Webmaster Comment: Alfred Lamont Webre is a lawyer, author, and statesman who was charged with establishing an Exopolitics department under the administration of Jimmy Carter (1976-80). He now resides in Canada, where he continues his efforts along a number of important fronts.
He was involved in the Kuala Limpur War Crimes Tribunal (KLWCT). From wikipedia:
“In November 2011, the tribunal purportedly exercised universal jurisdiction to try in absentia former US President George W. Bush and former British Prime Minister Tony Blair, convicting both for crimes against peace because of what the tribunal concluded was the unlawful invasion of Iraq.[8][9][10][11]
In May 2012 after hearing a testimony from victims of torture at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo, the Tribunal unanimously convicted in absentia the former US President George W. Bush, former US Vice President Dick Cheney, former US Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, former US Deputy Assistant Attorneys General John Yoo and Jay Bybee, former US Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, and former US counselors David Addington and William Haynes II of conspiracy to commit war crimes, specifically torture.[12][13] The Tribunal referred their findings to the chief prosecutor at the International Court of Justice in the Hague.[14]
In November 2013, the Tribunal found Israel guilty of genocide of the Palestinian people.[7]”
I admire, respect, and applaud Webre’s efforts, past and present, to re-establish the rule of law in America and the world. However, in my opinion, it is unfortunate that Webre here links these criminal events to his alien/interdimensional quantum access time travel hypothesis. While he could be correct, of course, recent political events could also all simply be manipulated by “deep state” intelligence agencies and their “mind-control victims” in government as well as their private, paid-actor stooges. I prefer this explanation. By linking these events with interdimensional beings, Webre actually may be discrediting the truth in the minds of many who will simply discount the facts because they are linked with aliens.
Caveat: However, if by “interdimensional beings,” Webre is referring to fallen angels, demons, and possibly nephilim hybids, then his conclusions may conform closely with historic Christian doctrine…. and we are in agreement.
ACCESS FULL NEWSINSIDEOUT.COM COVERAGE AT:
At the Tribunal Meeting one of the Judges mentioned the research in “THE CHRONOGARCHY: How Interdimensional Quantum Access Time Travel Manipulates Human Events, Human History, and the Interlife” by Tribunal Judge Alfred Lambremont Webre https://omniversity.us/how-interdimensional-quantum-access-time-travel-manipulates-human-events-human-history-and-the-interlife-by-alfred-lambremont-webre/
The State Terror False Flag of January 6 and its Show Trials is another Neural manipulation of the Chronogarchy, pitting one false front of the Chronogarchy [Biden] against another false front of the Chronogarchy [Trump], thus keeping the American population paralyzed, polarized, and permanently disempowered and Constitutionally and existentially oppressed.
SEE:
Judgment of the Tribunal in the matter of Genocidal Technologies Pandemic On the Indictment: Genocide & Crimes against Humanity by 5G-Pandemic Perpetrators
Final Judgment: Download FINAL JUDGMENT – NATURAL AND COMMON LAW TRIBUNAL- November 29 2020
https://exopolitics.blogs.com/files/final-judgment—natural-and-common-law-tribunal–november-29-2020-1.pdf
Indictment: Download INDICTMENT – TRIBUNAL.PUBLIC.HEALTH.JUSTICE-FINAL VER 1-11.15
https://exopolitics.blogs.com/files/indictment—tribunal.public.health.justice-final-ver-1-11.15.pdf
Upon hearing strong prima facie evidence of covert FBI and US government violations of Human Rights and Crimes Against Humanity in an apparent synthetic False Flag Terror event fabricated at the US. Capitol on January 6, 2021, an International Tribunal of Conscience, that in November 2020 indicted a wide range of perpetrators guilty of the genocidal technologies pandemic, approved an Inquiry and Cease and Desist Order against agencies of the U.S. Government and U.S. Congress, and other criminal co-conspirators unlawfully engaged in such a synthetic False Flag Terror event, in violation of Natural Law, Common Law, Treaty Law, Articles 6 and 7 of the International Criminal Court Statute , the Nuremberg Code , the Geneva Conventions , the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights , United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples , the Bill of Rights of the US Constitution, and the Final Judgment of the Natural and Common Law Tribunal for Public Health and Justice at www.Peaceinspace.org .
The Case of Dr. Simone Gold, MD, Anti-Vaxx Expert, invited as part of a group of public health experts to speak peacefully at the US Capitol on January 6, 2021; In furtherance of an Unconstitutional False Flag Crime Against Humanity, Dr. Simone Gold was arrested by 20 armed FBI agents storming her home, maliciously prosecuted and falsely imprisoned, cuffed in orange jumpsuits, and terrorized. Here is Dr. Simone Gold’s televised testimony and prima facie evidence of the U.S. government’s State terror false flag associated with January 6, 2021 [See photo above]/
WATCH ON DR. SIMONE GOLD MD’s TESTIMONY ON EVOLVETOECOLOGY.ORG:
Dr Simone Gold on Politicization of Medicine and Nuremberg Code Violations
TRANSCRIPT:
At Minute 36.0
MODERATOR: To save lives and bring truth to people, and you know, you’re right, you’re a heroine. So thank you so much. And I wanted to ask this question because I know that you’re in the capital, as were some of our pastors and team here on January 6, and some things can you share with us what happened there on January 6?
SIMONE GOLD, MD: Okay, fine. So I was invited. I’ll just speak really quickly about the Capitol. I was invited to speak at the Capitol I accept invitations to large audiences because I’m very receptive to assignments and social media. So of course I was there. There’s about a million people there. Of course, I’m going to accept that invitation. I was an invited speaker when I arrived at the destination to speak. The other speakers were canceled. We still don’t know why that happened. But it was a little bit strange. In retrospect, at the time, I didn’t think anything. And I was on the side of the Capitol that was completely peaceful. People were singing and, you know, back to blue back to blue, but I was physically there. But I was there to give a speech, I can assure you, of course, I’m non-violent. There were as you probably have heard, many, many hundreds of people were arrested for being there. And following that kind of courage. 100,000 conservatives were taken off of social media. I was then arrested by the FBI.
MODERATOR: Can I ask you a question on that. Were you arrested there at the Capitol? Where did they arrest you?
SIMONE GOLD: So I was I was arrested two weeks later, in a very dramatic, movie worthy moments with 20 FBI agents breaking down my door, guns drawn,
MODERATOR: [Ironic] So 20 FBI agents because obviously with your martial arts and violent background that must have been traumatizing.
SIMONE GOLD: You know, you know what it was? It was terrible. It was terrible. It was terrible. I was arrested. My communications director was also arrested. We were taken to jail, handcuffed, shackled orange. I might be the only doctor lawyer who’s been arrested by the FBI. Possible. I don’t know. It was not pleasant. On the other hand, I weep really, genuinely, really more for my country that for me, that’s not possible if someone like me could be arrested by 20 FBI agents with guns drawn at aimed at me, and this is the same country that you wanted to immigrate to. Wow.
MODERATOR: I just can’t even get over that. 20 FBI agents with the guns drawn, knocked on the door, broke down the door. medical doctor, speaking the truth go to the Capitol to make a speech and you’re deemed as a threat.
SIMONE GOLD: So when I say you understand I’m speaking from my heart when I say that, believing Christians are really the bulwark that is going to save our country or we’re going to collapse as a country.
Highly anticipated documentary “The Truth About January 6th” premieres! This groundbreaking documentary contains never-before-seen footage of and commentary on State Terror False Flag Attack of January 6, 2021
Watch the film and share to get out the truth about January 6th!
WATCH ON RUMBLE: https://rumble.com/v17h6qx-the-truth-of-january-6th.html
NEWSINSIDEOUT LINKS & COVERAGE: https://newsinsideout.com/2022/06/highly-anticipated-documentary-the-truth-about-january-6th-premieres-this-groundbreaking-documentary-contains-never-before-seen-footage-of-and-commentary-on-state-terror-false-flag/
This film is historical in the fact it was co-produced and narrated by January 6th Political Prisoner Jake Lang from solitary confinement. Lang is arguably one of the most persecuted January 6th defendants and political prisoners in America today.
The documentary begins with Lang’s powerful narration:
TRENDING: SHOCKING VIDEO RELEASED – Won’t Make It Into Liz Cheney’s Kangaroo Committee Hearing — RAW FOOTAGE OF BEATING OF ROSANNE BOYLAND
“America, you deserve the truth. You deserve the full story. You deserve to view the historic event of January 6th beyond the censored lens of mainstream media. Hello, I’m Jake Lang- a 27 year old political prisoner that has been locked up in solitary confinement for over 17 months. The footage you are about to witness has never before been seen by the public. It is the raw and uncut truth of January 6th. The day when free men and women stood unarmed against tyranny- who were brutalized, beat, and even murdered on the steps of our own Capitol. The patriotic event of the century- where brave Americans came together to defend the Constitution and free and fair elections.”
“Lang has balls of steel,” said Tina Ryan of Citizens Against Political Persecution. “He is literally facing almost half a century in prison for January 6th and being harshly persecuted for speaking out against The Biden Regime from solitary confinement. Most human beings would just shut up in fear, but not Jake. The harder they come for him, the harder he fights. It is like David vs. Goliath.”
NYT reports Jan 6 timeline does not fit media narrative. Impeachment narrative also collapses
WATCH ON YOU TUBE: Https://Www.Youtube.Com/Watch?V=Wrlfta_9leg
ALEXANDER MERCOURIS’ CHANNEL: Https://Bit.Ly/351ncga
ALEX’S CHANNEL: Https://Www.Youtube.Com/Alexchristoforou
THE DURAN SHOP: Http://Drnshop.Com
THE DURAN DISCORD SERVER: Https://Discord.Gg/7mfg6e5
DAILY NEWS UPDATES: Http://Theduran.Com
ALEXANDER MERCOURIS’ & ALEX CHRISTOFOROU in Dialogue
00:32
Let’s talk about the January 6 narrative. And in this video, we’re going to cite much of the work from John Solomon from Justin newest. Just really quick. John Solomon was one of the few reporters that few journalists, real journalists that got Russia gate and Ukraine gate 100% Right. He’s also been reporting a lot on Burisma as well, he got that one right as well. Anyway, he’s been digging around DC. And he actually concludes that much of the narrative that we’ve been fed with the loaded terms like insurrectionists, and incitement may not may not hold true once a proper investigation is done. And I think that’s the main point is that we’ve rushed into the United States as rushed into an impeachment without a proper investigation and solid points out at the beginning of an article that he’s produced regarding some of the facts behind the January 6 event, that this is not uncommon in the history of the United States. And you could just point to incidences, like Iraq WMDs like Benghazi like the steel dossier.
01:48
Many times the media rushes out, to state certain things as what should be believed, but once an investigation is told, is done over time, the facts prove that it was nothing like what the media wanted the public to believe. Benghazi is a great example are about WMDs where you know, the US rush to war but Iraq didn’t have WMDs even though they’re shooters that Iraq did have WMDs that Ghazi they said it was a protest and now we know it was a very well planned attack of course, the Russia dossier. Whichever one said, this thing is real. It’s real. And it turned out to be a complete hoax, fabricated by a girl living in Limassol, Cyprus. That’s how much of a hoax it actually was. And John Solomon, I think is making a great point is that we should all take a step back and not make any claims. As to what happened on January 6 claims that we know certain things happen until an investigation is done because as we go into the video, I’m going to read you three questions and points that John Solomon makes, as to why the narrative already is starting to crumble. So we all need to not buy into the mainstream media propaganda. And just give it a little more time until we can get some more facts out, which I am confident as John Solomon will have a much better understanding as to the real facts behind the events on January 6.
03:23
entirely right I can I just first of all, talk about John Solomon very briefly, because I think it’s important I said it in a previous program, but I got to say to get firstly, he’s an outstanding reporter. Secondly, when he was reporting all those things last year, about the connections between onto Biden and Burisma. And all of this, by the way, in the context of an earlier attempt to impeach Donald Trump, he was ridiculed and abused by many sections of the media and we’re various people in public life. And he was basically forced to leave the hill where he had been publishing his material. He has been proved completely right. All the things he was saying about Hunter Biden, and Burisma have turned out to be corroborated, and almost certainly true. And it turns out that they were the subject at that time when John Solomon was under abuse and criticism of an independent of an investigation by the US authorities themselves, which shamefully they kept secret. Anyway, let’s now turn to the events on the sixth of January and John Solomon sponsor grab these. Now, can I first of all say that it is quite extraordinary that the House of Representatives the Democrats in the House of Representatives, Hey John, by the media, including parts of the pro Republican media have been pushing forward for at with an impeachment, despite the fact that they have not undertaken any investigation whatsoever of what actually took place. I say that because though I have never been an investigator myself, I have often been a person who has been involved in assessing the results of investigations. And I think I can say with absolute certainty, that in no single case, have the results of an investigation corresponded exactly with the initial reporting of an event or of an incident. Always when you investigate something, you discover the popular narrative, if you like, is wrong in fundamental ways. Now, on the sixth of January, the days after, as well as the great UPS upset and shock that I felt, there was for me an absolutely obvious question, and that is that this rally that was going to be held in Washington DC had been known about for at least a week, probably longer. And it seemed extraordinary to me that no real effort was made to secure the protection of critical buildings in Washington DC. First and foremost, the cap the capital, which would be an obvious focus of this kind of rally or protest. And I was genuinely puzzled and perplexed as to why that was. So it also seemed to me that firstly, the allegation of incitement that was being made against Donald Trump made no sense and did not correspond in any way with anything that he actually said in the speech he made at that rally, where he was very careful to tell his supporters to protest peacefully and patriotically. Those are the words that you will find no word in that speech that encourages anyone to use violence, either directly or implicitly. So I always felt the allegations claims that that speech incited anyone to undertake your unlawful conduct. were impossible on the facts. And I have now read the consensus of legal opinion in the United States, which is that those comments are impossible to litigate as incitement anyway as a matter of law, and that they are clearly protected by the First Amendment of the Constitution. Now, that was one thing, that the second point that struck me and this struck me right from the start, is how could Donald Trump conceivably have incited anybody to storm the Capitol when he could not have known and would not have known that the capital was not being properly protected and secured? Surely, he would have expected that proper security protective measures would have been taken to secure the Capitol. So given that that he said he cannot reasonably have anticipated that an event would take place, like the one which took place on the sixth of January and moreover, focusing so much on Donald Trump ignores the actions of other parties who were clearly far more responsible for what took place. Those parties being the protesters who entered the Capitol themselves, but also first and foremost, those persons who failed in their duty to secure the capital properly.
09:48
Now, John Solomon’s comments and questions and discussions, bad deeds directly on this issue, because what John Solomon says is that there was clear intelligence circulating within the police and National Security bureaucracy, both the local police, the police in Washington, as I understand it, but also the officials who are tasked with securing the Capitol itself and whose job it is, incidentally, to report to the Speaker of the House and the Senate Majority Leader, respectively, two who are Nancy Pelosi and Mitch McConnell. These people were being fed intelligence, that there was a plan on the part of some people who are intending to counter that rally to launch some kind of attack on the Capitol. If that is true, and I have no reason to doubt it. And I think it is highly likely and plausible. On its face. And John Solomon, who, as I said, is a highly reliable journalist says that this was so then, if this was planned in advance, it cannot have been connected to anything Donald Trump said at that rally, because clearly, he couldn’t have incited some people to do something that they were already intent on doing. And as a matter of fact, he didn’t, as I said, incite anybody anywhere. But secondly, it begs the question of why we’re all the people, the people who were responsible for securing the capital, have that information that something of that nature was being prepared. They didn’t take the necessary steps, which it wouldn’t be easy to do. To protect it. So there are lots of questions, questions, which certainly shouldn’t be asked in any impeachment process, which have not been asked and which mean that the impeachment is proceeding on the basis of evidence or have an official narrative or a popular narrative, if you prefer, which it is basic details is almost certainly.
12:29
Alright, so we already have video that’s coming out which shows that there are people who are planning something I’m not citizen free press and it says what’s the floor plan new suspicious video emerges from the Capitol siege. And sure enough, this video without a doubt shows people trying to get into the Capitol and people inside a room in the Capitol and they’re talking about floor plans. And they’re coordinating efforts. I mean, this is this is without a doubt, I’ll put a link to these videos down below so everyone can take a look but they’re making the route and it’s as clear as day that there is a group of people that are talking about how they are going to cause trouble inside the Capitol who these people are, I don’t know, but we have their faces. We can see them in the video. So it shouldn’t be very difficult for the authorities to track them down and see what’s going on. The one woman that seems to be coordinating everything is a woman in a PCAP and she’s outside and she’s kind of directing people, how people were to go and how to do things and what to look for. So that’s the first thing. The John Solomon’s article is titled rush to judgment. Three crucial questions remain unanswered about the Capitol. Ch. What did Nancy Pelosi know prior plot or spontaneous Riot were there inside facilitators? I will put a link for this article down below the three questions that John Solomon asks, are in order. How could trump incite an attack that had already been pre planned and was in motion before his speech? We know as a matter of fact that the FBI, the NYPD, the DC police, they all had critical intelligence that there was something was going to go down a week, at least a week in advance. So how could trump insights something that was not spontaneous and that the police already knew was a or at least had information of possibly occurring at the Capitol the second question that John Solomon asked is, What did House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and the other leaders in Congress know and when did they know it about the possibility for violence and the Pentagon’s pre attack offer to send National Guardsmen to reinforce the Capitol Police there were offers to send National Guard in there.
14:44
There were opportunities to lock down the capital better. They weren’t taken. And as you said, Alexander all the information, especially from the sergeant of arms, and all the people that are responsible for securing the capital.
14:59
They just didn’t do their jobs. It seems that many people have resigned over this, I believe, including the sergeant of arms at the Capitol. And Solomon asked the questions. Well, what did Pelosi Schumer, Mitch McConnell know that because obviously, the security of the Capitol was liaising with them and they must have told them about the offers for the National Guard of protection. Obviously, those offers weren’t taken. So we need to figure out why. And finally, the last question is, this is a troubling question. These were their facilitators inside the Capitol and outside it who instigated or enabled the attack to be carried out. John Solomon says that Representative James Clyburn, a Democrat, very anti Trump, said one of the houses longest serving and most respected members first raised this question a few days ago, he aptly noted that protesters were able to locate and penetrate his unlisted unmarked office within minutes, raising the possibility they had inside help. I just want to say very quickly, two more points. The final point about inside information seems to cooperate with the video that’s now out where you have this woman in a pink hat kind of directing people and telling them where to go. How did she know all these things? It seems to be someone must have given her something. So I don’t know that has to be investigated. And John Solomon has asked for information from the DC police he’s made a Freedom of Information Act request, it has been denied and it’s been denied because the DC police the Capitol Police Chief said that it would be compromising the people’s privacy. And John Solomon notes and I quote, it’s it is preposterous to claim that public officials like the Capitol police chief and the sergeant at arms are protected by privacy when the information they possess was collected while in the employ of the US taxpayers and concerns events of a national tragedy that occurred on public property. Like we just experienced. They were government witnesses to an event of national import. Some have talked to the media and their information should be given to the American people. So that’s very curious that the Capitol Police will not release this information to John Solomon. So once again, get a clearer picture as to what’s what happened on January 6. Absolutely. I mean, there’s many honest questions. And John Solomon has asked many, many good incorrect ones. I mean, first of all, just to come to one specific point clearly, John Trump did not incite the storming of the Capitol, at least not in the speech that everybody is talking about. I read the speech. I read the speech carefully. It makes it perfectly clear that people should protest peacefully. It also says, By the way, a point which many people have overlooked, that certifying the results will be Congress’s decision. So far from usurping Congress’s power. He actually admits it. He admits Congress has the power to certify the election. So you know, what he asks people to do is to go peacefully and patriotically to the Congress to support to provide you know, support of the representatives that you know, he said we’re acting properly and maybe not be so supportive as those others who were not there. So he says, There is nothing in this that in in any conceivable shape, or form incites anyone to do anything unlawful, or illegal or violent in any way, and certainly not what took place at Capitol Hill on that day. And of course, if this was all pre planned by someone else, then that speech could not have been cited, because the people who were carrying out those who did those things, were acting in accordance with a pre prepared plan. And of course, if they weren’t getting inside information as John Solomon correctly says, this would have been a conspiracy would have been a conspiracy anyway, if they pre planned an attack of the nature that took place, but it would have been an even wider and more what concerning conspiracy if they were getting inside information for people within the Capitol building. Were able to identify to them where particular offices and rooms were and that sort of thing. So much to look at. Yeah, questions that are not being asked. But for me, an even more obvious point, is the complete failure to secure the building at all, given the Congress was meeting given that there was a protest rally going on. It’s Basic Law Enforcement precaution to make sure there’s a building is properly secured. You should always do that. And if you’re getting intelligence, that there are people in that there are people who might be planning something of that nature, intelligence that’s been passed around by the FBI and for all I know others also, then, of course, you should take necessary precautions. And of course, you should inform the leaders of Congress that this might be taking place. You should also by the way, inform the president I’m not sure when any of that was done, and I’m not sure if it was done, what these important people did with that information. And can I just say also, the one thing I do know for a fact is that the world offers to provide National Guard protection to the Capitol, and that they were refused. And one person who took key decisions repeatedly refusing offers of assistance to control the protest was the mayor of Washington of the mayor of the mayor of the District of Columbia, who is of course a political opponent of Donald Trump. I’m not saying anything more than that. I’m just pointing out that at least one set of important decisions was made by someone who is known to have been not one of Donald Trump’s Donald Trump’s supporters and friends, but one of his staunchest opponents and enemies. So all of this, all of this should be properly investigated and researched.
22:05
And then, when that investigation is complete, then that not before you start taking legal action, not by way of impeachment, because of course by then, Donald Trump would be out of office anyway, but by using the very effective processes of the criminal law I have said already the based on that speech, Donald Trump Gay, gay, in my opinion, under the criminal law, he has no case to answer, but several other people, perhaps do. Obviously, the organizers of this attack on the Capitol Building who may have been engaged in a criminal conspiracy, possibly other protesters also who entered the building, who may have committed other criminal acts. And of course, those people who failed to act to protect the building itself, who may have been negligent, which is a civil law issue, but you might also, given the circumstances have been criminally negligent as well. That’s what you ought to be doing. That’s what you want to be looking at looking into not starting, and impeachment, which is based on no evidence at all just news reports. And, in fact, some news reports as I pointed out in a program I did for my own German, which are anonymously sourced, and which relates to events that took place after the Donald Trump gave his speech and after the incident had actually happen. So it’s people are putting at getting everything the wrong way around there putting, as I said, the cart before the horse, and I wonder whether part of the reason is that there isn’t a rush to blame everything on Donald Trump, because some people know that the blame is actually far more widely shared. And perhaps Donald Trump himself was not to blame in the way that they want us to think he was. Right and there’s one more fact that I forgot to point out and this one also kind of destroys the incitement narrative, and that is that the official timeline of events this is from John Solomon’s article, by the way, the official timeline of events constructed by the New York Times through videos shows protesters began breaching the perimeter of the Capitol a full 20 minutes before Trump finished his speech. And of course, that raises the question, How could someone incite any type of violence when the violence actually happened? 20 minutes before the speech even ended, what was the altruist? Obvious question is obviously he can’t have done I mean, as I said, the speech itself does not constitute incitement. I mean, this isn’t just my opinion. It is others of the opinion of the legal community. I’ve been reading articles by Andrew McCarthy, who, by the way, supports impeachment. I’m not sure on what basis by the way, I’m finding it increasingly difficult to understand his reasoning, but that’s another matter. He’s clearly said and he was a former federal prosecutor, that a case of incitement cannot be brought here. And it was Jonathan Turley, we all know speak much about all great expect he takes to save you. He’s clearly says that there is no incitement case yet at all. And of course, if it was pre planned, that couldn’t have been incitement even if Donald Trump had set out the things that the things that he did, and if these events took place, before he said anything, then of course there could be an incitement either. I don’t think makes no sense. People have rushed into an impeachment process without checking the facts, and the facts are increasingly turning against them. May I say again? This is absolutely typical. When I say that I’ve looked at investigations. I’ve also looked at investigations which ended in which looked at miscarriage miscarriages of justice. People actually be imprisoned for crimes they never committed. And in at least one case, I know of that happened because a prosecution was rushed. And a jury was swayed by emotional reporting of an incident, which it turned out was fundamentally and in fact entirely wrong, and that the person in question was entirely innocent of the case, which had been brought against him. The case in question, by the way, for people to know was that of a murder in Britain, of a BBC journalist called Jill Danver.