mexico is a strange event in my life

Bogus vaccines and vaccines that where some are good and some are poison IS Genocide.. Message to Gilliad Sciences as well as BAXTER out north Eastern ILLINOIS!!

as long as ur content and things are good 4 u that is all that matters.. u r a very good person.. and nice person. Drink some goat milk or coconut milk before bed.. makes u sleep soooo well..

Taurine is a nice little amino acid in there..and is also in wheatgrass.

Sleep well and peace 2 u

--- On Fri, 8/7/09, Ron Angell wrote:


STATE SECRET PROTECTION ACT OF 2009

From: Ron Angell
Subject: STATE SECRET PROTECTION ACT OF 2009
To: constitutionalsdemocrcacy@democracy.org
Date: Friday, August 7, 2009, 2:10 PM

STATE SECRET PROTECTION ACT OF 2009

=======================================================================


HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE CONSTITUTION,
CIVIL RIGHTS, AND CIVIL LIBERTIES

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

ON

H.R. 984

__________

JUNE 4, 2009

__________


Serial
No. 111-14

__________

Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary


Available via the World Wide Web: http://judiciary.house.gov

----------

STATE SECRET PROTECTION ACT OF 2009-VIP Download PDF and LOOK AT PGS 88-100 !!
ABC News 1979 Special: Mission Mind Control (29 mins)- Coffee and water poison in USA also chemtrail sprays and tainted food, over the counter drugs, prescription drugs.
ABC News 1979 Special: Mission Mind Control (29 mins)

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

50-070 PDF WASHINGTON : 2009

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800;
DC area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2250 Mail: Stop SSOP,
Washington, DC 20402-0001










COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY

JOHN CONYERS, Jr., Michigan, Chairman
HOWARD L. BERMAN, California LAMAR SMITH, Texas
RICK BOUCHER, Virginia F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, Jr.,
JERROLD NADLER, New York

Wisconsin
ROBERT C. ``BOBBY'' SCOTT, Virginia HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina
MELVIN L. WATT, North Carolina ELTON GALLEGLY, California
ZOE LOFGREN, California BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia
SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas DANIEL E. LUNGREN, California
MAXINE WATERS, California DARRELL E. ISSA, California
WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia
ROBERT WEXLER, Florida STEVE KING, Iowa
STEVE COHEN, Tennessee TRENT FRANKS, Arizona
HENRY C. ``HANK'' JOHNSON, Jr., LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas
Georgia JIM JORDAN, Ohio
PEDRO PIERLUISI, Puerto Rico TED POE, Texas
MIKE QUIGLEY, Illinois JASON CHAFFETZ, Utah
LUIS V. GUTIERREZ, Illinois TOM ROONEY, Florida
BRAD SHERMAN, California GREGG HARPER, Mississippi
TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin
CHARLES A. GONZALEZ, Texas
ANTHONY

D. WEINER, New York
ADAM B. SCHIFF, California
LINDA T. SANCHEZ, California
DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ, Florida
DANIEL MAFFEI, New York

Perry Apelbaum, Majority Staff Director and Chief Counsel
Sean McLaughlin, Minority Chief of Staff and General Counsel
------

Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties

JERROLD NADLER, New York, Chairman

MELVIN L. WATT, North Carolina F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, Jr.,
ROBERT C. ``BOBBY'' SCOTT, Virginia Wisconsin
WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts TOM ROONEY, Florida
HENRY C. ``HANK'' JOHNSON, Jr., STEVE KING, Iowa
Georgia TRENT FRANKS, Arizona
TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas
JOHN CONYERS, Jr., Michigan JIM JORDAN, Ohio
STEVE COHEN, Tennessee
BRAD
SHERMAN,
California
SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas

David Lachmann, Chief of Staff

Paul B. Taylor, Minority Counsel










C O N T E N T S

----------

JUNE 4, 2009

Page

THE BILL

H.R. 984, the ``State Secret Protection Act of 2009.............. 4

OPENING STATEMENTS

The Honorable Jerrold Nadler, a Representative in Congress from
the State of New York, and Chairman, Subcommittee on the
Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties................ 1
The Honorable F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr., a Representative in
Congress from the State of Wisconsin,
and Ranking
Member,
Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil
Liberties...................................................... 17
The Honorable John Conyers, Jr., a Representative in Congress
from the State of Michigan, Chairman, Committee on the
Judiciary, and Member, Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil
Rights, and Civil Liberties.................................... 18

WITNESSES

The Honorable Patricia M. Wald, retired Chief Judge, U.S. Court
oF Appeals for the District of Columbia
Oral Testimony................................................. 21
Prepared Statement............................................. 24
The Honorable Asa Hutchinson, Senior Partner, Hutchinson Law
Group
Oral Testimony................................................. 29
Prepared
Statement............................................. 31
Mr.
Andrew Grossman, Senior Legal Policy Analyst, The Heritage
Foundation
Oral Testimony................................................. 55
Prepared Statement............................................. 57
Mr. Ben Wizner, National Security Project Staff Attorney,
American Civil Liberties Union
Oral Testimony................................................. 83
Prepared Statement............................................. 85

APPENDIX

Material Submitted for the Hearing Record........................ 111


STATE SECRET PROTECTION ACT OF 2009

----------


THURSDAY, JUNE 4, 2009

House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on the
Constitution,
Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties,

Committee on the Judiciary,
Washington, DC.

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:09 p.m., in
room 2141, Rayburn House Office Building, the Honorable Jerrold
Nadler (Chairman of the Subcommittee) presiding.
Present: Representatives Nadler, Conyers, Delahunt,
Johnson, Sensenbrenner, Franks, and King.
Staff Present: Heather Sawyer, Majority Counsel; and Paul
Taylor, Minority Counsel.
Mr. Nadler. This hearing of the Subcommittee on the
Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties will come to
order.
Today's hearing will examine the state secrets privilege.
The Chair recognizes himself for 5 minutes for an opening
statement.
Today, the Subcommittee examines legislation that I have
introduced, along
with the distinguished Chairman of the full
Committee, with Representative Tom
Petri, and with several
other Members of the Committee, that would codify uniform
standards for dealing with claims of the state secrets
privilege by the government in civil litigation.
In the last Congress, we had an oversight hearing on the
state secrets privilege and a hearing on this legislation. The
bill was reported favorably to the full Committee.
Our experience has demonstrated the destructive impact that
sweeping claims of privilege and secrecy can have on our
Nation. In order for the rule of law to have any meaning,
individual liberties and rights must be enforceable in our
courts. Separation-of-powers concerns are at their highest with
regard to secret executive branch conduct, and the government
simply cannot be allowed to hide behind unexamined claims of
secrecy and become the final arbiter of
its own conduct.
Yet, claims of secrecy have been used to conceal matters

from Congress even though Members have the security clearance
necessary to be briefed in an appropriately secure setting.
That has been the case with respect to the use of torture, with
the use of illegal spying on Americans, and other matters of
tremendous national importance.
And let me add here that this issue is perhaps the most
important issue, in my judgment, this Committee will face,
because this Committee is charged with enforcing civil rights
and civil liberties under our Constitution. And there is an
ancient maxim of law that says there is no right without a
remedy. And if the government violates your rights, if it
kidnaps you, it tortures you, it deliberately burns down your
house, it wiretaps you without a warrant, whatever, how do you
enforce your right against the government?
Well, the
Administration could criminally prosecute its own
members who have done so; that is
unlikely. Congress could
exercise oversight; that is hit or miss. Or the victim can sue
in tort, he can sue the government for illegal wiretapping, for
kidnapping, for intentional infliction of mental distress, for
assault, whatever.
But if the government can eliminate that lawsuit on the
pleadings simply by coming into court and using the magic
incantation of the words ``state secrets,'' and say, ``This
case should be dismissed because we say, in our unexamined
assertion, that trying the case would necessitate the
revelation of state secrets, case dismissed,'' then there is no
recourse to the courts and there is no enforcement of rights.
And rights without a remedy are illusory and we have no rights.
Therefore, we must put some limits on this use of the state
secret doctrine.
The same pattern of
resorting to extravagant state secrets
claims has been evident in the courts. While the
Bush
administration did not invent the use of the state secrets
privilege to conceal wrongdoing, it certainly perfected the
art. The state secrets privilege has been abused by prior
Administrations to protect officials who have behaved illegally
or improperly or simply in an embarrassing manner, rather than
to protect the safety and security of the Nation.
The landmark case in the field, U.S. v. Reynolds, is a
perfect case in point. The widows of three civilian engineers
sued the government for negligence stemming from a fatal air
crash. The government refused to produce the accident report,
even refusing to provide it to the court to review, claiming it
would reveal sensitive state secrets that would endanger
national security. The Supreme Court concurred without ever
looking behind the government's
unsupported assertion that
national security was involved.
Half a century later, the
report was found, now
declassified, online by the daughter of one of the engineers,
and it clearly revealed no state secrets. It clearly could have
been made available in a form that would have enabled those
families to vindicate their rights in court. It did, however,
reveal that the crash was caused by government negligence,
which I suspect was the real reason for the invocation, or the
invention in that case, of the state secrets doctrine.
Protecting the government from embarrassment and civil
liability, not protecting national security, was the real
reason for withholding the accident report. Yet these families
were denied justice because the Supreme Court never looked
behind the government's false claim to determine whether it was
valid.
Similarly, in the Pentagon Papers case,
then-Solicitor
General Erwin Griswold warned the Supreme Court that
publication of the information would
pose a grave and immediate
danger to national security. Eighteen years later, he
acknowledged that he had never seen, quote, ``any trace of a
threat to the national security,'' unquote, from the
publication of the information and further admitted that,
quote, ``The principle concern is not with national security
but rather with government embarrassment of one sort or
another,'' close quote.
It is important to protect national security, and sometimes
our courts have to balance the need for individual justice with
national security considerations. Congress has in the past
balanced these important, albeit sometimes competing, demands.
In the criminal context, we enacted the Classified Informations
Procedure Act. In FISA, we set up procedures for the courts to
examine sensitive
materials. Through the Freedom of Information
Act, we sought to limit any withholding of information from the

public whom the government is supposed to serve.
We can and should do the same in civil cases. Our system of
government and our legal system have never relied on taking
assurances at face value. The courts and the Congress have a
duty to look behind what this Administration or any
Administration says to determine whether or not those
assurances are well-founded.
Presidents and other government officials have been known
not to tell the truth on occasion, especially when it is in
their interest to conceal something. The founders of this
Nation knew that there needed to be checks in each branch of
the government to prevent such abuses from taking the place.
Or, in the words of the Ninth Circuit in the recent Jeppesen
decision, ``The executive cannot be its own judge.'' To allow

that--and these are now my words--to allow that is to abandon
all the protections against tyranny that our
Founding Fathers
established.
Courts have a duty to protect national security secrets,
but they also have a duty to make an independent judgment as to
whether state secrets claims have any merit. When the
government itself is a party, the court cannot allow it to
become the final arbiter of its own case. The purpose of this
legislation is to ensure that the correct balance is struck.
I would just add that I am extremely disappointed that the
Department of Justice has declined to provide a witness to
discuss this very important issue at this hearing. I have met
with the Attorney General, and I understand that a review of
this policy is currently under way. Nonetheless, the Department
continues to go into court while this review is under way and
take positions that are
remarkably similar to positions taken
by the last Administration.
While I greatly appreciate the Attorney General's

willingness to work with us, I believe that it should be
possible to send someone to provide us with the
Administration's views and to answer our questions to the
extent that they are able. I hope this is not a sign of things
to come.
I look forward to the testimony of our witnesses.
I would now recognize the distinguished Ranking minority
Member, the gentleman from Wisconsin, Mr. Sensenbrenner, for
his opening statement.
[The bill, H.R. 984, follows:]

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

Mr. Sensenbrenner. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The state secrets privilege is a longstanding legal
doctrine the Supreme Court most recently described in a case
called U.S. v. Reynolds. In that case, the court made it clear
that if the court,
after giving appropriate deference to the
executive branch, determines that public disclosure of
information would harm
national security, the court is obliged
to either dismiss the case or limit the public disclosure of
national security information as necessary.
Under this doctrine, people with legitimate claims are not
denied access to court review. Rather, the doctrine allows
judges to personally review any sensitive information. While
this doctrine may occasionally disadvantage someone suing in
court, it is vital to protecting the safety of all Americans.
The roots of the state secrets privilege extend all the way
back to Chief Justice Marshall, the author of Marbury v.
Madison, who held that the government need not provide any
information that would endanger public safety.
In the modern era, Congress debated the issue of the state
secrets privilege under Federal law in the
1970's but
ultimately chose to maintain the status quo, including elements
of the privilege put in place by the Supreme Court
in its
Reynolds decision. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals recently
employed the doctrine in affirming the dismissal of the case,
including that the state secrets privilege has a firm
foundation in the Constitution.
Not surprisingly, the privilege has played a significant
role in the Justice Department's response to civil litigation
arising out of our counterterrorism efforts following 9/11.
The state secrets doctrine remains strongly supported by
today's Supreme Court. Even in its Boumediene decision granting
habeas litigation rights to terrorists, Justice Kennedy, in his
majority opinion, acknowledged the government's legitimate
interest in protecting sources and methods of intelligence
gathering and stated, ``We expect the district court will use
its
discretion to accommodate this interest to the greatest
extent possible,'' while citing the Reynolds state secrets case
I
mentioned earlier in doing so.
I oppose any efforts, including this bill, that invite the
courts to deviate from the sound procedures they currently
follow to protect vital national security information. H.R. 984
would preclude judges from giving weight to the executive
branch's assessment of national security. And it would
authorize courts not to use ex parte proceedings in conducting
a review of privileged claims. And it would prevent courts from
being able to dismiss a case when the government cannot defend
itself without using privileged information.
The Obama administration is clearly not enamored with the
approach of this legislation and has adhered in court to the
doctrine as asserted by the previous Administration in at least
three cases already. According
to The Washington Post editorial
page, the Obama administration's position on state secrets
makes it hard to distinguish from
its predecessor. Anthony
Romero, the executive director of the ACLU, has written that
the new Administration has embraced policies held over from the
Bush era, including the use of the state secrets claim.
Last Congress, legislation essentially the same as H.R. 984
was cosponsored in the Senate by Senators Joe Biden and Hillary
Clinton, who are now President Obama's Vice President and
Secretary of State. But this year, President Obama, Vice
President Biden, and Secretary of State Clinton have gone
silent on the bill. When asked about it recently, the Vice
President's communications director said, quote, ``No comment
on this one here.''

http://mcvictimsworld.ning.com/profiles/blogs/abc-news-1979-special-mission

ABC News 1979 Special: Mission Mind Control (29 mins)- Coffee and water poison in USA also chemtrail sprays and tainted food, over the counter drugs, prescription drugs.
ABC News 1979 Special: Mission Mind Control (29 mins)

http://vets4politics.blogspot.com/2009/01/test-vets-sue-cia-dod-and-us-army.html

http://psychoanalystsopposewar.org/blog/2008/11/24/open-letter-to-president-elect-obama-break-with-the-dark-side-do-not-nominate-john-brennan-as-cia-director/#more-2055

Test vets sue CIA, DOD and US Army

The case is Vietnam Veterans of America v. CIA, 09-37, U.S. District Court, Northern District of California (San Francisco).

Morrison & Foerster Files Suit Against CIA, DoD, and U.S. Army on Behalf of Troops Exposed to Testing of Chemical and Biological Weapons at Edgewood Arsenal and Other Top Secret Sites

Complaint Filed—Vietnam Veterans of America, et al. v. CIA, et al.

United States District Court, Northern District of California

SAN FRANCISCO – Attorneys at Morrison & Foerster LLP have filed an unprecedented action against the Defense Department, the CIA, and other government institutions based upon failures to care for those veterans who “volunteered” in thousands of secret experiments to test toxic chemical and biological substances under code names such as MKULTRA. The new case comes on the heels of an earlier case the firm filed on behalf of veterans afflicted with Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (“PTSD”), which is now pending in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. The firm is handling both cases on a pro bono basis.

The current action was brought in U.S. District Court, Northern District of California, on behalf of the Vietnam Veterans of America and six aging veterans with multiple diseases and ailments tied to a diabolical and secret testing program, whereby U.S. military personnel were deliberately exposed, by government and military agencies, to chemical and biological weapons and other toxins without informed consent. This multifaceted research program, which was launched in the early 1950s and continued through at least 1976, was conducted not only at the Edgewood Arsenal and Fort Detrick, Maryland, but also across America by universities and hospitals under contract to Defendants.

Defendants include the CIA, the Department of the Army, the Department of Defense (“DoD”), and various government officials responsible for these agencies. The CIA secretly provided financing, personnel, and direction for the experiments, which were mainly conducted or contracted by the Army.

Plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive relief only – no monetary damages – and Plaintiffs seek redress for 25 years of diabolical experiments followed by over 30 years of neglect, including:

-- the use of troops to test nerve gas, psychochemicals, and thousands of other toxic chemical or biological substances, and perhaps most gruesomely, the insertion of septal implants in the brains of subjects in a ghastly series of mind control experiments that went awry, leaving many civilian and military subjects with permanent disabilities;

-- the failure to secure informed consent and other widespread failures to follow the precepts of U.S. and international law regarding the use of human subjects, including the 1953 Wilson Directive and the Nuremberg Code;

-- an almost fanatical refusal by the DoD, the CIA, and the Army to satisfy their legal and moral obligations to locate the victims of their gruesome experiments or to provide health care or compensation to them;

-- the deliberate destruction by the CIA of evidence and files documenting its illegal actions, actions which were punctuated by fraud, deception, and a callous disregard for the value of human life.

The Complaint asks the Court to determine that Defendants’ actions were illegal and that Defendants have a duty to notify all victims and to provide them with health care going forward.

According to Gordon P. Erspamer, a litigation partner in Morrison & Foerster’s San Francisco office, “Until this case is concluded, and all the victims are found and made whole, we cannot put behind us this sad chapter in American history when the government exploited the very citizens, both civilian and military, that it was supposed to protect.”

Vietnam Veterans of America’s President John Rowan commented, “Over 30 years ago, the government promised to locate the victims of the MKULTRA experiments and to take care of their needs. It now is painfully obvious that what it really wants is for the victims to just quietly die off while the government takes baby steps. VVA cannot leave these veterans behind.”

muchas gracias chica! muy bien! buen dia!!

http://www.thefluecase.com by jame burgermeister of Austria- thank you so much Frau Burgermeister!! Danke, Grazi, Prego, Gracias, thank you, merci


http://www.theflucase.com/

Laws and the Constitution assign to people certain basic civic rights, such as the right to life, the right to free speech, the right to self defence. Another right, is the right to report a crime if there is enough evidence of one.

Laws and the Constitution assign to people certain basic civic rights, such as the right to life, the right to free speech, the right to self defense.

Flowing from these basic civic rights, is the right to report a crime if there is enough evidence of one, and also the right to see justice done, also in the case of mass vaccinations with the swine flu.

On this website you will find the facts and information, you need to report the "swine flu" case to your local law enforcement.

One advantage of reporting the crime to your local law enforcement is that they will be obliged to examine the material and so will be much less likely to assist in any forced mass vaccinations, knowing that the act ordered is unlawful.

The law of a state is binding not only on a State but also on all individuals inside a State, no matter how high their position in government might be.

Any member of government, however senior, who commits an act which constitutes a crime under the law is responsible for it and liable to punishment.

When Presidents and Prime Ministers are not obliged to obey the law, it is called a dictatorship or totalitarian government. Don't be afraid to ask for everyone to be held accountable before the law, even the Prime Minister.

Evidence of torture- my back

Find more photos like this on Mind Control Victims Friends Around the World

OTHER INTERVIEWS

           WITH CHRIS

          "INDEPENDENCE"

  FOUNDER & PRESIDENT

FREEDOM FIGHTERS FOR

                     AMERICA

THE EDGE AM RADIO

Edge Correspondent Grims Taroeel interviews Chris from freedomfightersforamerica.com on the subject of electronic warfare, ...

 

LIBERTY NEWS RADIO

http://libertynewsradio.com/shows/ibl/ibl20090801b.mp3

 http://libertynewsradio.com/shows/ibl/ibl20090801c.mp3  

 

 FREEDOM FIGHTERS FOR

         AMERICA (WORLD)

         (AUTHORIZED )BY CHRIS TO

                  MANHATTAN

   BACK STEP PROJECT

           HOSTED BY RON ANGELL

          TO INTERVIEW MR EVANS OF RAMAYES.COM  INTERVIEW INVOLVING   SHIELDING FROM ELECTRONICS

 http://api.ning.com/files/qf0pCr-h-55vf7zcgLd*em2nJiNApbpbbx0-sH*ISaH7PGBHMbL9PG6zfIMlTVbo8g5Y8lJc*0MtquyM*VFOo3edxby7TPAE/conf3623281168905.0.wav  

_

   MANHATTAN BACKSTEP

            PROJECT

          HOSTED  BY RON ANGELL

                INTERVIEW WITH 

        DR. MOSS DAVID POSNER

http://recordings.talkshoe.com/TC-27564/TS-251054.mp3  

   TARGETED INDIVIDUAL

                       SERIES

      RON ANGELL-7-3-09

HOST: INDEPENDENCE

 http://recordings.talkshoe.com/TC-27564/TS-240982.mp3  

Rothscilds are responsible for the Napoleonic wars, the US Civil War, WWI, WWII,

Alois Shickelgrueber was Adolf Hitler's real name and he was the illegitimate grandson of Nathan Rothchild who raped the Austrian Maid Maria Shicklegrueber in the UK.

Maria Shicklegrueber married a Heitler and Rothschild made maria rename Alois Heiter Adolf Hitler.

Hitter was on mind control durgs called Vitamultin and he was totally controlled by Rothschild to steal assets of Eastern Europe with a bogus war that never should have been

That is how Adolf Hitler was created, and his Jewish root is a greedy evil banker who tortured.

Also Vitramultin was given to all Germans in the late 1920's for depression- it was also called Pervertin

http://www.google.com/#hl=en&source=hp&fkt=1703&fsdt=3328&q=pervertin&aq=f&aqi=g4g-s1g5&oq=&fp=ffefda102fbee0d

All US children were given for the last 20 years medication such as prozac and zoloft and mind controlled to fight and hate, rape, torture and murder Iraq people and now the world peoples.

Sodium Benzote in the Soda pop is a MIND CONTROL DRUG

The way to free from mind reading and influence-must test it on myself first and if I am OK and if it does not hurt me or harm me from multiple exposure allow it to be used.

I believe an impusle generator with a waveguide antenna can stop the effects- if not forever temporarily


I think a 400KVolt Impulse Generator and a wave guide antenna may do it.

almost three years ago I investigated this equipment as well as the model of the wave guide antenna.

It may be able to free some of my family that has been tortured for 30 years. I just do not know if it will work or will not work.

The equipment is in the range of 10,000 and I am not sure if it will work or not

I am willing to test it on myself

http://www.google.com/#hl=en&source=hp&q=impulse+generator+400+kv&aq=f&aqi=&oq=&fp=2cca7b2e99206b9c


http://www.google.com/#hl=en&ei=W3TOSpz8IpWa8AaU2KiABA&sa=X&oi=spell&resnum=0&ct=result&cd=1&ved=0CAoQBSgA&q=waveguide+antenna&spell=1&fp=2cca7b2e99206b9c

In memory of Claire Dungan- Tortured to death in Ireland for being free. She was like a sister to me

Claire Dungan was pro peace pro freedom, anti nuclear. She is in Heaven- working for Good and God

Her targeting began in the US state of Minnesota when someone broke into her home and stole her purse and ID perhaps in the year 1995 or 1996

She died in 2005 just after the death of my beloved father. At the time I did not know I was being tortured.

She spoke her mind about oppression and lived free and was a strong Celtic Spirit- one that is helping us now from heaven above I am sure.


Time to awake - we all are here for a reason