You are here

Attorney Kurt Haskell on the Underwear Bomber, 2 Years Later

Christmas Day Two Years Later and the Current State of the U.S.

by Kurt Haskell
     It has now been two years since the Underwear Bomber attack. Once again, Lori and I find ourselves reflecting during the holidays about what happened on Flight 253. The attack, which comprised only two minutes of our lives, continues to shape our thoughts and beliefs. Although the criminal case has ended (except for sentencing which will happen in January 2012), the laws of Michigan allow for a two year period statute of limitations in order for the injured to bring a civil lawsuit. The time period to file such a lawsuit lapses tomorrow. Lori and I have had the plan to file a civil suit at the conclusion of the criminal case, which ended in October 2011.
     The plan was for me to file the civil case on my own in order to keep her out of the inevitable attacks and aggravation that would come from such a suit. I have talked to several attorneys to represent me in such a case, but none of them were willing to take on the U.S. Government. I made the decision that I would represent myself in such a case. I have spent a great deal of time researching the suit and have worked on writing the complaint to initiate the case.
     Even though I have spent a great deal of time researching the civil case, I don't feel that I have spent enough time on the case. I have come to the conclusion that becoming involved in such a case would be an overwhelming constraint on my time. As I am a very busy attorney, this would be time that I don't have to give up. I have been willing to give up my nights and weekends in order to work on the case to further expose evidence to prove that the U.S. Government was behind the staged attack.
     Over the past few weeks, I have reconsidered my decision to file a civil case, and I will instead, begrudgingly, let the statute of limitations lapse. There are several reasons I have reconsidered my decision. The purpose of my civil lawsuit would not have been to obtain compensation, but would have been to obtain further evidence that the U.S. Government perpetrated the attack. Personally, I don't need any further evidence to prove the matter to myself. I have laid out my case in numerous prior postings on this blog. I have convinced the vast majority of people that have chosen to look at all of the evidence that I've presented. I don't believe I can convince anyone else.
     Those that choose to deny the obvious will still not be convinced even if they watched the Schiphol airport video and audio showing what I have indicated. What then would be the purpose of my civil suit? I could possibly obtain further evidence, but that would only further convince those that already believe the U.S. Government is behind the attack. I also believe that obtaining such evidence would be nearly impossible. We now have a U.S. Government so drunk with its own power that it believes it is o.k. to kill U.S. citizens without a trial and/or to detain them forever without a hearing before a judge.
     Would the U.S. Government willingly turn over evidence to me to show conclusively that it was behind the Underwear Bombing attack when it believes it can kill or detain American citizens indefinitely? Not a chance in hell. It is much more likely that the U.S. Government would declare me a person that "substantially aided" a terrorist under the new defense authorization bill and detain me indefinitely without a trial. However, that was not really a concern that led to my decision to not file a civil case. What did play a factor was the reaction, or lack thereof, of Americans in relation to the passing of this bill. Why are Americans not outraged and protesting by the millions in Washington over this law? It has just further confirmed to me that the vast majority of Americans just don't care what the U.S. Government does in relation to "terrorism".
     I can't tell you how many times people have told me that they are o.k. to let the U.S. Government do whatever it wants to do against terrorists in order to make them safe. I have news for these people, if there are terrorists everywhere; there is nothing that can be done to make you entirely safe. I live very close to the largest population of Muslims in the U.S. If terrorism were as bad as the U.S. Government makes it out to be, car and suicide bombings would occur in my area on a regular basis. The fact that they never occur is very telling. It is my belief that the war on terror is nothing but a fraudulent U.S. Government creation designed, in part, to take away all of the rights of Americans and to further enrich and consolidate the power of those in control.
     Our Constitutional rights are currently under attack and are being rapidly taken away. In case you haven't been paying attention, the definition of "terrorist" is slowly changing to one that means "a person that doesn't agree with the U.S. Government". When those that have given away all of their rights to combat terrorism suddenly discover that they are in fact terrorists, it will be too late. If I filed and won my lawsuit and proved that the U.S. Government staged the Underwear Bomber attack, would these people care? No they wouldn't. Would it stop the U.S. Government's assault on our Constitutional Rights? No it wouldn't. Would anyone do anything if I was labeled a terrorist and detained indefinitely without a trial? Not a chance.
     These people comprise the vast majority of the American population. The corruption is so entrenched that 93 out of 100 senators voted for the recent law that allows for the indefinite detention of Americans without a trial. Can anyone think of any recent law that had that had such a vast majority of approval by both Democrats and Republicans? I can't think of any. The question I have is why would this bill obtain such vast approval? The answer to me is an obvious one. The U.S. as we know it is on the edge of complete collapse due to an out of control national debt. This collapse will lead to an economic collapse that will make the Great Depression look like a fun time. The National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility, an 18 member bi-partisan commission created by President Obama, recently indicated that the financial collapse will occur within two years.
     Obviously, the vast majority of senators that voted in support of the authorization to detain Americans indefinitely are worried that Americans may turn their anger from a financial collapse onto their political representatives. The approval of such a law was made in order to protect the politicians themselves from unruly mobs of Americans that are angry from the financial collapse. These Americans will be the new "terrorists". The new "terrorists" will find indefinite “housing” in FEMA camps that are being built throughout the U.S.
     What other explanation could there be for the large bipartisan support for such an unconstitutional law? There is none. It is also shocking that a president that is a supposed Constitutional law expert would approve of a law that is such a direct violation of the Constitution. This is the sad state of affairs that is prevalent in the U.S. today.
What also had an effect on my decision to not file a civil case was the indication by the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility that the U.S. economy will collapse within the next two years.
     Lori and I have had a multi-year plan (Going back to 2006) to retire and move out of the U.S. Our current plan is to move abroad at the end of 2013. Apparently, according to the commission, this would coincide with the U.S. economic collapse. If I were to file a civil suit, the time and money I would need to put into such a case would delay our move out of the U.S. For obvious reasons, we don’t want to be in the U.S. when it collapses and definitely, don’t want to be considered “wealthy” when millions of out of control Americans look for scapegoats for their economic problems.
Make no mistake, my decision to not file a civil case was not due to intimidation. If it was, I never would have spoken out against the U.S. Government in the first place. My decision rests on two conditions that have become increasingly clear over the past two months:
     1. The vast majority of Americans don’t care or will never believe that the U.S. Government is staging false terror attacks against its own citizens.
     2. The U.S. is facing imminent economic collapse for which I need to devote as much time and save as much money as possible in order to financially prepare to leave the U.S. permanently.
     On a side note, I saw that a fellow Underwear Bomber passenger has filed a civil suit.
     Note that Mr. Maranga has sued the airline and not the U.S. Government agents that were behind the attack. I have spoken to Mr. Maranga on several occasions and he is not convinced that the U.S. Government was involved. Don’t expect anything earth shattering to come out of this lawsuit.
     I originally read this story on the Detroit Free Press website, which I have been unable to locate. The comments section of that article contains many posts attacking Mr. Maranga for wanting compensation for his emotional injuries. Such is the sad state of the mind of the standard American. By the way, in order to sue an airline for an injury received on an international flight, you must have a physical injury and not just emotional trauma. What is interesting to me is that the U.S. was responsible for this provision in the Montreal Convention (the current law on international airline travel). Most nations wanted passengers to be able to sue for strictly emotional injuries, but the U.S. wouldn’t allow it. As I didn’t suffer a physical injury, I am prohibited from suing the airline.
     I know that many people will be disappointed in my decision to not sue the members of the U.S. Government that were behind the fraudulent, false, threat known as the Underwear Bomber attack. I understand your feelings. I don’t want to let it go myself, but I have to look at the reality of the situation.
     The vast majority of Americans are not willing to believe that their government is as corrupt and evil as it is. No significant change will occur until this changes, and likely, even then, won’t occur without an overthrow of the government. Such a time will not occur without prior significant financial hardship happening to the vast majority of Americans. That time is coming, but it is not yet here. A cost benefit analysis regarding the filing of a civil suit indicates that there is no real upside to filing such a case, but there is significant downside. Nonetheless, I will continue to speak out against the corrupt and fraudulent U.S. Government and will continue to support those Americans that are paying attention and want their country to return to the free country that it once was.
     Happy Holidays to all.
by Kurt Haskell

     Although the underwear bomber trial concluded in October with a plea deal, Umar filed a motion on December 12, 2011 to replace stand-by attorney Chambers. This motion is too little too late since the only matter left in the case is sentencing, which will occur on January 19, 2012. A copy of the hand written motion can be viewed here:

http://www.mied.uscourts.gov/hpc/docs/21.Motion%20to%20Appoint%20New%20Stand-By%20Counsel.pdf

     When it was filed in December, the press jumped all over it claiming that the crazy Umar wanted to fire his stand-by attorney and replace him with a muslim attorney. To me, this motion is something else. Let me explain. When Umar took his plea deal, it consisted of him pleading guilty to all of the charges, which require a life sentence with no chance of parole. NOBODY ON EARTH TAKES A PLEA SO THAT THEY CAN NEVER GET OUT OF PRISON! Plea deals involve give and take on both sides. Not only that, but stand-by attorney Chambers told me earlier in 2011 that Umar was offered very lenient plea deals because the prosecution "Just wants this case to go away".

     Umar rejected all of the lenient offers. Therefore, there is more to the plea deal that we will never know about (i.e. that Umar will be secretly released after sentencing for example). What was also an apparent sham to me was the concocted speech that Umar gave when he made made his plea "deal". Umar had written a statement in advance and read it in open court. It can be found on the internet with a little searching.
     To me, the statement did not seem like it was written by Umar or even in language that I heard Umar use before. It seemed much more likely to be the exact wording that the prosecution or government would want him to say as if they had prepared it themselves. It was a statement that the prosecution and press could blast everywhere to show that Umar is indeed a "crazy Muslin terrorist" and not the mere patsy that he is.
     I believe that whatever the real plea deal was, it involved not only that Umar read the statement prepared for him, but that he also file this nonsensical motion. The purpose of the motion would be to allow the press to again label Umar a "crazy Muslim terrorist" and continue to spread the government's propaganda.
     I was in contact with attorney Chambers on multiple occasions during this case. I know that not only did he not ignore Umar, but he tried everything in his power to become Umar's regular attorney and to get him off of the charges. It was Umar that withheld evidence from Chambers and failed to discuss most of the case details with Chambers. It was obvious that Umar was withholding evidence from Chambers because Chambers would often learn of important details of the case from me or from reading my blog.
     What really is the smoking gun in this motion is the following sentence "I do not intend to have my new attorney to have my discovery materials and things". WHY THE HELL NOT???? Umar again is going to hide evidence from the only person that can help him. Guys, this just doesn't happen in the real world.
     In my blog post last July, I discussed what would happen if Umar's stand-by attorney obtained the evidence in this case........It could be obtained by subpoena by interested third parties (me for example). Is this why Umar withheld evidence from his stand-by attorney and wants to do it again? This sort of thing just doesn't happen in the real world.
     Then again, maybe the underwear bomber case is really the government concocted fantasy I've been saying it is. Nevertheless, I am heading down to Judge Edmunds' Courtroom at 11:00 A.M. tomorrow to watch the theatrics.

Comments

Good article.

Of course the scheme involving Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab was manufactured by Israeli dual citizen Michael Chertoff, Israeli security firm ICTS, and RAPISCAN of Torrance California, which is owned by OSI Systems Inc headquartered in Hawthorne CA.

RAPISCAN makes the new scanners used in airports. The CEO of its parent company, OSI Systems, is Deepak Chopra (not to be confused with a famous author of the same name).

OSI Systems is on the client list the Chertoff Group, a consultancy led by Michael Chertoff.

ICTS was established in 1982 by former members of the Shin Bet, plus El Al airline security agents. ICTS shares are traded on NASDAQ under the symbol ICTS. ICTS is closely associated with the Chertoff group, and runs security in most Western airports, including all airports involved in 9-11. ICTS also runs security at the Charles de Gaulle Airport where Richard Reid (the "shoe bomber”) boarded American Airlines Flight 63 on 22 Dec 2001. French security almost foiled this ICTS plot by detaining Reid for questioning, and held him for 24 hours. Then ICTS officials got him released, and made sure that Reid got onto the plane with his bomb -- but the 24-hour delay caused perspiration in Reid’s shoe to moisten the fuse of his bomb, and Reid was not able to blow up the aircraft. Nonetheless, his caper legitimized the new TSA, and the media whitewashed the role of ICTS in deliberately letting Reid get onboard an aircraft.

ICTS also runs security at the Schiphol Airport in Amsterdam, where UMAR FAROUK ABDULMUTALLAB boarded Northwest Airlines Flight 253 en route from Amsterdam to Detroit on 25 Dec 2009. Like Richard Reid, Mr. Abdulmutallab used PETN plastic explosive to try and blow up the plane, but the bomb malfunctioned.

ICTS controls airport security in 22 countries. Whenever there is a terrorist attack on aircraft, we almost always find that ICTS controlled airport security, and deliberately let the terrorist get onboard.

ICTS also controlled security for London’s bus system during the 7 July 2005 bomb attacks (England’s version of 9-11), which killed 52 people and wounded 700. Benjamin Netanyahu was scheduled to be near one of the bombing sites in London, but ICTS warned him just before Israeli agents and their patsies began the false flag bombings.

To conceal its Israeli background, ICTS moved its headquarters from Israel to Haarlemmermeer, Holland, near the Schiphol Airport in Amsterdam -- which is also the headquarters of the Dutch airline and freight carrier KLM.

Michael Chertoff realized that someone would notice the ICTS pattern. Therefore, hours before the first version of the USA Patriot Act went to a Congressional vote, Chertoff suddenly inserted a “technical correction” that protected ICTS from prosecution for 9-11 and other terrorist events. At that time, Chertoff was an Assistant US Attorney General, Criminal Division. In 2003 Chertoff became a federal judge in New York to prosecute “terrorists.” In 2005 he became Director of the U.S. Dept of Homeland Security.

As noted above, OSI Systems of California makes the nude-scanners. The Chertoff group made sure that OSI’s nude-scanners were installed in all airports controlled by the TSA and ICTS. Naturally ICTS gets a cut of the proceeds supplied by taxpayers and airline travelers.

By 2009, OSI Systems had installed over 50,000 of the nude-scanners in ICTS-controlled airports worldwide, and the TSA had ordered 150 of the them for the USA by October 1, 2009. However Canadians and Americans did not like the scanners. Therefore the Chertoff Group, OSI Systems, and ICTS hatched a plot to legitimize the nude-scanners by killing everyone onboard a US airliner and blaming it on Al Qaeda. 

The plot involved one UMAR FAROUK ABDULMUTALLAB, a Nigerian whose airline ticket was mysteriously purchased at the last minute. At the Schiphol Airport in Amsterdam, ICTS deliberately let Mr. Abdulmutallab pass through security scanners with plastic explosive sewn into his underwear. Accompanying Abdulmutallab was an Indian man from OSI Systems Inc whose exact identity remains classified.

When Umar Abdulmutallab tried to get onboard the plane, an attendant asked to see his passport. The Indian man accompanying Umar said Umar had no passport, and was a refugee from Sudan. The airline attendant said the Indian and Umar would have to speak to her superior about the passport issue. The Indian and Umar disappeared down a hallway, and were immediately cleared by ICTS, which controlled airport security at the Schiphol Airport in Amsterdam.

Adulmutallab then got onboard the plane bound for Detroit, while the Indian man from OSI Systems stayed behind in Amsterdam.

All this was witnessed by Kurt and Lori Haskell, the two attorneys discussed in the WUFYS article above. The Haskells were on the Detroit-bound plane because they live in Taylor, Michigan.

Another witness, Rochelle Kietman, noticed that ICTS had relaxed security at the Amsterdam airport just before the incident. For example, ICTS security did not ask passengers to take off their shoes, and Ms. Kietman’s own mother forgot that she had a water bottle in her bag, and the bag scanned right through. Ms. Kietmnan also noticed that when Abdulmutallab tried to blow up the plane, the only passenger standing onboard the plane was a man who videotaped the entire incident.

Four days after the event, CNN interviewed these three witnesses. This interview was loaded onto YouTube, and caused such a stir that ICTS and the Chertoff group quickly manufactured a passport for Abdulmutallab and presented it to the media, which dropped the matter.  Chertoff also ordered CNN to remove the interview from YouTube. It was here…http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bv2eqTQsy7k&feature=related

When the plane landed in Detroit, Mr. Abdulmutallab was taken away. The media claims he is in a penitentiary in Milan Michigan, and that he confessed to being directed by Al Qaeda in Yemen, which the USA is currently bombing. The Haskells believe that Abdulmutallab will be secretly released after sentencing, and I agree.

Chertoff’s bomb did not go off because the detonator used acid in a syringe. The acid melted the syringe and caused a fire, but did not make proper contact with the plastic explosive.

Immediately after the plot, Chertoff gave dozens of media interviews claiming that Al Qaeda had taken responsibility for the attempted bombing. Chertoff did not identify anyone from Al Qaeda, but this did not matter, since Chertoff is an “intelligence expert.”

Chertoff said the incident showed that airports need MORE SCANNERS. On 31 Dec 2009, during one of Chertoff’s sales pitches on CNN, he slipped up and admitted that one of his own clients (Rapiscan, owned by OSI Systems) makes the scanners. You can see Chertoff admitting this at the five-minute mark of this video. It’s under the YouTube title “Chertoff and Company - The Cover Up (Body Scanners).”

After the bomb plot, DHS head Janet Napolitano immediately gave OSI Systems a contract for more nude-scanners throughout the USA, causing OSI stock to shoot up by 10%. This briught an immediate profit of $76.5 million to OSI and Chertoff, who will give some of the proceeds to ICTS, the Israeli firm.

Napolitano also awarded new contracts for Icx Technologies (another client of the Chertoff Group) whose stock immediately shot up 35%. Icx Technologies is headquartered in Arlington VA just across the Potomac River from the US Capitol Building in Washington DC. It is one mile from Bolling Air Force Base, headquarters of the Defense Intelligence Agency.

Icx, run by five Irfaeli dual citizens, has 25 offices across Europe and North America, and makes the “Fido” explosives detector, so named because Icx claims it is almost as good as explosive-sniffing dogs. Icx Technologies also makes border surveillance devices, plus many items connected with chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear and explosive (CBRNE) threats. US troops in Iraq and Afghanistan use Icx scanners, and do 50 police and sheriffs across the USA, plus transit police departments. Icx scanners are used in the Panama Canal. Icx Technologies also provides equipment for airport perimeter security.

The Icx Board of Directors consists of five Jews, whose names I won’t go into because this message is too lengthy.

BOTTOM LINE

These creeps manufacture bomb plots to advance their power and profits. Whether or not their bombs actually go off and kill thousands of people is not important. What’s important is media attention.

If you plan to fly, then pay attention to what airport security issues are currently in the news. If corporate and / or Israeli interests don’t get their demands honored right away, they commit mass murder.

Theme by Danetsoft and Danang Probo Sayekti inspired by Maksimer