your case is strong, the ACLU might offer to take you on as a litigant. If you accept, your brave stand could forever change the way police treat citizens asserting their First Amendment right to record police. This path is not for fools, and it might disrupt your life. But next time you see police in action, don't forget that a powerful tool for truth and justice might literally be in your hands.
Image credit: John Moore / Getty Images News
Steve Silverman is the founder & executive director of FlexYourRights.org and co-creator of the film 10 Rules for Dealing with Police.

Articles by Subject

Political Assassinations

- See more at: http://www.bollyn.com/political-assassinations/#article_13364

MUHAMMAD ALI BEN MARCUS

Sunday, 17 October 2010

CHRISTOPHER BOLLYN'S TRIAL_RECORDING POLICE BRUTALITY

CHRISTOPHER BOLLYN - JOURNALISTE SANS FRONTIÈRES

The Trial of Investigative Reporter Christopher Bollyn

Bollyn vs Chicago Tribune

ADL Link to Bollyn Case by M.C. Piper

Was Homeland Security Behind Attack On Bollyn?

The Trial of Investigative Reporter Christopher Bollyn

Bollyn Attorney Moves for Reversal of Verdict

Constitution Coalition of Utah Letter of Support

Dr. Steven Jones Appeals for Fairness

Letter to Mayor William D. McLeod from Illinois Committee for Public and Private Accountability

Commentary: The Right Against Government Retaliation

The Bollyn Trial - Truth vs. Plea Bargain

The Destruction and Withholding of Evidence

Malice Exposed - Prosecuting a Journalist for his Writing

Timeline of Events Surrounding Police Assault on Bollyn

Evidence of A Police Conspiracy to Injure Bollyn

Establishing the Facts of the Police Assault

How the Undercover Hit Squad Hijacked the 911 Call

7 Rules for Recording Police - Know Your Rights !

Rule #1: Know the Law (Wherever You Are)

Rule #2 Don't Secretly Record Police

Rule #3: Respond to "Shit Cops Say"

Rule #4: Don't Share Your Video with Police

Rule #5: Prepare to be Arrested

Rule #6: Master Your Technology

Rule #7: Don't Point Your Camera Like a Gun

No comments:

Post a Comment

About Me

THE FRENCH CONNECTION