This is flagrant abuse. I ended this article and they pulled out some other organization’s title and stuck it onto my article…just to say they could; how could they do it that fast.

I am a mild-mannered person, not a radical bone…well maybe one or two. But would a cellist say anything to harm anyone (see my painting on my facebook wall). Why would anyone in the Federal Government want to remove my article.

Last Sunday, Sept. 11, I had just finished composing my article on the huge San Diego power outage and how officials may have known about the outage before it happened. And about how there was actually plenty of power available to the region. For one reason, the two largest wind farms in the world are in California - Altamont and Tehachapi - and last week, they were hardly producing. Of the 5,000 turbines in Tehachapi and more than that at Altamont, only a handful of turbines were turned on, and it was a very windy day.

In the article, the inventor Pete Sumaruck explained how various quotes in the media state inaccuracies regarding production and transmission of electricity as it is produced from various energy plants. Sumaruck is an expert in the field, as a master electrician for more than 30 years, working at many huge corporate sites…and he is the inventor of the only power production unit (with more than 30 patents pending) to currently power homes without fuel and no pollution.

The United States Government - Departments of Energy and of Defense, especially DARPA have been harassing Pete Sumaruck since 1991. They do not want him to succeed in bringing free electricity to the world.

Pete Sumaruck creates new energy. He starts with a minute amount of energy - a milliamp - and creates a huge increase in power. Now no one needs to be without power, but there are many in our government who do not want this. Publicly we hear them beg and plead again and again for new technology that will stop global warming, and produce clean water and clean skies, but when the possibility becomes reality, they want to prevent Peter Sumaruck - more than 12 attempts on his life, also a vast array of vehicular manslaughter attempts and many instances of cybercrime - my article disappeared before my eyes.

I’m sure it wasn’t personal. They don’t know me as a person, but they just do those things. They have frequently removed portions of my writing, but never an entire article. You can’t believe it? Let me tell you of another dirty trick.

I did an article a year ago which included a video of Pete inside his home. He has a wall of photographs and he was pointing to several, in an entertaining way. When the article and film appeared on my website, there was loud country music accompanying only the portion with the photos - music inserted by the one of the tricksters in our government. I had no idea they could do such things.

Anyway, my article was “removed” and I had to reconstruct it. I admit I was careless; I didn’t print to save it, unfortunately, the first one had a more snappy title, “damn.”

Pete suggested I go to the FBI. He had visited his local FBI in Texas three times; on each occasion they would not let him past a glass partisan and would not listen. I was hesitant; you know they have this imposing image…but I thought, well why not…what can they do to me? Pete promised to visit me in jail and bring a cake with a file in it. I requested chocolate.

And anyway, my late husband had been an agent, operator and officer in the NSA for many years, so they should be welcoming to see me - agencies work together, right. In none of this am I actually that naive.

I got to the solid entrance door, no windows, only a security touchpad to the side and everything shut down. I remembered seeing a sign downstairs giving a phone number to call for an appointment. That was my next step.

I must say, I did not need to wait long. In an hour or so, a pleasant-sounding man called - now they have my number; so what, they probably already had it. When asked, he told me they weren’t allowed to give their name but would try to help me. I explained my situation; he was sympathetic - was he their token nice-guy. I told him that my primary reason in deciding to call him was a particular section on the FBI website, regarding their mandate to investigate cybercrime.

One thing he told me was that I should never work on my desktop at the same time I was logged onto the internet, that it is open to view. We talked about trojan-like attachments and insertions to include deletions - an invasive possibility. I knew better, but it’s so convenient to go back and forth… of course you don’t expect anyone to remove something.

You see, criminals put the onus on you - “don’t leave it out there to be taken,” they will say. I won’t do that again - “you hear me out there.”

I did mention to him that what I was asking might be difficult for him because he would be part of our government investigating another part of our government.

He told me he would look into the situation and get back to me.

Again it was quick - less than two hours later, he called back. I will have to say, he never discounted what I told him; he did say it would be difficult to prove.

He began by mentioning that my situation related to the “Color of Law.” That law enforcement officers and government officials, to include the Justice Department speak of this “Color of Law when referring to the interpretation of law. He quoted two statutes of U.S. code: Title 18 USC section 242, and Title 18 section 1030. He suggested that these original statutes resided in the law library of Cornell University, that I could visit them there.

Later I thought, how could he come up with this information so quickly - did he have a tip I was going to call. No, I think these items of US code are commonly referred to because so many individuals believe their civil rights and freedoms of speech have been violated - this happens a lot. http://trac.syr.edu/tracreports/civright/107 Noticing this url, that code may be in fact housed with Syracuse.

This code has a history - having been approved by Congress directly after the Civil War. It refers to law enforcement officers and government officials who “abuse the rights of individual Americans.” These abuses have “long been recognized,…as a threat to society as a whole.” after the Civil War, when was much abuse was taking place - this law was designed to protect the individual.

Now the opposite is true, too much gray area, and I suppose too many appeals taking place on both sides. Data from the Justice Department shows that 98.7% of federal prosecutors declined to hear cases claiming a violation of 18 USC 242. What this means is that you only think you are guaranteed the rights of freedom of speech.

My recommendation is that everyone read http://trac.syr.edu/tracreports/civright/107, especially the section titled, “Why do prosecutors decline to prosecute.” Various reasons are cited, but 22% of all prosecutors declined to hear the cases because they were instructed, by the Department of Justice to decline.

Around the world, America brags about the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, but just try to rely on those guarantees.

My FBI agent told me that they only investigate federal laws being broken. I would need to prove that a particular person or a particular agency had broken certain federal statutes - again he said, “difficult to prove.”

“But Mr. Sumaruck has been deprived of his ability to make a living. His rights have been violated.” I protested.

“You story is gone…you could have the hard drive searched, but that would only prove it had been taken; it wouldn’t tell you who did the taking.”

You see, I must spend my money to have my computer searched, to include the downtime for that computer, only to find what cannot be proven.

I went on, “Just a week ago, I had to have my internet provider technician come out. I was forced to use only Mozilla-Foxfire, and no Internet Explorer - the latter was disabled. The tech looked things over saying my problem had nothing to do with his company’s service, “But let me try something here…” as he poked around with my “tool” bar.

The FBI agent became more interested.

“The tech clicked and a box appeared,” I told him, “that was filled with text; the tech said, ‘there shouldn’t be any words in there,’ and he quickly removed them…that fast, my computer was fine. And it was a place I have never gone, so I didn't put those words there.”

The agent said, “If you could contact that tech, see if he remembered what it said in the box, that could lead us to where the text came from, maybe who put it there.”

“But the whole thing happened too fast; I don’t think the tech even read the words…but he did show me again what he did so if the problem returns…”

Then the FBI agent and I talked about the ability for messages and activities taking place from a remote location - we all know computers can be “repaired” by a remote second party and that hackers do this regularily. But how do I collect irrefutable proof to attribute responsibility.

What this means is that our government has impunity - you just have to work around it. One way is to be in their faces as frequently as possible.

One thing should be mentioned: for as long as DARPA has existed, originating in 1958, and even before, as another agency, DARPA has not been merely a specialty agency for scientific defense research. DARPA extends the definition, in a way that is similar to the “Color of Law” interpretations - for fuzzy definitions. They say they are protecting this country but they also specialize in dirty tricks, to the degree that the attempts on lives of individuals can be executed with impunity.

Our government enjoys these legal flexibilities - especially DARPA where they spend much effort and energy trying to invent dirty ticks to stop inventors they don’t appreciate. DARPA budget for 2012 is $553 billion, but this does not break down a specific % for dirty tricks - which can permeate all of their projects. They would say, they are just trying to protect the defense of this country, but there is nothing noble about DARPA's activities.

My “appointment” with the FBI was not a complete loss. I felt reassured he know I was correct, but he also knews his employers wear body armor.

*************

 for comments and questions, contact: charlotte@worldviewopinion.com  or worldviewopinion@aol.com