The NSA Actually Has A Program Called SKYNET — And It Might Be Labeling Innocent People as Terrorists

| |

By Claire Bernish

A recent examination of National Security Agency documents previously released by whistleblower Edward Snowden shows that the CIA and other U.S. agencies may be killing innocent people as a result of their reliance on metadata.

The NSA’s SKYNET is a program that surveils phone metadata in order to track suspected terrorists. Through SKYNET, the security agency engages in mass surveillance of Pakistan’s mobile phone network, affecting 55 million people — but that’s not all. Once the data is gathered, it’s run through a machine learning algorithm that attempts to rate whether a particular individual is more or less likely to be a terrorist.

According to Human Rights Data Analysis’ executive director Patrick Ball, the NSA’s methods are “ridiculously optimistic” and “completely bullshit.” If Ball is correct, SKYNET’s methodology may be putting thousands of innocent lives in danger because they are being falsely identified as terrorists.

While Ball has raised many issues, one of the most important points, which NSA officials appear to be ignoring, is that the machine is only able to identify a terrorist if it has access to details pertaining to a great number of other known terrorists. According to New York Magazine, however, “there just aren’t that many known terrorists” who could be added to the machine’s list, “especially in comparison to the number of phones the NSA is monitoring in Pakistan.”

The documents made available by The Intercept show the NSA works with the data of only seven known terrorists. NSA officials reportedly feed six of the terrorists’ information into the machine, tasking SKYNET with the duty of finding the seventh in a random group of 100,000 citizens.

Ball says this system cannot work.

According to Ars Technica, there were about 120 million cellular handsets in use in Pakistan at the end of 2012. At the time, the NSA analyzed 55 million of those records. With only “80 variables on 55 million Pakistani mobile phone users, there is obviously far too much data to make sense of manually,” Ars Technica explained.

Like any other application targeting big data, SKYNET is used as a substitute for “human reason and judgment,”Ars Technica’s Christian Grothoff and J.M. Porup explain.

Similar apps, like the one used by Facebook, are prone to making major mistakes, but the consequences of Facebook’s errors are relatively innocuous. When SKYNET makes similar mistakes by wrongly identifying a terrorist, the consequences are deadly.

Ars Technica contends that the information harvested and analyzed by NSA is “likely” used by the CIA or the U.S. military, two agencies that execute “Find-Fix-Finish” strategies with the help of Predator drones or “on-the-ground death squads.”

Before feeding the information to the CIA or the military, SKYNET uses information on people’s typical daily routines to tell a story. According to the NSA documents, the Ars Technica analysis details, the “program … is based on the assumption that the behaviour of terrorists differs significantly from that of ordinary citizens” when it comes to the more than 80 different properties they use to rate people.

With terrorist organizations upping their efforts to remain undetected, it’s hard to see how SKYNET could be effective, especially after learning that Al-Jazeera’s bureau chief in Islamabad, Ahmad Zaidan, was once SKYNET’s highest rated target.

In 2014, the former director of both the CIA and NSA, Michael Hayden, proudly claimed they “kill people based on metadata.”

To Ball, the NSA has a major problem on their hands if they “are using the same records to train the model as they are using to test the model.”

Because there is such a small number of known terrorists to work with, the number of possible terrorists is not sufficiently narrowed down. Ball explains the “usual practice is to hold some of the data out of the training process so that the test includes records the model has never seen before. Without this step, their classification fit assessment is ridiculously optimistic.”
If the NSA is serious about being accurate, Ball told Ars Technica, the agency should mix the terrorists into the population set “before random selection of a subset.” But the low number of known terrorists makes this particular step hard to follow. Without a “scientifically-sound statistical analysis,” there is no accuracy.

President Barack Obama has been under heavy scrutiny for authorizing drone campaigns that result in gross mistakes, killing a great number of innocent people while targeting “confirmed terrorists.” Since 2004, there have been 401 US drone strikes in Afghanistan, alone, killing 3,058 people total. In Pakistan, hundreds, including children, have died in pursuit of a mere two dozen declared terrorists.

Related Reads

No, the NSA HASN’T Stopped Mass Spying on American Citizens

After One WHOLE Day Without NSA, Senate Passes Bill to Restore Domestic Spying Powers

John Cusack on Civil Liberties, Drones, and NSA Spying: “Obama Is Worse Than Bush”


Delivered by The Daily Sheeple

We encourage you to share and republish our reports, analyses, breaking news and videos (Click for details).

Contributed by The Anti-Media of

The “Anti” in our name does not mean we are against the media, we are simply against the current mainstream paradigm. The current media, influenced by the industrial complex, is a top-down authoritarian system of distribution—the opposite of what Anti-Media aims to be. At Anti-Media, we want to offer a new paradigm—a bottom-up approach for real and diverse reporting. We seek to establish a space where the people are the journalists and a venue where independent journalism moves forward on a larger and more truthful scale.

Wake The Flock Up! Please Share With Sheeple Far & Wide:
  • Innocent people have been labelling intelligence agents as terrorists for as long as they’ve been acting like them, something innocent people never do.

    • AllodialTitle

      Welcome to’s …


      Tongue in cheek but pathetically true!

      Copyright 2015 – All Rights Reserved – Email


      1 Prosecutorial Discretion

      1(A) We hold the prudent practice of “see, hear and speak no evil” essential as related to the office of the Attorney General [secretly called the “power structure’s Mafia”]. Therefore:

      1(A)(i) We hold the latitude we give the Public Defender’s office compensates for any inequality of justice or prosecutorial misconduct and

      1(A)(ii) We ignore the practice of overcharging by the Attorney General regardless of how many are forced into false admissions or plea bargains.

      1(A)(iii) We hold overcharging can assist bar members with revenue enhancement and improves efficiency by reducing demands for jury trials and we shall not consider

      any guidelines stating otherwise or

      the devastation in the lives of those so affected.

      1(A)(iv) Since it is the job of the Attorney General to “get” people, any means they use to do so is acceptable since they are the will and voice of the people.

      1(A)(v) If the Attorney General’s Office violates laws, rules or ethics while “getting” people then let the trial process sort it out. To hell with the following:

      those who can’t afford effective counsel, a trial or those having a Public Defender and

      those who get a Judge skilled in the use of judicial discretion who covers up or ignores prosecutorial misconduct citing “judicial efficiency” and the “duty of the state.”

      1(A)(vi) Having a bold aggressive Attorney General is of greater benefit to Society than any possible damage to individual life and liberty.

      1(B) Public Defender

      1(B)(i) The importance we place on justice can always be measured by the amount of resources given the Public Defender in proportion to the amount of resources given the Attorney General.

      1(B)(ii) Under staffing and under funding of the Public Defender:

      enhances Judicial efficiency and eases the court calendar by promoting plea bargains, suicides, breakdowns, despair, fleeing etc. and

      can give us more bang for our buck by turning the Public Defender into an extension of the Attorney General’s office and

      can demonstrate effective use of the “good cop (Public Defender)” “bad cop (Attorney General)” scenario and

      can assist members of the bar with property acquisition and other revenue enhancements.

      1(B)(iii) Any uncooperative Public Defender making an issue of judicial or prosecutorial misconduct or ethics violations shall be removed as quickly as possible.


      2(A) Confident Litigants

      Any litigant appearing confident can be baffled by minutia or Judicially enhanced procedural criteria.

      2(B) Judicial Dominance

      Occasionally we encounter a litigant who doesn’t know we are king. We hold the following tools effective in forcing a resistant litigant into submission:

      intimidation by any means

      condescending looks, gestures or comments

      expressing or instigating anger, outrage or shock

      obvious impatience

      rushing the proceedings

      frequent checks of the time

      cautionary glances toward the Bailiff

      appearing distressed or uncomfortable like one needing to go to the bathroom

      yelling the magic word “NEXT!”

      raising unrelated, irrelevant or confusing issues and

      loud bangs using the gavel.

      2(C) The Need For Attorneys

      We shall continue to stress the need to have an Attorney without addressing the fact the overwhelming majority of Americans can not afford them. This is effective in keeping the unresourceful and ineffective at bay.

      2(D) The Ultimate Authority

      Citizens must be continually led to believe that the Judiciary is the final or ultimate authority in our system of Government.

      2(E) Practice Of Law Forbidden

      We shall try as best we can to confuse clarifying issues with our inability to give advice. This makes us less apt to stick our foot in our mouth.

      2(F) Sincerity Of The Judiciary

      We shall never appear insincere when stating absurdities, untruths, mistruths or nonsense. We shall always act like the hearer is unknowledgeable, naive or unseasoned.

      2(G) Judicial Fairness

      We shall always remember when deciding the significance of an individual to consider money, connections, power, politics and the ability to get media attention in deciding how fair we need to be.

      2(H) Judicial Response To Criticism

      We forever hold the response to valid or invalid criticism should be indignance.

      2(I) Judicial Efficiency

      We hold instigating outrage, frustration, anger or other emotions in litigants can be an effective tool to rid ourselves of the unwanted litigant.

      2(J) Judicial Handling Of The Ignorant

      The client demanding Justice and the full respect of their rights shall be treated with pity and patience.

      2(K) Judicial Authority

      Due to the authoritative nature of black robes, we shall continue to resist their removal.


      3(A) Efficiency Of Experts

      We hold one of the greatest innovations for eliminating ineffective and unresourceful litigants is the ever expanding use of expert testimony.

      3(B) Evolution Of Experts

      This innovation will reach maturity when we routinely use levels of experts on experts to testify on the validity and expertise of each expert.


      4(A) Discretion Defined

      We maintain judicial and prosecutorial discretion is doing whatever we damn well please within the judicially prudent guidelines we happen to be following at the time.

      4(B) Review Of Discretionary Acts

      We shall never promulgate awareness of the real legal issue regarding the use and review of judicial and prosecutorial discretion which is the process of reasoning used in the discretionary act’s decision making process. We shall convert the process of reasoning argument into an argument regarding the validity of doing or not doing the discretionary act.


      5(A) Oversight Immunity

      The immunity of everyone overseeing the Judiciary must be maintained to prevent witch hunts and the overzealous from affecting the independence of the Judiciary. The Judiciary does not require the vulnerable or corrective oversight of the masses.

      5(B) Judicial Objectivity

      We shall always remember the real symbolic reason behind the woman with the blindfold and scale. Objectivity and independence means remaining as blind as possible to wrong doing committed by the Judiciary, members of the bar, and the resourceful and effective.

      5(C) Judicial Self-Evaluation

      To maintain the independence of the Judiciary, we hold each others rulings to be legally and factually correct regardless of the injustice that results, the facts or the law.

      5(D) Judicial Opinions Of Judges

      To insure effective oversight of the Judiciary, we shall never criticize each other regardless of the severity of the wrong or the injustice.

      5(E) Trust Us, We’re Judges

      We hold self monitoring and absolute immunity as foolhardy, ineffective and unworkable for everyone except the Judiciary and judicial oversight committees.

      5(F) Judicial Job Performance

      To allows us to remain unconcerned about upsetting the status quo, we shall keep the public convinced their interference will negatively affect the independence of the Judiciary making Judges afraid to do their jobs.

      5(G) The Judicial Mosaic Tablet

      We shall forever speak of centuries of Judicial immunities as proof of Judicial immunities’ necessity and effectiveness without ever mentioning Judicial wrongdoing has been around as long as Judges.

      5(H) Delay = Denied

      We hold admission of any Judicial wrongdoing delayed is admission of Judicial wrongdoing denied.

      5(I) Complete And Through Review

      We hold there is no judicial wrongdoing which can not be diminished by time, levels of hearings and precise dissection , categorization and delegation of related facts and responsibilities.


      6(A) Judicial Zen

      6(A)(i) We hold the logic for our legal reasoning is embodied in the following statement which is understood only by the enlightened: “Because we open a window to the outside of this room does not mean we order, allow, permission or induce any air, dust, molecules, light waves, solar radiation, atoms, or any known or unknown wave or particulate matter from outside to enter this room and are not responsible if said events occur due to the contextual basis of our decisions.”

      6(A)(ii) We believe in the existence of the metaphysical “third eye.” This enables us to selectively avoid looking out our other two eyes.

      6(A)(iii) In the beginning was our word. Our word was with God, our word IS God.

      6(A)(iv) To think is to be right.

      6(A)(v) There is no issue that cannot be split into parts, and there is no part that can’t be considered as the whole issue.

      6(B) The Dangers Of Common Sense And Factual Integration

      6(B)(i) The consideration of the end result our decision has when integrated with the “outside world” can lead to decisions based on “common sense” and must be avoided.

      6(B)(ii) “Common Sense” lessens the highly specialized analytical and intelligent nature of the Judiciary creating the undesirable illusion we think like the masses.

      6(B)(iii) “Common sense” must not be part of legal proceedings because it cannot be objectively verified.

      6(B)(iv) Large scale factual integration with realities of the outside world can negatively affect the perfection of our written word.

      6(C) Judicial Self Esteem

      We endeavor to remain forever impressed with each other, our performance and our status irregardless of the availability or affordability of Justice.

      6(D) Lip Service

      We hold the consideration and realities of the quality or delivery of Justice should be given lip service faithfully.

      6(E) The Third Person

      We hold the “system” shall always be spoken of in the third person as if it operates independently from individuals.

      6(F) Judicial Secret Mantra

      We may think but not say, “I am the closest thing to God you will ever know.”

      6(G) Protection Of Status Quo

      We shall remember “separate but equal” was around for 100 years. If we hadn’t listened to the masses it might still be good law. Therefore we shall keep the shades drawn so reality won’t affect or disturb the independence of our decision making process or the Status Quo.

      6(H) The Written Word

      We hold what looks good on paper must be good.

      6(I) The Primary Concern

      We shall never consider the end result of our decisions unless it could result in professional embarrassment, loss of status or media attention.

      6(J) Public Ignorance

      Arrogance is how Citizens define us when they are not fully aware of the nature or scope of our position.

      6(K) Judicial Discretion

      Judicial Discretion means we can do what we damn well please and is a great tool for denying appeals and judicial wrongdoing.

      6(L) The Ultimate Truth

      We irreversibly hold reality must conform to our decisions.

      6(M) Judicial Precision

      We shall forever work on perfecting the art of the polite, dignified, respectful, orderly administered and well twisted screw.

      6(N) The Judicial Last Laugh

      As related to the Judiciary, the term “over my dead body” is not a cliche but factually correct.


      7(A) Constitution Typo

      We hold the right in the Constitution to jury trials in civil matters is a typo.

      7(B) Evidence Seen By Jury

      We hold the illusion of justice can be created by thoughtful selection of the evidence seen by the Jury.

      7(C) Evolution Of Jury Trials

      Except for criminal matters for the wealthy, we secretly maintain the elimination of jury trials and continue searching for ways to get that goddamn Constitution out of our way.

      7(D) Jury Nullification

      We shall remember to act outraged at any mention of the vulgar practice called Jury Nullification.

      7(D)(i) Judicial View On Jury Nullification And Instruction

      We hold the public does not have the intellectual sophistication to handle the power that comes with jury nullification. This power should only be in the hands of the Judiciary.

      7(D)(ii) Jury Instruction

      In our continuing efforts to protect the public we must continue to “persuade” juries, via involuntary neurological suppression, into believing:

      7(D)(ii)(1) they can only do what we say and

      7(D)(ii)(2) they are not allowed to vote their conscience and

      7(D)(ii)(3) they should only vote regarding facts and judicially selected evidence, not facts and the law.

      7(E) Jury Selection

      We must continue to use the word “random selection” when describing the jury selection pool since “random selection” can mean a non specific selection of any group.


      8(A) The Value Of Justice

      We forever hold Justice as the precious and proper administration of laws filtered by legal analysis and unaffected by the end result, even when the end result is the improper administration of laws.

      8(B) The Privilege Of Justice

      We hold Justice to be more of a privilege than a right. As a result, Justice should never be dispensed casually, freely or indiscriminately.

      8(C) Appeals Insure Justice

      We hold a denial of justice is an impossibility due to everyone’s right of appeal. We hold this to be true irregardless of a litigant’s time, money or resources.

      8(D) Justice For All

      We hold Justice is for all , but only after first deciding which standard of law we will apply, the “spirit of the law” or the “letter of the law” and after;

      8(D)(i) the exact terminology and the exact questions are used to describe the injustice in the exact manner we require at the time and

      8(D)(ii) said terminology is precisely used with other precise terminology in the exact manner we happen to be requiring at the time and

      8(D)(iii) the exact form is used in the exact manner we happen to be requiring at the time and

      8(D)(iv) said form is exactly prepared with other exactly prepared forms which we are requiring at the time and

      8(D)(v) time requirements are exactly followed with respect to a host of issues that we happen to be requiring at the time and

      8(D)(vi) all tools of eliminating litigants have been judiciously attempted such as overcharging, plea bargain, premature dismissals, expert testimony, res judicata,etc. and

      8(D)(vii) we can’t possibly find a way to use the great catch all “judicial discretion” to eliminate a litigant and

      8D(viii) we have made litigants go through as many possible steps as we can conjure up irregardless of the litigant’s time or financial resources and

      8(D)(ix) any other judicially prudent, meticulous and painstaking attempt at finding a reason to avoid granting Justice unnecessarily.

      8(E) Due Process Defined

      First, decide how we want the case to go. Second, formulate a legal logic to support our decision. Third, manipulate, dissect or eliminate the facts and evidence to support our decision. Then the rubber stamp doctrine of “judicial discretion” will prevent most decisions from being overturned


      9(A) The Nature Of Law

      We hold the nature of the law similar to “silly putty”. We may bend, stretch or reshape the law to say what fits our purpose.

      9(B) The Flexibility Of Law

      We hold the law is like the Bible, it can be made to say anything we want with enough quotes, viewpoints and cross references.

      9(C) The Standards Of Law

      The “letter of the law” and the “spirit of the law” are two different legal standards of Justice and the Law. We may choose the standard that suits our fancy.

      9(D) The Equal Application Of Law

      We hold the law must always be equally applied, depending on the circumstances and the litigant.

      9(E) No One Above The Law

      We hold no one is above the law. [Tee hee hee, wink wink]


      10(A) Purpose Of Back Room Meetings

      We will make ample use of back room meetings to keep litigants in the dark. They can not and should not see or understand the process of litigation.

      10(B) Back Room Meetings Enhance Justice

      10(B)(i) We hold injustice can not result from back room meetings because if wrongdoing occurs, clients can sue their Lawyers for malpractice.

      10(B)(ii) To avoid complications, we avoid mentioning or considering the resources required for or the near impossibility of finding a lawyer to sue another lawyer.

      10(C) Health Benefits Of Back Room Meetings

      We hold the practice of moving to and from back room meetings can assist with circulation, constipation, rectal itch, gaseous emissions, breathing and caloric consumption.

      10(D) Back Room Meetings Are Open Court

      We shall go off the record as much as possible being careful to maintain the illusion of “open court.”

      10(E) The Unmentionable Contract

      We prefer clients not be present in back room meetings while never mentioning we hold the client to whatever their lawyer agrees to in these meetings.

      10(F) Accuracy Of Record

      We resist new equipment that transcribes immediately. We prefer to have the option of making corrections to insure accuracy before the record is transcribed.

      10(G) Consequences Of Clients At Back Room Meetings

      We hold a client’s presence at back room meetings can result in inappropriate evaluations of Judicial and Attorney conduct and expertise.


      11(A) The Protection Of The Public

      11(A)(i) We hold the need to protect the public from the dangers of self representation far outweighs the fair impartial administration of Justice. To protect the public from the dangers of self representation we shall:

      11(A)(i)(1) approach the Pro Se, poor or indigent’s complaint from this objectively protective and compassionate position, “Is there anyway I can deny this petition?”

      11(A)(i)(2) use Judicially prudent unbiased techniques to intimidate, frustrate, anger, nit pick, postpone, play with or in any other way rid ourselves of a Pro Se, poor or indigent litigant.

      11(A)(i)(3) assist the Pro Se, poor or indigent in a resolution by bending or ignoring the rules on ex parte communications.

      11(A)(i)(4) nurture an unfriendly environment in a dignified and polite manner.

      11(A)(i)(5) minimize or ignore Judicial, Court or Attorney errors while magnifying any errors of the Pro Se, poor or indigent litigant.

      11(A)(i)(6) politely move on to the next case before the Pro Se, poor or indigent is finished. This will assist eliminating them later with arguments such as Res Judicata.

      11(B) Disposition Before Written Decisions

      11(B)(i) It is best to be rid of a Pro Se, poor or indigent litigant before having to render a decision requiring written legal analysis.

      11(B)(ii) If forced to render a written opinion on a Pro Se , poor or indigent case, we will stick to or switch to the arguments that validate our desired position.

      11(B)(iii) In Pro Se poor or indigent cases, we prefer unpublished opinions. This makes it easier to perpetuate non sequiturs and pseudo-justice while maintaining the illusion of due process.

      11(C)(iv) We hold “giving the dog a bone” occasionally is good practice and gives us some ammunition when our integrity is questioned.

      11(C) The Superiority Of Bar Members

      When dealing with a Pro Se, poor or indigent litigant, we shall always give credence to members of the Bar’s arguments, regardless of how absurd or off point they are.

      11(D) The Superiority Of The Status Quo

      In cases involving the system, member of the bar or the status quo versus the Pro Se, poor or indigent litigant make sure the system, member of the bar or the status quo prevail regardless of how you must ignore or pervert the issues .

      11(E) Irrebuttable Presumption Of Pro Se Ignorance

      We hold the Pro Se, poor or indigent litigant does not or can not understand the complex issues of litigation.

      11(F) Methods For Smart Alec Pro Se, Poor Or Indigent Litigants

      If a Pro Se, poor or indigent does understand the issues we shall:

      11(F)(i) repeatedly bait them to go off point or

      11(F)(ii) convince them they don’t understand or

      11(F)(iii) diligently look for and focus on a point they don’t understand clearly or

      11(F)(iv) continue until they err, running with the error to make a touchdown.

      11(G) Attitude Toward Naive Pro Se, poor or indigent Litigant

      We shall always take a patient but condescending attitude with a Pro Se, poor or indigent litigant that is so naive as to demand and expect fair, impartial Justice and the law applied as written.

      11(H) The Inability To Practice Law

      Our inability to give legal advice or advocate is restricted to Pro Se, poor or indigent litigants, not members of the bar, the fictitious corporate person or the State.

      11(I) The In Forma Pauparis Hearing

      We hold when questioning a litigant attempting to file In Forma Pauparis regarding what they own to never reveal the legal definition of “own” is to have and hold title. This effectively eliminates the unresourceful and ineffective and our ass is covered.

      11(J) The Judicial Nightmare

      The nightmare of having the public believe they have a chance of receiving justice without a lawyer must be avoided at all costs. The Courts are best operated as a “members only” organization.


      12(A) Appeasing The Public

      12(A)(i) Exemplifying one case where the system worked can cover a multitude of sins.

      12(A)(ii) Occasional written opinions regarding concern about justice for the poor are effective in perpetuating the myth that we are continually and aggressively working on this issue.

      12(A)(iii) When all else fails, schedule future hearings.

      12(B) Handling Of Liability

      We hold where liability of the privileged, the system or the status quo is involved, admission of wrong doing or error causes more harm than good. However, occasionally throwing the dog a bone can cover a multitude of sins.

      12(C) Objective Public Image Maintained

      We will continue to resist equipment in legal proceedings that can record emotion, attitude or personality traits which can affect the course of proceedings.

      12(D) High Profile Trials

      High profile trials are an opportunity to show Americans the way the system should work. This is advantageous to the overwhelming majority of Americans who would never see it otherwise. This also minimizes complaints of the non-existence of an effective judicial system.

      12(E) The Priority Of The Public Trust

      We hold the public trust must be maintained regardless of how we have to lie, cheat or steal to maintain it.

      12(F) Media Focus and Public Attention

      We hold hearings on any judicial wrongdoing should never be conducted when media attention or public awareness is high.

      12(G) Judicial Verbal Equivalents To The Finger

      When dealing with the public and the media, we shall never forget the power of the statements,

      “You don’t understand the intricacies and operations of law” and

      “It would be inappropriate for me to comment” and

      “Many times Judges have knowledge of details not known by the public.”


      13(A) Value Of Justice

      We hold Justice should always be fought for, never freely handed out.

      13(B) The True Essence Of Procedure

      We shall strive to find the breaking point in each individual.

      13(C) Productivity

      To create the illusion of productivity we shall forever hold Justice in front of litigants like a carrot on a stick.

      13(D) Administration Of Justice

      We hold the selective and selectively meticulous application and adherence to rules and procedure can be used to override the administration of Justice if the administration of Justice requires it.

      13(E) The Obstacle Course Objective

      We shall always remember the amount of Citizens we have to deal with is contingent on the number of hoops we require they go through.

      13(F) Time Of The Essence

      We shall remember time is on our side and the passage of time can create the illusion of thoroughness.

      13(G) Due Process

      We hold the term “due process” can imply the payment of money.


      14(A) The Corporate Person v. The Individual

      14(A)(i) The fictitious Corporate person shall be held in higher esteem than the individual.

      14(B)(ii) We hold individuals are better represented by a corporate entity. This is more efficient and results in fewer demands for Rights or Justice.


      15(A) The Ethics Of Lying

      15(A)(i) To maintain the ethical nature of legal proceedings, the word “lie” is considered vulgar as related to statements from the Judiciary or members of the bar.

      15(A)(ii) We shall use terms like misspoke, spoken in error, inadvertent utterance, involuntary neurological transmission, spontaneous somnambulistic manifestation or some terminology denoting non deliberate intent when describing the statements in question.

      • Whoever wrote this has apparently never studied the rules of any court to think it is anything but true.

        • AllodialTitle

          How To Deal With A Bad Judge

          Revealing Many Ways For Dealing With Bad Judges

          This page is informational. We are NOT lawyers.

          Nothing on this page should be construed as legal advice!

          Jump To Misconduct Listings or Search This Site

          “I can state with certainty that if you go against the status quo in Rhode Island and point out wrongdoing of the judiciary they will ruin your legal practice and make it impossible for you to win a case.”

          –Quoted by a well known lawyer who was discussing the Rhode Island Judiciary

          You should consider a Judge bad only if they show a pattern of behaving or ruling in a manner that is:

          preventing or hindering you from receiving full, fair, impartial hearings or the full, fair, impartial administration of justice or

          you have seen evidence which would lead a reasonable person to believe they could be prevented or hindered from receiving full, fair, impartial hearings or the full, fair, impartial administration of justice.

          The criteria used in deciding if a judge is bad is NOT how they handle a high profile case or people of influence, but how they handle the poor, prosecutorial misconduct and the unrepresented. Regardless of how bad a Judge is, they will undoubtedly make SOME correct decisions. We consider a Judge bad if they do not FAITHFULLY and CONSISTENTLY adhere to their oath of office and aggressively pursue justice for ALL. Anything less is unacceptable and is the definition of a bad judge. Also see the article on dismissals of Government cases.

          Bad Judges exist. We all know they do. [See Judges as Criminals?] Very few practicing lawyers are willing or able to expose Bad Judges publicly, for they are at great risk when they must later appear again before the exposed Bad Judge. Exposure of rotten judicial apples offends and embarrasses the entire judiciary. When a lawyer, in diligent pursuit of his client’s interests, dares stand up to Bad Judges, the “system” locks arms, and seeks to punish or suppress the iconoclastic lawyer. The system’s resistance to admitting the existence of a bad judge can be astounding. Yet someone must stand up to challenge this cancer within the Judiciary. Bad Judges need to be weeded out. It is to the fair, competent judges that the following is dedicated.

          Before you go before a Judge, try to learn the Judge’s record!

          Check Caught! to see if complaints or comments

          are on file. [Rhode Island]

          Courtroom Monitoring

          Case Research [try researching decisions by topic and judge]

          Investigation [Newspaper Databases, Law Library etc.]

          Ask local practitioners

          Ask national court reform advocacy groups

          For new Judges with no track record, listen to other cases in their courtrooms before losing your right to disqualify

          Read Case Law Regarding Judicial Behavior During Trials – Actual Case Law.

          To Change A Judge Before The Trial:

          Peremptory Disqualification – Case: Moore v. Alaska and Peremptory Challenge Step by Step

          Disqualification For Cause (Recusal) – Note: In Rhode Island it is customary for a judge to recuse himself if there is a complaint pending with the state’s Commission on Judicial Tenure and Discipline. Check your area and jurisdiction. There are 2 factors to consider. First, once a Judge starts to stink it usually always gets worse. Second, the grass might NOT be greener on the other side.

          Now, according to Congress, U.S. Supreme Court case law and Rhode Island’s canons of judicial ethics, a judge must bow out of hearing any case in which his or her impartiality might reasonably be questioned. The Rhode Island Canons of Judicial Conduct say that judges must avoid all impropriety and appearance of impropriety.

          “The test for appearance of impropriety is whether the conduct would create in reasonable minds a perception that the judge’s ability to carry out judicial responsibilities with integrity, impartiality and competence is impaired.”

          Consider using this wording when moving for drafting a motion for recusal.

          Recusal Examples

          Check The Judicial Recusal Information Site For Your State.

          Also See Motion To Recuse From 2 RI Governors Recusal Motions

          Example: see: L’Heureux Motion To Recuse.

          See a RI JUDGE’S refusal Refusal Of Recusal of a recusal motion and related story Refusal To Recuse

          Suggest Voluntary Recusal

          (Okla. City Judge biased by blast damage)

          Asserting Ethical Duty

          USC 28 Chap. 21 §455

          See Brief On Recusal Refusal

          Removal To Another Jurisdiction – Change Venue

          See related example Sample Motion To Change Jurisdiction

          See example cases of change of venue

          Motions To Dismiss Before Merits Are Heard

          Res Judicata or possibly Collateral Estoppel

          No Jurisdiction Sham, Frivolous, Meritless pleadings

          File appropriate motions to dismiss

          Other Considerations

          Delay If Judge Is About To Be Rotated Off Of Case or Re-Focus Judge’s Bias/Anger Against Other Side if possible

          Formal Complaints

          See Info From Alaska Judicial Commission. See examples: Gembala Complaint, and Judicial Disciplinary Process. Judicial Disciplinary Process

          If It Is Impossible To Change A Judge Before Trial:

          Making Record For Appeal And Preserving Objections: FRCP Rule 52 (or equivalent) Findings of Fact Conclusions of Law – if not mandated by local rules, file motion before trial requesting written Findings/Conclusion.

          Learn Rules of Evidence – Object on the record at trial

          De-Railer Motions

          Mistrial and New Trial

          Dealing With A Judge After A Bad Ruling

          List Your Complaints on public forums like

          Appeal [Note: There is always a limited time to initiate appeal!!]

          See Mitchell Appeal and Free Notice of Appeal Form

          Special Or Interlocutory Appellate Action

          File Special Appellate Actions

          Identify And Publicly Expose Biased, Prejudiced And Corrupt Judges!

          Early identification of a Bad Judge may be the single most important factor in your litigation. Once one notices a Judge is bad, you can practically guarantee it is only going to get worse. If it is too late to help in your own case, exposure helps prevent similar judicial abuse for subsequent litigants. Consider publicity, picketing and formal complaints like this info from Alaska Judicial Commission and these examples: Gembala Complaint, and see this report on the Judicial Disciplinary Process. Judicial Disciplinary Process

          Impeachment, Recall

          See Petition For Impeachment

          Legislative & Citizen Action To Limit Judicial Power And Discretion

          See Jail4Judges

          Suing A Judge Personally For Money Damages

          Overcoming Judicial Immunity and Judicial Immunity Case Law

          Federal 42 USC 1983 Civil Rights Lawsuits

          ** NEW ** Mitchell v. City of Henderson. See the Sample Title 42 Suit and the Instructions For Title 42 Suit

          Suing A Judge For A Declaratory Judgment

          See Article

          Related References

 Public List Of Judicial Misconduct and Abuses Of Power In Rhode Island and article Why Lawyers make Bad Judges


          Many times the reason or purpose for events in our life initially escapes us,

          but I am certain we can find reason and/or purpose in everything that happens!

          It takes a short time to learn to exercise power, but a lifetime to learn how to avoid abusing it.

          We are no longer a country of laws, we are a country where laws are “creatively interpreted.”

          Sniff around this site!

          Sniff Around This Site!

          Google Search

          only search


          Search Rhode Island Criminal Database or

          RI Supreme Court Opinions & Orders

          We are trying to help you. Can you help us by donating?

          Donate online NOW

          Due to volume, we only deal with electronic communications now (email).


          Caught.Net | Pro Se Way | Handling Judges | Secret Canons | Trial Handbook | Bad Judges | Bad Lawyers | Legal Abuse Syndrome | Aggrieved Citizens List

          — ADVERTISEMENTS —

          Is Gay Prejudice Taught In The Bible?Tithing – Fact vs. Fiction

        • AllodialTitle

          Federal Case Number Update

          Bigger text (+) | Smaller text (-)

          as received from: We The People For Independent Texas []

          Federal Case Number Update

          Thanks to a fellow student in reference to CRIMINAL CASE NOS. 3-08-CR-0089 concerning one of our friends (Wes) in debtor prison, the following is supplied in further detail!

          Prisoners in America

          They cannot deny that they are trading prisoners like cattle!

          Enter any prisoner’s case number within the specified entry boxes, located at Fidelity Investment’s online Securities LOOK UP index query, and locate that prisoner’s bonds and find out where they are being traded.

          Example: enter a court case number, such as: 05CR272, for example, into the SEARCH VALUE box and you will get a CUSIP number. Example: 316423102. See it being traded as a mutual fund through Fidelity Investments! Follow our below outline as a model using any prisoner’s court case number. Enter “Mutual Fund” into the Search for box on the left. Then enter “Fund Number” for the box on the left..

          Use this below model as an outline:

          Quotes >

          Symbol Lookup

          Please enter search criteria for the stock, mutual fund, index, or annuity you want to lookup:

          Search for: Mutual Fund by: Fund Number

          Search Value: 05CR272 – [ this is the District Court Case Number ]

          You can use Symbol Lookup to find the following for a Stock, Mutual Fund, Index or Annuity:

          • the full name of the security

          • the trading symbol

          • the CUSIP number

          • the fund number

          To find the CUSIP No.: Click the Fidelity Investments symbol below and enter your information using the above model as an outline:

          To find Bonds by the CUSIP No.: Click the Fidelity Investments symbol below:

          All crimes are commercial and have a commercial value to them. It makes you look at improvements to the freeways, cities and towns in a different light ……. especially when those improvements are funded by ‘municipal bonds.’ You’ll also understand why there’s no hurry to end the war in Iraq .

          27 CFR

          Subpart B—Definitions

          § 72.11 Meaning of terms.

          MEANING OF TERMS: As used in this part, unless the context otherwise requires, terms shall have the meanings ascribed in this section. Words in the plural form shall include the singular, and vice versa, and words importing the masculine gender shall include the feminine. The terms “includes” and “including” do not exclude things not enumerated which are in the same general class.

          COMMERCIAL CRIMES: Any of the following types of crimes (FEDERAL OR STATE): Offenses against the revenue laws; burglary; counterfeiting; forgery; kidnapping; larceny; robbery; illegal sale or possession of deadly weapons; prostitution (including soliciting, procuring, pandering, white slaving, keeping house of ill fame, and like offenses); extortion; swindling and confidence games; and attempting to commit, conspiring to commit, or compounding any of the foregoing crimes. Addiction to narcotic drugs and use of marijuana will be treated as if such were commercial crime.”

          All criminal prosecution is for the purpose for raising revenue for the United States . Now you’ll have a better understanding of why people are in jail, why they are in prison, why they are on probation and why they are charged with everything from jaywalking on up through murder one. An American soldier who dies in Afghanistan and Iraq probably carries a $10 million life insurance on him carried by our government. After all, every soldier, marine, or air force person is an asset to the United States . They have a huge investment in that particular soldier and his activity and it can explain why it is that the US is not so anxious to withdraw its troops from that area. It’s a money making activity and they don’t want to talk about the fact that they are making money on death and that they are making money from the incarceration and imprisonment of many otherwise good hearted people whom have not necessarily committed otherwise SERIOUS crimes.

          They have a rule called the 144 holder. The rule is that they can’t sell private investment securities that are not registered. The rule prohibits them from selling the prison bonds. They have to wait 6 months before they can sell a certain quantity of private securities without being registered, selling them as private securities. Basically there are 8 people on the board of directors of CCA (*Corrections Corporation of America *) *Joseph E. Russell*, the top holder, and *John M Ferguson*. Russell owns 64,000 shares of CCA stock which is worth about $70 million. Ferguson owns 34,000 shares valued at about $37 million. *Fidelity Management and Research* is the top stock holder, the top investment firm that is selling the bonds as investment securities. They pool them and sell them as mortgage backed securities. Also when they pool them, they sell them as mutual funds on the stock market. By “pooling” we mean the securities on the inmates.

          What they are doing is they are actually taking the mortgage backed securities, which are really bid bonds, performance bonds and payment bonds. They pool these bonds and when they pool them together they call them mortgage backed securities. They take these to TBA which is the Bond Market Association. It’s an actual market for bonds. Anytime a bond is issued there has to be an underwriter. The bonds have to be underwritten. Bonds that are issued have to be indemnified so there has to be surety (spelling?) to indemnify the bonds. The brokerage houses and the insurance companies indemnify the bonds. They’re called surety companies.

          After the surety companies indemnify the bonds, which is underwriting them, they do this through an investment banker or the banks themselves do this. They job it out to them. They buy up all these shares and turn around and sell them as investmentsecurities. The shares represent the stock which represent the account of CCA. All of this has been funneled through CCA, the Corrections Corporation of America . What they are doing is selling stock in the prison system by selling the prisoners’ accounts as securities through the securities exchange. They are making huge amounts of money off it. They privatize the prisoners’ accounts and bring all these investors in and what they are doing is underwriting all these prisoner’s accounts (bonds). This is after the surety company guarantees the bonds. Then they are underwritten through an investment bank or banker. Then they are put out on the market and resold to the public. In other words the banks are buying up all the shares and then they resell them as investment securities to the public. The public then buys them as mutual funds or they can buy them as debt instruments, equity instruments. What they are really doing is they are buying up debt instruments. They are using the fiscal accounting cycle of accrual and they sell the prisoner’s ‘capital and interest’ as it is called in accrual accounting. They resell these to the public because the prisoner did not do full settlement and closure on the account.

          They sell the prisoner accounts as a commercial dishonor and sell it to the public as a commercial dishonor. When you go in the courts they always say they are operating under a statute jurisdiction. The Black’s Law Dictionary 4th edition says a statute is a bond or obligation of record. That’s what all the criminal statutes are …….. bonds or obligation of record. Go in and read the definition of a recognizance bond and you find that it is a bond or obligation of record. They are selling bonds. They are charging prisoners under a bond; the prisoner signs the bond and the bond becomes the agreement for the payback. This is done when the prisoner signs the final court papers at a sentencing hearing.

          Just how many of us remember when our government attempted to finance from the private sector during the second world war? Weren’t they selling war bonds? They were soaking up the people’s equity in terms of buying bonds, transferring your funds to the government. The government by purchasing those bonds, was promising to pay you back your investment at sometime in the future with interest. At that time what they were collecting from the people was their so-called cash equity. People have gotten too poor, too stingy, too smart to buy bonds to finance the government. How long has it been since you heard the Post Office or anyone trying to get you down to buy US savings bonds? So what they are doing now instead of getting us to voluntarily give our cash equity to the government for a promise to be paid back in the future, they are securing from us some violation of a statute by which the law ascribes from us a penalty; i.e., the payment of a sum of money due. Instead of collecting the cash from us, they put us through a criminal procedure where we dishonor the system and what is happening is they are selling our capital and our interest. In other words, they are selling the liability you had in whatever charge was brought against your strawman. They are taking that capital and interest that you should pay and are grabbing that from us and selling it on the open market to bankers and investors to transfer their funds to government which is covered by the bond of the violation of your strawman of that statute. In order to secure the bond the living soul is placed in prison as the surety to back the bond which is financed on the investment of the public market place in terms of the sales of stocks and bonds.

          The public doesn’t directly bid on my (the prisoner’s) debt. Your debt is assumed by the bankers. The bankers issue secondary paper that allows me to invest in what they are holding as the holder in due course of the claim against your strawman. The reason they are doing this is because you dishonored the post settlement procedures for settlement and closure of the account. The prisoner should have come in and accepted and used his exemption. Since the prisoner dishonored the post settlement proceedings, then the prisoner is in dishonor and the issuance of the bonds by the financing system was done in order to pass the punishment on to him because of his inability to fulfill his post settlement objectives.

          If you get into dishonor by nonacceptance, what they are trying to do is get an acceptor which is the same thing as a banker. They need someone to pay off the obligation and if you get into dishonor, they sell your dishonor and put you into prison as the collateral and they sell the bond. The bond is issued and they get a surety to underwrite the bid bond with a performance bond and then they get an underwriter to underwrite the performance and payment bonds. What the performance bond does is it guarantees the bid contract, or the bid bond. What the bid bond does is guarantee the payment of the performance bond. This is done through a surety company. Then they get an underwriter or an investment banker to underwrite it. After it’s underwritten, they sell it to the public as investment securities, debt instruments, or mutual backed securities.

          It’s all done through bonds…bonding. That’s what all these municipal bonds are. What they doing is following everything through the prison system. The prison system is being privatized. Through privatization, private enterprise can fund the prison system cheaper than the government can. They are subsidizing everything through privatization.

          The *American Legislative Exchange Council* (ALEC), promotes privatization through foundations like the *Reason Foundation* owned by David Knott. They get the foundations to promote this and gets investors to come in. Cornell was merged with *Trinity Venture Company* which is an investment company. What they did was change their name to *Reid Trinity Venture* and then merged with *SB Warburg*. (Warburg was out of Germany and partnered with Rothschild). SB Warburg is in Chicago , Illinois , and they merged with BIF in Switzerland , which is a settlement and closure bank, and the biggest bank in the world for settlements. They are connected to *Cornell Company* which is owned by David Cornell.

          Everyone is tied in. *Paine Webber Group* is the United States and all the big international corporations are the stockholders and own all the stock in CCA. Everyone is using our exemptions on the private side. They filed a 1096 tax return and show it as a prepaid account, as prepaid interest and they returned it back to the prisoner. They took the prisoners deduction for the exemption and they deduct the tax and the IRS bills the prisoner for the tax. So the corporations are stealing your exemption which is your intellectual property. What’s wrong with this? They are not telling us what they are doing. It’s all commercial. When you go into the court room everything is commercial.

          What really matters here is honor and dishonor. The courts have to dishonor the potential prisoner or get that ‘person’ to argue or get that ‘person’s attorney to argue. Just like Martha Stewart. Argue and you’re in dishonor and you’ll end up in jail. The attorneys are actors to make us think the whole process is a factual issue. They get us into the guilty/not guilty mode and theyget into all the cloak and dagger or what evidence to present. It’s a dog and pony show to cover up that they are after the debt money.

          All corporations work on a fiscal accounting year which means that they spend debt. They can’t get rid of the debt and balance the books unless they run it through our accounts on the private side. We the people run on a calender year and the corporations run on the fiscal year. The only way that they can balance their books is to run it through our accounts using our exemptions. Then they can do their reverse bookkeeping entry and go to post settlement and closure. They can’t do that until the prisoners do the acceptance (if they do it). That means we are assuming the liability for the debt as the principal. A lot of times with debt the principal is always the primary libellant in the commercial setting. He has to assume the liability and then you get your remedy. Otherwise you don’t get a remedy.

          What they do is they sell the notes just as they do when you go into prison. They endorse the note and they no longer the holder of the note. The mortgage company wasn’t involved in this process….the attorneys are doing all this. What they are doing is coming to the private side to get the debt without any permission from the mortgage company.

          Admiralty is all debt and it’s all civil; it becomes criminal when the prisoner gets a contempt charge when he refuses to pay. They can keep you in jail until you pay the debt. The initial get out of jail bond releases you until you’ve successfully paid the debt. Warden comes from admiralty-warden of the sea. The warden is the warehouse man who is warehousing all the goods; he’s the bailee. The commitment order is your bailment, your contract for the commitment of the goods. Then they put the goods in a warehouse and store them there (prisoners stored in prisons, just like the people stored in the pods in the movie, The Matrix).

          This fiction (corporation) took “you” (John Henry Doe), the flesh and blood creation of God out of the picture and substituted in your place something called the ‘strawman’ (JOHN HENRY DOE). Whenever you get a summons to appear in court, your name is printed in all capital letters “JOHN HENRY DOE” because that is how the ‘straw man’ is distinguished from the flesh and blood “John Henry Doe”, God-created man. Since you show up and answer to your all-capital name (JOHN HENRY DOE) on the docket, the court accepts you (John Henry Doe) as the ‘representative’ of the straw man (JOHN HENRY DOE) and proceeds to play the game with you. If you don’t show up, they will still arrest you for failure to appear, because the state has already recognized you as the representative of the straw man – unless you learn how to break that connection (called a ‘nexus’) and take back your straw man from state ‘ownership’.

          It sounds complicated and you weren’t told a thing about it in school (public school), but we did tell you it was a “deception”, remember? If you don’t realize that you are ‘owned’ by the state, then consider this: whenever you go to a car dealer and buy a new car, the “deed” (from the manufacturer) of that car is sent by the car dealer to the Secretary of State of the state in which you live. It’s recorded and then destroyed. You, in turn, are given a “title of certificate” by your state which says that you have a legal right to possess and use this car which is now “owned by the state” who received its deed. “Your” ownership of the car is an “illusion”, the reality is that the state owns the car.

          Same for a marriage license. You are asking the state to give you permission to become man and wife. By seeking out said marriage license, you are affirming to the state that your are slaves of the state (“chattel”) and you recognize that the ‘massah’ has authority over you for such things, otherwise you wouldn’t be asking for its ‘permission’ in the first place.

          Federal Case Number Real life example: Federal Case Number

          NOTICE: Author is not affiliated with Freedom School.

          NOTICE: If anything in this presentation is found to be in error a good faith effort will be made to correct it in timely fashion upon notification.

          (This page was last modified on: 05/02/2015 12:23:54) Specialty Areas

          All the powers in the universe seem to favor the person who has confidence.
          Share/Save/Bookmark Subscribe ShareThis

          More & Other Information – Resource Pages

          Admiralty related items Belligerent Claimant

          Bonds Attention Signing the Constitution Away

          Citizenship / nationality related items Education

          Graphics History

          Jerry Kirk Aware

          Jurisdiction Law related items

          Lewis Mohr Luis Ewing

          Money Oath related items

          Reading Material Reading Room

          Stuff Tax matters

          Travel related

  • Frank

    The Ends (elimination of terrorists) are being used to justify the Means (indiscriminate metadata collection), and the Ends are wrong – with innocent people being killed. Time to abandon the current Means and go back to a system that includes human reason and judgement. This is automated warfare, and the entire Human Race is at risk when machines are determining who gets killed.

  • Right to the Point

    This and the Drone Program in general will be looked upon exactly the way the world looked upon the Einsatzgruppen…….

  • Oddball1971

    This is why I ditched my cellphone years ago…use smoke signals now….groovy way to communicate man.

  • SP_88

    These people are doing whatever they can to justify their existence and the budget they receive. They are forced to either show results or have their budget cut. So they do whatever is necessary to make it look like they are being successful, or nearly successful.
    And they are doing this in some form or another to everyone including Americans, not just Pakistan.

  • Praetor

    Should we all be concerned that fantasy movies are being mimic into reality or am I being a paranoid conspiracy kook. Barak H. Obarry will go down in history as a robotic serial killer, i.e. ‘skynet’. The whole world at this point needs a rest!!!

    • RandyJ/ProudSurvivor

      You’re not being a “paranoid conspiracy kook”-you’re paying attention. There’s a gigantic difference. One must be awake, with open eyes, to see what is happening before them.

    • Can you document any murders he committed personally?
      America’s military members have committed more treason than most elected officials, by way of obeying unlawful orders instead of challenging them, proving that their courage and valor exist only on the battlefield.

  • renda blue

    The NSA, FBI, CIA all bullshirt

  • RandyJ/ProudSurvivor

    They’re not interested in finding terrorists. They’re looking for ways to make terrorists out of citizens.

  • Brett Baker

    Modal auxilliary verbs are interesting aren’t they? Might. HA! You know damn well they are.

  • rich

    It’s all part of the grand plan by Mr. Obama. The more opposition he removes the easier it will get for him to become dictator.

  • Witterforpres2016

    My Sheriff labeled me a “Known Gang Member With Guns” in their database for flying the Gadsden flag my Dad gave me before he was killed by VA. Mind you, I’m a Veteran with CCL. Absolute despotism.

  • They must all be removed from power!