Authenticity of Christ’s Tomb PROVED! If Jesus was crucified at the age 345.

Posted on November 28, 2017 by Eric Verlo

National Geographic magazine has just been handed exclusive evidence apparently, confirming the authenticity of what’s known as the Tomb of Christ. Thought to be a fabrication of the crusades, the tomb dates back as far as 345 AD according to carbon dating tests. This places it in the Roman Age they say, thus in the realm of possibility to be the brief burial site of the pre-ascendant deceased prophet Jesus of Nazareth. Fans are always chasing for tangible traces of the historically undocumented celebrity of biblical lore. Although his birthday remains a guesstimate, Nat Geo publicists now propose that Jesus lived to the age of 345 before he was crucified.

Not The People v. Stephen Nalty and Steven Byfield. Right to an Unfair Trial.

Posted on September 21, 2017 by Eric Verlo

DENVER, COLORADO– The trial of accused “Paper Terrorists” Stephen Nalty and Steve Byfield began Monday in courtroom 2H of Denver district court. The two face 28 odd charges, from conspiracy, criminal enterprise, to racketeering, brought by the Colorado Attorney General and the FBI.

And they’re defending themselves. In handcuffs.

Don’t worry, they’re holding their own. But already it’s day one and authorities are piling on every disadvantage. On Monday the defendants were cheated of being able to prevent the state from stacking the jury (and the defendants don’t even know it because they weren’t in the courtroom to see it done).

Watching the court clerks and lawyers prepare for the trial, you cannot but admire their civil spirit. In every hearing Nalty and Byfield have declined advisements and refused to recognize the authority of their adjudicators. The two sound like broken records about “oaths” and sovereign stuff, yet the judicial mechanism inches forward. It should of course, because the defendants have been jailed since MARCH.

For six months Nalty and Byfield have been held on $350,000 bonds. Neither of them can afford even the interest on those sums. Of course their indictment and prosecution is a travesty and a misappropriation of public resources, but how else could the state stop their criminal enterprise except to admit wrongdoing itself?

Nalty and Byfield are being railroaded and they’re sure a jury will conclude the same.

The People’s Grand Jury
For the last few years, among a team of eight “sovereign citizen” types, Nalty and Byfield have been serving judges and other public officials with legal papers and liens which achieved no response. Until Colorado’s attorney general enlisted the FBI to squash the “criminal enterprise.” The sovereigns face 28 charges of all the racketeering and conspiracy lingo, essentially for questioning why their local magistrates and officials had no oaths or bonds on file. When the sovereigns got no response, they formed a “People’s Grand Jury” to indict the violators with their ad hoc public courts. Then they’d file commercial liens against those accused for defrauding the public in violation of Article 6 of the US constitution.

When confronted from podiums, judges and lawmen dismiss the oath requirement out of hand, but it’s interesting that none spell out exactly what law supersedes the US Constitution. News articles about the Paper Terrorists list the litany of criminal charges the defendants face, but have yet to mention the asserted law-breaking which is the Paper Terrorists’ only complaint.

It is hard to get a handle on what the “People’s Grand Jury” really wants. In their dreams, they assert that the lack of filing of oaths should mean that all affected legal judgements should be overturned, and that all salaries drawn by government employees who did not file oaths or bonds should be returned to taxpayers, with interest. They calculate the total sum owed to the American people is in the multi trillions. So there’s that.

Some of the public officials targeted by the People’s Grand Jury began to suffer strikes against their credit records when they didn’t contest liens filed against them. You’d think the credit monitoring algorythms would flag multi billion dollar liens. You’d think someone could suggest a method to filter such paralegal filings.

Instead the state chose to hit back hard. Last March, the eight troublemakers were indicted for two dozen paper crimes. The state imposed bonds averaging a quarter million each. It hasn’t stopped the crew, as their wives and friends keep serving more notices and liens. So now the state intends to make them examples and imprison them for life.

Jury Selection, Only For the Prosecution
Here’s what happened Monday during jury selection, when both sides are meant to parse a jury pool to pick an impartial jury. You know, a defendant’s right to a jury of their peers?

Nalty and Byfield still don’t know what hit them. The prosecution was given the jurors’ details, the defendants learned none. They blindly accepted jurors whom the prosecutors had already carefully weeded. The defendants never knew it and the court was not “on the record” when this happened because it was before the judge entered the courtroom. But audience members saw the whole thing.

Actually, once he was presiding over the entrance of the jury pool, the judge was in a position to observe the prosecution desk already progressing well through the jury questionnaires while the defendants sat idle. Perhaps the judge didn’t know his court clerk had provided no instruction to the defendants. Ultimately whose responsibility would that be?

Monday for jury selection, the court decided it needed a jury pool of SIXTY from which to choose twelve jurors plus two alternates. To save time, the court had prospective jurors fill out 4-page questionnaires instead of having them deliver the customary recitation of their biographical details. The court assigned four digit non-sequential numbers to each candidate. Copies of these forms were made for all parties, stacked according to the seating order of the jury pool. They were put on the desks before sheriffs had brought in the defendants. The team of four prosecutors began pouring over the questionnaires and were warned by the court clerk not to get them out of order as it corresponded to how the jury pool would be admitted.

Team leader, Assistant AG Shapiro noticed that the forms bore the jurors’ signatures, which he instructed should be blacked out from the copies provided to the defendants. Two clerks set themselves to redacting the stacks for defendants Nalty and Byfield. Meanwhile the prosecution studied the forms, made their notes, and drew each other’s attention to details. This information included the applicants’ names and signatures. Trial lawyers do not discount surnames and autographs as irrelevant to evaluating a juror.

When the clerks finished their redactions there were still other courtroom delays and by the time the defendants were finally brought back from their holding cell, the prosecution had a full half hour head start studying the questionnaires, and of course twice the pairs of eyes.

The defendants were not told what the stacks were, nor that they were in any order. The defendants had barely been seated before the judge made his entrance and the jury pool was paraded into the courtroom. The defendants thus got no time to examine the questionnaires. They looked at the stacks dumbly, not knowing what they were supposed to do with them, or how, with their wrists in handcuffs. Defendant Byfield tried to shuffle through some of forms while the judge advised the jury pool. With shackles on he couldn’t manage the stack, much less keep it in order, even if he knew that would matter. Forget managing pen and paper, in addition to taking notes.

You’d hope that jurors will wonder why these “paper terrorists” are kept shackled. Who has ever asserted they pose a threat of violence to anyone?

On the other hand, if you doubt that the failure to file a public oath should earn a prosecutor the accusation of fraud, if you doubt it means they’re untrustworthy, the unfairness they eagerly exploited on the first day of trial would give you pause. They behaved every bit as corrupt and mendatious as Nalty and Byfield have been saying. How unfortunate the jury didn’t see it.

Occupy v. Martinez (Plaza Protest Ban) 2016 US 10th Circuit Court of Appeals Decision AFFIRMING Prelim Injunction

Posted on February 9, 2017 by Eric Verlo

Yesterday I published the federal judge’s order to grant the 2015 preliminary injunction against the Lindsey Flanigan Courthouse. Since that time the city motioned to dismiss, there were show cause hearings, and depositions, and an appeal to the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals. On April 8, 2016 the appeals court AFFIRMED the preliminary injunction. As a result this legal action is on the road to becoming a permanent injunction, to be decided at trial this April. The prospects look promising, based on how the appelate judges schooled our First Amendment adversaries. I’m reprinting their full decision below.

In particular you might enjoy Judge McHugh’s citing of US Supreme Court Justice Owen Roberts, writing in 1939 for the majority, in a decision to uphold public first amendment rights in Hague v. [AFL-]CIO. Robert affirmed that streets were traditional free speech areas:

“Wherever the title of streets and parks may rest, they have immemorially been held in trust for the use of the public and, time out of mind, have been used for purposes of assembly, communicating thoughts between citizens, and discussing public questions. Such use of the streets and public places has, from ancient times, been a part of the privileges, immunities, rights, and liberties of citizens. The privilege of a citizen of the United States to use the streets and parks for communication of views on national questions may be regulated in the interest of all; it is not absolute, but relative, and must be exercised in subordination to the general comfort and convenience, and in consonance with peace and good order; but it must not, in the guise of regulation, be abridged or denied.”

Here’s the full 2016 opinion rejecting Denver’s appeal of our federal injunction:

Document: 01019599889 Date Filed: 04/08/2016

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

_________________________________

ERIC VERLO; JANET MATZEN; and FULLY INFORMED JURY ASSOCIATION,

Plaintiffs – Appellees,

v.

THE HONORABLE MICHAEL MARTINEZ, in his official capacity as Chief Judge of the Second Judicial District,

Defendant – Appellant,

v.

THE CITY AND COUNTY OF DENVER, COLORADO, a municipality; ROBERT C. WHITE, in his official capacity as Denver Chief of Police,
Defendants – Appellees.

_______________

FILED ?United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit

April 8, 2016

Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court

No. 15-1319

_________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Colorado ?(D.C. No. 1:15-CV-01775-WJM-MJW)
_________________________________

Stephanie Lindquist Scoville, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General for the State of Colorado, Denver, Colorado (Cynthia H. Coffman, Attorney General; Frederick R. Yarger, Solicitor General; Matthew D. Grove, Assistant Solicitor General; Ralph L. Carr, Colorado Judicial Center, Denver, Colorado, with her on the briefs) for Defendant – Appellant.

David A. Lane, Killmer, Lane & Newman, LLP, Denver, Colorado, for Plaintiffs – Appellees.

Wendy J. Shea, Assistant City Attorney; Geoffrey C. Klingsporn, Assistant City Attorney; Evan P. Lee, Assistant City Attorney; Cristina Peña Helm, Assistant City Attorney, Denver City Attorney’s Office, Denver, Colorado, filed a brief on behalf of Defendants – Appellees.
_________________________________

Before BRISCOE, McKAY, and McHUGH, Circuit Judges.
_________________________________

McHUGH, Circuit Judge.
_________________________________

This is an interlocutory appeal challenging the district court’s grant of a preliminary injunction, enjoining in part the enforcement of an administrative order (Order) issued by Defendant-Appellant Judge Michael Martinez, acting in his official capacity as Chief Judge of the Second Judicial District of Colorado (Judicial District). The Order prohibits all expressive activities within an area immediately surrounding the Lindsey-Flanigan Courthouse in Denver (Courthouse). Plaintiffs-Appellees Eric Verlo, Janet Matzen, and the Fully Informed Jury Association (collectively, Plaintiffs) sought the preliminary injunction to stop enforcement of the Order against their expressive activities. Following an evidentiary hearing, the district court enjoined enforcement of a portion of the Order as against Plaintiffs. The Judicial District now appeals.

Based on the arguments made and evidence presented at the preliminary injunction hearing, we hold the district court did not abuse its discretion in granting Plaintiffs’ motion in part. Although we affirm the district court’s order granting a limited preliminary injunction, we express no opinion as to whether a permanent injunction should issue. Instead, we provide guidance to the district court and the parties regarding the factual inquiry and the applicable legal standard relevant to that question on remand.

I. BACKGROUND

The genesis of this case is an incident involving nonparties. On July 27, 2015, two men were distributing pamphlets on the plaza outside the Courthouse (Plaza). The pamphlets contained information about jury nullification, a practice in which a jury refuses to convict a defendant despite legal evidence of guilt because the jury members believe the law at issue is immoral. 1 Both men were arrested and charged with jury tampering in violation of Colorado law. See Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-8-609(1) (“A person commits jury-tampering if, with intent to influence a jury’s vote, opinion, decision, or other action in a case, he attempts directly or indirectly to communicate with a juror other than as a part of the proceedings in the trial of the case.”).

———
1 Jury nullification has been defined as “[a] jury’s knowing and deliberate rejection of the evidence or refusal to apply the law either because the jury wants to send a message about some social issue that is larger than the case itself or because the result dictated by law is contrary to the jury’s sense of justice, morality, or fairness.” Jury Nullification, Black’s Law Dictionary (10th ed. 2014).
———

Plaintiffs, like the men who were arrested, wish to distribute literature relating to and advocating for jury nullification to individuals approaching the Courthouse who might be prospective jurors. Fearing they too would be subject to arrest, Plaintiffs brought suit against the City and County of Denver and Robert C. White, Denver’s police chief, in his official capacity (collectively, Denver) to establish their First Amendment right to engage in this activity. On the same day they filed suit, Plaintiffs also moved for a preliminary injunction, seeking to restrain Defendants from taking action to prevent Plaintiffs from distributing jury nullification literature on the Plaza. Two days later, Plaintiffs amended their complaint to also challenge the Order issued by the Judicial District.

That Order, entitled Chief Judge Order Regarding Expressive Activities at the Lindsey-Flanigan Courthouse, states in relevant part:

The Court has the responsibility and authority to ensure the safe and orderly use of the facilities of the Second Judicial District; to minimize activities which unreasonably disrupt, interrupt, or interfere with the orderly and peaceful conduct of court business in a neutral forum free of actual or perceived partiality, bias, prejudice, or favoritism; to provide for the fair and orderly conduct of hearings and trials; to promote the free flow of pedestrian and vehicular traffic on sidewalks and streets; and to maintain proper judicial decorum. Those having business with the courts must be able to enter and exit the Lindsey-Flanigan Courthouse freely, in a safe and orderly fashion and unhindered by threats, confrontation, interference, or harassment. Accordingly, the Court hereby prohibits certain expressive activities on the grounds of the Courthouse, without regard to the content of any particular message, idea, or form of speech.

Prohibited Activities: The activities listed below shall be prohibited in the following areas: anywhere inside the Lindsey-Flanigan Courthouse, including courtrooms, corridors, hallways, and lobbies; the areas, lawns, walkways, or roadways between the Courthouse and public sidewalks and roads; and any areas, walkways, or roadways that connect public sidewalks and roads to Courthouse entrances or exits. This includes, but is not limited to, the Courthouse entrance plaza areas on the east and west sides of the Courthouse as depicted in the highlighted areas of the attached map.

1. Demonstrating; picketing; protesting; marching; parading; holding vigils or religious services; proselytizing or preaching; distributing literature or other materials, or engaging in similar conduct that involves the communication or expression of views or grievances; soliciting sales or donations; or engaging in any commercial activity; unless specifically authorized in writing by administration; ?

2. Obstructing the clear passage, entry, or exit of law enforcement and emergency vehicles and personnel, Courthouse personnel, and other persons having business with the courts through Courthouse parking areas, entrances, and roadways to and from Courthouse and Courthouse grounds;

3. Erecting structures or other facilities, whether for a single proceeding or intended to remain in place until the conclusion of a matter; or placing tents, chairs, tables, or similar items on Courthouse grounds; except as specifically authorized in writing by administration; and ?

4. Using sound amplification equipment in a manner that harasses or interferes with persons entering or leaving Courthouse grounds or persons waiting in line to enter the Courthouse. ?

The Order was accompanied by an image depicting an aerial view of the Courthouse and its grounds, with the areas in which the Order prohibited expressive activity highlighted in yellow (Restricted Areas).

The Courthouse is bordered on its north side by Colfax Avenue and on its west side by Fox Street. Both Colfax Avenue and Fox Street have public sidewalks running along the perimeter of the Courthouse. Immediately to the east of the Courthouse lies the Plaza. The Plaza is bisected by Elati Street, which is closed to traffic other than police vehicles. Elati Street runs through a large circular area (Main Plaza) between the Courthouse and the Van Cise-Simonet Detention Center (Detention Center), which houses pretrial detainees. The Main Plaza contains planters, benches, public artwork, sidewalks, and gravel areas and is suitable for public gatherings.

Of relevance to this appeal are the Restricted Areas, which include an arc-shaped walkway and planter area immediately to the east of the Courthouse. The arced walkway runs from the corner of Elati Street and Colfax Avenue in a curved path across the front of the Courthouse and ends where it intersects with an open area in front of the Courthouse containing planters and benches (the Patio), which also forms part of the Restricted Areas. The Patio provides access to the main entrance on the east side of the Courthouse. Thus, the Restricted Areas encompass only the portions of the Plaza closest to the Courthouse.

The Judicial District opposed Plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction and, in doing so, defended the Order. In contrast, Denver entered into a joint stipulation (the Stipulation) with Plaintiffs. The Stipulation asserted that the entire Plaza between the Courthouse and the Detention Center—specifically including the Restricted Areas—was “a public forum and any content-based regulations must be narrowly drawn to effectuate a compelling state interest and reasonable time, place and manner regulations.” It further acknowledged that Plaintiffs were entitled to distribute jury nullification literature on the Plaza and pledged that Denver would not “arrest or otherwise charge Plaintiffs for handing out literature regarding jury nullification so long as Plaintiffs do not violate Colorado law or Denver’s Revised Municipal Code when they are handing out their literature.” The Stipulation specifically referenced the Judicial District’s Order, indicating Denver did not “intend to enforce [the Order] as written and will only impose content and viewpoint neutral reasonable time, place and manner restrictions on the use of the Plaza, and/or other exterior areas surrounding the Plaza if Denver determines that a compelling need exists to do so.”

At the preliminary injunction hearing, the parties called only two witnesses. Plaintiffs called Commander Antonio Lopez of the Denver Police Department. Commander Lopez described the Plaza as a public “open space” much like the city’s various parks. He testified that in the five years since the Courthouse opened he has witnessed “more First Amendment activity take place in [the Plaza] than [he] can recall.” Specifically, Commander Lopez described a variety of protest activities “at one point . . . averaging about two or three a week” in the Plaza. He further testified that the Denver Police Department had never taken steps to stop protest activity in the Plaza, other than intervening if protesters became violent or otherwise broke the law. Relevant to this appeal, Commander Lopez testified that in his experience, the entire Plaza—including the Restricted Areas—has traditionally been used for First Amendment protest activities. On cross-examination, Commander Lopez acknowledged that the “majority” of the protests in the Plaza occurred closer to the Detention Center, but that he had also seen protests directed at the Courthouse.

The Judicial District called Steven Steadman, administrator of judicial security for Colorado. Mr. Steadman testified that the Order was motivated by concern about anticipated protests of a verdict in a death penalty case being tried at the Courthouse.?Mr. Steadman explained that he met with Chief Judge Martinez to discuss security concerns relating to that verdict and recommended the Judicial District adopt a policy similar to one recently implemented in Arapahoe County during another high-profile capital trial.

Mr. Steadman also testified about the design of the Plaza, including the Restricted Areas. He indicated that the planters, gravel areas, and sidewalks were intentionally designed to “signal to the average user how to find their way, and where you should go and what the main travel ways are.” Mr. Steadman explained that the Patio and arced walkway’s “sole purpose is to allow people, the public, to enter and exit the [Courthouse] without being interfered with.” But Mr. Steadman also stated that, prior to imposition of the Order, protestors—including pamphleteers—were allowed to protest immediately in front of the doors to the Courthouse, provided they did not interfere with ingress or egress from the Courthouse. He explained that the “general response” of protestors was to cease their activities when requested by Courthouse security not to interfere with public access to the Courthouse. Mr. Steadman further testified that no person had ever been arrested for blocking ingress or egress from the Courthouse since it opened in 2010. Important to this appeal, Mr. Steadman acknowledged that Plaintiffs’ activities of passing out jury nullification literature did not present “any security risk” beyond what had previously been tolerated without incident throughout the time the Courthouse had been open.

The district court also accepted a proffer of Plaintiffs’ testimony, indicating that their intent was to approach people entering the Courthouse to discuss quietly the concept of jury nullification and to distribute their literature. Plaintiffs asserted that proximity to the front door of the Courthouse was key to their message because otherwise their intended audience—“people who are going to serve or are in fact serving on juries”—will “very frequently just bypass them” in the designated free speech zone by “walking on one of the sidewalks that is part of the [Restricted Areas].” By contrast, positioning themselves near the front door would allow Plaintiffs “to pass out literature to anyone who wants it” and “if people want to stop and talk about [it], they can then explain to them what the concept of jury nullification is.” Thus, according to Plaintiffs, the Order effectively prevented them from reaching their target audience. Finally, the district court accepted the parties’ jointly stipulated exhibits, which consisted of a series of images of the Plaza and Restricted Areas, as well as a copy of the Order.

Following the evidentiary hearing, the district court granted Plaintiffs’ request for a preliminary injunction. In doing so, the district court relied on Denver’s Stipulation that the Plaza was a public forum and the Judicial District’s position that resolving the forum status was not necessary because the Order “would satisfy even the strictest test.” The district court concluded Plaintiffs had demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits because, treating the Restricted Areas as public fora, the Order’s complete ban on expressive activity was not narrowly tailored to accomplish a significant government interest.

Accordingly, the district court entered a carefully circumscribed preliminary injunction in favor of Plaintiffs. Specifically, the district court enjoined enforcement of Paragraph 1 of the Order against Plaintiffs “to the extent he or she is otherwise lawfully seeking to distribute and/or orally advocate the message contained in [Plaintiffs’ pamphlets]” in the Restricted Areas. But the district court expressly left the remainder of the Order in place.

Following entry of the preliminary injunction, the Judicial District moved to stay the injunction pending appeal pursuant to Rule 62(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. In its motion to stay, the Judicial District introduced evidence that— subsequent to entry of the preliminary injunction—protesters had “descended on the Courthouse Plaza” and engaged in a pattern of disruptive and inappropriate behavior, including erecting canopies, harassing citizens seeking to enter the Courthouse, damaging the Courthouse landscaping, yelling and taunting court personnel, and posting signs in the planters and on the flagpoles in the Plaza. The Judicial District argued that a stay of the injunction was appropriate because protesters had been “emboldened” by the injunction to violate even the portions of the Order not subject to the injunction, thereby irreparably harming the Judicial District. The district court declined to stay the injunction, finding the Judicial District had not demonstrated a likelihood of success on appeal because the harm identified was not caused by the injunction. The district court reasoned the Judicial District and Denver were free to enforce the Order against the parties engaging in the complained-of disruptive behavior because such behavior was unlawful and not protected by the narrow injunction issued by the court with respect to Plaintiffs’ activities only.

The Judicial District now appeals. Exercising jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1), we affirm.

II. DISCUSSION

On appeal, the Judicial District raises two arguments. First, it asserts the district court erred when it concluded the Plaintiffs had demonstrated a likelihood of success in establishing the Restricted Areas are public fora. Second, the Judicial District argues the district court incorrectly applied strict scrutiny when evaluating the Order. As a result, the Judicial District asks this court to reverse the district court’s entry of the preliminary injunction and remand for further proceedings.

We review the district court’s grant of a preliminary injunction for abuse of discretion. Planned Parenthood of Kan. & Mid-Mo. v. Moser, 747 F.3d 814, 822 (10th Cir. 2014). “A district court abuses its discretion when it commits an error of law or makes clearly erroneous factual findings.” Id.

A. Scope of Review

Before addressing the merits of the parties’ arguments, we pause to clarify the scope of our review. The district court granted a narrow preliminary injunction drafted to address Plaintiffs’ First Amendment concerns related to their specific expressive activities. Although Plaintiffs asked the district court to prohibit enforcement of the entire Order, the court enjoined only the first paragraph, which imposes a complete ban on First Amendment activities—picketing, pamphleteering, protesting—within the Restricted Areas. The district court left in place the rest of the Order, including the prohibitions against obstructing Courthouse entrances, erecting structures, and using sound amplification equipment in the Restricted Areas.

The district court further limited the scope of the preliminary injunction by enjoining the first paragraph of the Order only as to Plaintiffs’ specific pamphleteering activities. In fact, the court enjoined enforcement of the Order only as to Plaintiffs’ distribution and discussion of two specifically identified pamphlets. The Judicial District remains free to enforce the first paragraph of the Order—even against Plaintiffs—for all other First Amendment activities within the Restricted Areas.

Finally, the district court limited the geographic scope of the injunction. Although the Order prohibits First Amendment activity both inside and outside the Courthouse, the district court enjoined enforcement of Paragraph 1 as to Plaintiffs only outside the Courthouse, leaving the entirety of the Order intact within the Courthouse. And the district court did not enjoin enforcement of any part of the Order within those portions of the Restricted Areas dedicated to Courthouse landscaping and security features. Thus, the Order continues to prohibit all expressive activity in the planter boxes or other landscaping and in the gravel security areas. Accordingly, the features of the Restricted Area to which the preliminary injunction applies are limited to (1) the arced walkway running south from Colfax Avenue between the gravel security area (to the west of the walkway) and a raised planter (to the east of the walkway) and ending at the Patio area at the main entrance on the east side of the Courthouse; 2 and (2) the Patio area at the main entrance. 3

————–
2 As discussed, the Order’s prohibition on expressive activities in the planter and gravel security areas were not enjoined by the district court.

3 The evidence presented about the geographic layout and physical features of the Restricted Area consisted primarily of approximately fifteen photographs. Because the record contains little testimony about the photographs, we rely on our own review of them to describe the Restricted Areas. In particular, it is unclear whether and to what extent the Restricted Areas include the sidewalk running along Fox Street on the west side of the Courthouse. The exhibit appears to highlight some areas of the sidewalk, but counsel for the Judicial District conceded at oral argument that it would be “constitutionally questionable” to prevent speech on a public sidewalk, and then indicated “[t]hat is precisely why the order here does not extend that far.” Therefore, we do not treat the Fox Street sidewalk as part of the Restricted Areas for purposes of our analysis.
——————

Our task in this appeal is to determine whether the district court abused its discretion when, based on the record before it at the preliminary injunction hearing, it issued this narrow, targeted injunction. But the Judicial District asks us to consider events occurring after the preliminary injunction hearing to determine whether the district court abused its discretion in issuing the preliminary injunction. Specifically, the Judicial District points to evidence introduced during the Rule 62(c) hearing on the motion to stay the injunction pending appeal, which indicated that following the injunction, protestors had engaged in a series of inappropriate and disruptive behaviors. Some of these behaviors included harassing court personnel seeking to enter the Courthouse, erecting canopies and signs, and trampling Courthouse landscaping. According to the Judicial District, these post-injunction events demonstrate the “concrete concerns” motivating the creation of the Restricted Areas and therefore should have been considered by the district court.

Although we share the Judicial District’s concern about the disruptions created by some protestors following issuance of the injunction, these post-injunction events are not relevant to our resolution of this interlocutory appeal for two reasons. First, this evidence relates to events occurring after the preliminary injunction issued, and therefore none of it was presented to the district court at the hearing. We will not hold that the district court abused its discretion based on evidence not before it when it ruled. See Adler v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 144 F.3d 664, 671 (10th Cir. 1998) (noting the general principle, in the context of de novo review of a summary judgment disposition, that we conduct our review “from the perspective of the district court at the time it made its ruling, ordinarily limiting our review to the materials adequately brought to the attention of the district court by the parties”); Theriot v. Par. of Jefferson, 185 F.3d 477, 491 n.26 (5th Cir. 1999) (“An appellate court may not consider . . . facts which were not before the district court at the time of the challenged ruling.”). Cf. Ambus v. Granite Bd. of Educ., 975 F.2d 1555, 1569 (10th Cir. 1992) (“[W]e will not reverse the grant of summary judgment . . . based on evidence not before the district court.”). Accordingly, our review is limited to the evidence before the district court at the time of the preliminary injunction hearing, and we will not consider post-injunction events.

Second, even if we were to consider the post-decision evidence, it would not alter our analysis. The evidence the Judicial District relies on to demonstrate the negative effects of the preliminary injunction, in fact, does not implicate the injunction at all. As discussed, the preliminary injunction enjoins enforcement of Paragraph 1 of the Order specifically against Plaintiffs’ pamphleteering activities in certain parts of the Restricted Areas. The district court expressly allowed the Judicial District to continue enforcing the entire Order as to all other parties and all other First Amendment activities in the Restricted Areas. Importantly, the preliminary injunction does not affect the Judicial District’s ability to enforce the Order against any protestors, including the Plaintiffs, who engage in disruptive behaviors. For example, the injunction does not prohibit the Judicial District from taking action against protestors who obstruct Courthouse entrances, damage the Courthouse landscaping, or erect structures. All of this behavior remained prohibited by the Order after issuance of the injunction. In short, nothing in the preliminary injunction before us on appeal interferes with the Judicial District’s or Denver’s ability to enforce the Order against anyone, including Plaintiffs, engaging in such behavior.

The evidence of post-injunction bad behavior of some protestors may be relevant on remand to a motion to modify the injunction4 or to the district court’s ultimate decision on whether to issue a permanent injunction. But for the purposes of this appeal, we limit our review to the evidence before the district court at the time it issued the preliminary injunction.

—————
4 As the district court noted, the Judicial District did not move to modify the preliminary injunction based on changed circumstances. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(5) (allowing a party to obtain relief from a judgment or order when “applying [the judgment or order] prospectively is no longer equitable”); Horne v. Flores, 557 U.S. 433, 447 (2009) (noting that under Rule 60(b)(5) “[t]he party seeking relief bears the burden of establishing that changed circumstances warrant relief”).
—————

B. Abuse of Discretion

We now turn our attention to the question of whether the district court abused its discretion when it issued the preliminary injunction.

To obtain a preliminary injunction the moving party must demonstrate: (1) a likelihood of success on the merits; (2) a likelihood that the moving party will suffer irreparable harm if the injunction is not granted; (3) the balance of equities is in the moving party’s favor; and (4) the preliminary injunction is in the public interest.

Republican Party of N.M. v. King, 741 F.3d 1089, 1092 (10th Cir. 2013). In the First Amendment context, “the likelihood of success on the merits will often be the determinative factor” because of the seminal importance of the interests at stake. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. v. Sebelius, 723 F.3d 1114, 1145 (10th Cir. 2013) (internal quotation marks omitted); see also Heideman v. S. Salt Lake City, 348 F.3d 1182, 1190 (10th Cir. 2003) (“[T]he loss of First Amendment freedoms, for even minimal periods of time, unquestionably constitutes irreparable injury.”).

1. The district court did not abuse its discretion in finding the second, third, and fourth factors weighed in Plaintiffs’ favor.

Here, the district court found the second (irreparable harm), third (balance of equities), and fourth (public interest) factors weighed in Plaintiffs’ favor in light of the important First Amendment interests at stake. As an initial matter, the Judicial District has not challenged the district court’s determination as to these factors beyond a single footnote in its opening brief stating it had challenged them before the district court. A party’s offhand reference to an issue in a footnote, without citation to legal authority or reasoned argument, is insufficient to present the issue for our consideration. See San Juan Citizens All. v. Stiles, 654 F.3d 1038, 1055–56 (10th Cir. 2011). Accordingly, the Judicial District has waived any challenge to the district court’s findings related to the elements of irreparable harm, the balance of equities, and the public interest. But even if the Judicial District had properly challenged these factors on appeal, we would nevertheless affirm the district court’s conclusion that they weigh in Plaintiffs’ favor.

The Supreme Court has instructed that “[t]he loss of First Amendment freedoms, for even minimal periods of time, unquestionably constitutes irreparable injury.” Elrod v. Burns, 427 U.S. 347, 373 (1976); see also Awad v. Ziriax, 670 F.3d 1111, 1131 (10th Cir. 2012) (“[W]hen an alleged constitutional right is involved, most courts hold that no further showing of irreparable injury is necessary.”). There is no dispute that Plaintiffs’ pamphleteering constitutes First Amendment activity. See McCullen v. Coakley, 134 S. Ct. 2518, 2536 (2014) (recognizing that one-on-one communication and leafletting are First Amendment-protected activities). And the Judicial District does not dispute that the Order would bar Plaintiffs from engaging in their pamphleteering in the Restricted Areas. Accordingly, the district court did not abuse its discretion in finding that the factor of irreparable harm weighs in Plaintiffs’ favor.

The third factor—balance of equities—also tips in Plaintiffs’ favor. Before the district court, Plaintiffs proffered testimony that the Order would substantially impair their ability to convey their intended message to their target audience because it would prevent Plaintiffs from approaching potential jurors and engaging in a meaningful discussion of jury nullification. The district court also heard testimony from Mr. Steadman that Plaintiffs’ distribution of jury nullification literature and one-on-one discussions with potential jurors did not present a security risk. And the Judicial District presented no evidence that Plaintiffs’ activities otherwise interfered with Courthouse functions. On this record, the district court did not abuse its discretion in finding the balance of equities weighed in favor of Plaintiffs. See Awad, 670 F.3d at 1132 (“Delayed implementation of a [governmental] measure that does not appear to address any immediate problem will generally not cause material harm, even if the measure were eventually found to be constitutional and enforceable.”).

As to whether the preliminary injunction is in the public interest, we agree with the district court that “it is always in the public interest to prevent the violation of a party’s constitutional rights.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted); Pac. Frontier v. Pleasant Grove City, 414 F.3d 1221, 1237 (10th Cir. 2005) (“Vindicating First Amendment freedoms is clearly in the public interest.”). The district court did not abuse its discretion in finding the public interest was served by issuing the preliminary injunction to prevent the violation of Plaintiffs’ First Amendment rights.

Thus, we agree the second, third, and fourth factors weigh in Plaintiffs’ favor. The only remaining question, then, is whether the district court abused its discretion in finding Plaintiffs demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits. 5 Specifically, we must determine whether the Order violated Plaintiffs’ First Amendment right to distribute jury nullification pamphlets and engage in one-on-one conversations with individuals entering and leaving the Courthouse.

————
5 The Tenth Circuit has modified the preliminary injunction test when the moving party demonstrates that the second, third, and fourth factors “tip strongly” in its favor. See Oklahoma ex rel. Okla. Tax Comm’n v. Int’l Registration Plan, Inc., 455 F.3d 1107, 1113 (10th Cir. 2006). “In such situations, the moving party may meet the requirement for showing success on the merits by showing that questions going to the merits are so serious, substantial, difficult, and doubtful as to make the issue ripe for litigation and deserving of more deliberate investigation.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). But because we conclude the district court did not abuse its discretion in finding Plaintiffs demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits, we need not decide whether this more lenient test applies.
—–

2. On this record, the district court did not abuse its discretion in finding Plaintiffs demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits.

To demonstrate a violation of their First Amendment rights, Plaintiffs must first establish that their activities are protected by the First Amendment. See Cornelius v. NAACP Legal Def. & Educ. Fund, Inc., 473 U.S. 788, 797 (1985). If so, a court must identify whether the challenged restrictions impact a public or nonpublic forum, because that determination dictates the extent to which the government can restrict First Amendment activities within the forum. See id. Finally, courts must determine whether the proffered justifications for prohibiting speech in the forum satisfy the requisite standard of review. Id. We address each element in turn.

a. Plaintiffs’ activities are protected by the First Amendment

The Supreme Court recently reaffirmed that pamphleteering and one-on-one communications are First-Amendment-protected activities. See McCullen, 134 S. Ct. at 2536. The Court “observed that one-on-one communication is the most effective, fundamental, and perhaps economical avenue of political discourse” and that “no form of speech is entitled to greater constitutional protection” than leafletting. Id. (internal quotation marks and alteration omitted). The Court went on to state, “[w]hen the government makes it more difficult to engage in these modes of communication, it imposes an especially significant First Amendment burden.” Id. Thus, Plaintiffs’ activities are protected by the First Amendment.

b. The district court did not abuse its discretion by assuming for purposes of analysis that the Restricted Areas are public fora

To properly place the district court’s decision in context, we begin with a brief discussion of the significance of forum status to the protection afforded under the First Amendment to public speech on government property. We then review the argument presented by the Judicial District to the district court regarding the forum status of the Restricted Areas here. Because the Judicial District either made a strategic decision to forgo any argument that the Restricted Areas are nonpublic fora, or inadequately presented that argument to the district court, we conclude the argument is waived. As a result, the district court did not abuse its discretion by scrutinizing the Order under public forum analysis for purposes of the preliminary injunction motion.

Turning now to the constitutional restrictions on speech, our analysis is guided by Plaintiffs’ wish to engage in First Amendment-protected activity on government property. “Nothing in the Constitution requires the Government freely to grant access to all who wish to exercise their right to free speech on every type of Government property without regard to the nature of the property or to the disruption that might be caused by the speaker’s activities.” Cornelius, 473 U.S. at 799–800. But in some instances, the public may have acquired by tradition or prior permission the right to use government property for expressive purposes. See id. at 802. To determine when and to what extent the Government may properly limit expressive activity on its property, the Supreme Court has adopted a range of constitutional protections that varies depending on the nature of the government property, or forum. Id. at 800.

The Court has identified three types of speech fora: the traditional public forum, the designated public forum, and the nonpublic forum. Id. at 802. Traditional public fora are places that by long tradition have been open to public assembly and debate. See id.; Perry Educ. Ass’n v. Perry Local Educators’ Ass’n, 460 U.S. 37, 45 (1983) (“At one end of the spectrum are streets and parks which ‘have immemorially been held in trust for the use of the public and, time out of mind, have been used for purposes of assembly, communicating thoughts between citizens, and discussing public questions.’” (quoting Hague v. Comm. for Indus. Org., 307 U.S. 496, 515 (1939))). In these traditional public fora, the government’s right to “limit expressive activity [is] sharply circumscribed.” Id. A designated public forum is public property, not constituting a traditional public forum, which the government has intentionally opened to the public for expressive activity. Id. The government is not required to retain the open character of the property indefinitely, but “as long as it does so, it is bound by the same standards as apply in a traditional public forum.” Id. at 46. If the property is not a traditional public forum and it has not been designated as a public forum, it is a nonpublic forum. “Access to a nonpublic forum . . . can be restricted as long as the restrictions are ‘reasonable and are not an effort to suppress expression merely because public officials oppose the speaker’s view.’” 6 Cornelius, 473 U.S. at 800 (brackets omitted) (quoting Perry Educ., 460 U.S. at 46).

————
6 Not relevant to this appeal, the Supreme Court has also recognized that the government can create a “limited public forum” by allowing “selective access to some speakers or some types of speech in a nonpublic forum,” while not opening “the property sufficiently to become a designated public forum.” Summum v. Callaghan, 130 F.3d 906, 916 (10th Cir. 1997) (citing Rosenberger v. Rector & Visitors of the Univ. of Va., 515 U.S. 819, 829–30 (1995)).
—————

Because the nature of the forum dictates the standard of scrutiny with which restrictions on speech are reviewed, courts typically begin the analysis of a challenge to restrictions on speech involving government property by identifying the nature of the forum involved. See, e.g., Doe v. City of Albuquerque, 667 F.3d 1111, 1128 (10th Cir. 2012). But the procedural posture of this appeal restricts the scope of our inquiry. That is, we need not determine whether the Restricted Areas are, in fact, public or nonpublic fora to resolve this interlocutory appeal. Rather, our task is to determine whether the district court abused its discretion when it found, based on the evidence and arguments presented, that Plaintiffs had demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits. See Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. Lennen, 640 F.2d 255, 261 (10th Cir. 1981) (“It is only necessary that plaintiffs establish a reasonable probability of success, and not an ‘overwhelming’ likelihood of success, in order for a preliminary injunction to issue.”). Because the Judicial District waived any argument that the Restricted Areas are nonpublic fora, we conclude the district court did not abuse its discretion by evaluating the Plaintiffs’ likelihood of success under the scrutiny applicable to public fora.

To explain our rationale for this conclusion, we track the evolution of the Judicial District’s arguments in the district court regarding the forum status of the Restricted Areas. Plaintiffs argued in their motion for preliminary injunction that the entire Plaza, including the Restricted Areas, constitutes a traditional public forum. Denver also stipulated with Plaintiffs that the Plaza is a public forum.

In response to the motion for preliminary injunction, the Judicial District claimed Plaintiffs were unlikely to prevail on the merits of their First Amendment claim because “[i]rrespective of Denver’s view of the courthouse plaza, it is not a traditional public forum. And even if it were, the [Order] comes nowhere near banning all expressive activity in that area. To the contrary, it is a reasonable time, place, and manner restriction.” But the Judicial District did not then provide any support for its assertion that the Plaza is not a public forum. Rather, it first claimed that Plaintiffs lacked standing to challenge the Order and then continued its argument under the heading, “This Court need not decide whether the plaza is a traditional public forum for the purposes of this proceeding.” Under that heading, the Judicial District asserted that the Stipulation between the Plaintiffs and Denver did not bind the Judicial District or the district court and that therefore “[t]he status of the plaza is an open question.” But, again, rather than present argument on the correct forum status of the Plaza or ask the district court to reach a contrary conclusion, the Judicial District stated the district court need not identify the precise forum status of the Restricted Areas “because [the Order] would satisfy even the strictest test.” That is, the Judicial District claimed that “[e]ven if Plaintiffs were correct that the entire plaza is a traditional public forum,” and thus subject to a higher standard of review, the Order was constitutional as a reasonable time, place, and manner restriction. The Judicial District maintained this tactical approach through oral argument on the motion for a preliminary injunction.

After the close of evidence at the hearing on Plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction, the district court attempted to clarify the Judicial District’s position:

THE COURT: In your briefing the Attorney General took the position that it doesn’t matter whether the area in question is a public forum or a non-public forum area, because the Attorney General believes that you can establish the grounds necessary under the standards to apply in either case.

JUDICIAL DIST.: To be clear, our position is that this is not a public forum. However, that is a factually intensive question that I don’t think the Court has been presented with sufficient evidence to decide today.

THE COURT: Well, I have a stipulation from the owner of the property that it is a public forum area.

JUDICIAL DIST.: I understand that. I don’t think that binds either [the Judicial District] or this Court.

THE COURT: Well, that’s something I need to decide, right?

JUDICIAL DIST.: Not necessarily.

THE COURT: Okay. But here’s what I am getting at. Your position is, whether it’s public or non-public, you believe that the . . . Plaza Order . . . is sufficiently narrowly tailored to meet the concerns of ingress and egress to the courthouse and threat to the public safety. Is that your position?

JUDICIAL DIST.: Yes. Our position is that the order satisfies time, place, and manner requirements. . . .

The discussion then proceeded under the assumption that the Order impacted a public forum and therefore had to be narrowly tailored. Recall that the government has broad discretion to restrict expressive activity in a nonpublic forum, irrespective of whether the restrictions are narrowly tailored. Perry Educ., 460 U.S. at 46. But, as will be discussed in more detail below, even content-neutral restrictions on speech in a public forum—whether a traditional public forum or a designated public forum—must be narrowly tailored to advance a significant government interest. See id. at 45–46.

Consistent with its acquiescence to the district court’s application of a public forum analysis at the preliminary injunction stage, the Judicial District limited its oral argument on the motion for preliminary injunction to the proper definition of “narrowly- tailored.” Tellingly, the Judicial District provided no argument relevant to whether the Restricted Area was, in fact, a public forum, or that the restrictions did not have to be narrowly tailored at all because they impacted only nonpublic fora. Instead, the Judicial District conceded that the evidence was insufficient to allow the district court to determine the forum status of the Restricted Areas. But it claimed the district court could proceed to the merits under a public forum analysis nevertheless, because the result would be the same whether the Restricted Areas were public or nonpublic fora. That is, the Judicial District argued the district court could assume for purposes of analysis that the Restricted Areas are public fora. And the district court did as suggested in its Order Granting Motion for Preliminary Injunction.

In the Preliminary Injunction Order’s discussion of the likelihood that Plaintiffs will succeed on the merits, the district court discussed forum in a section titled, “Is the Courthouse Plaza a Public Forum?” In this section, the district court considered the significance of the nature of the forum, the disagreement between Denver and the Judicial District on that issue, and the Stipulation between Denver and Plaintiffs that the Restricted Areas are public fora. Relying in part on the Stipulation, the district court concluded Plaintiffs are “likely to prevail in their claim that the Courthouse Plaza is at least a designated public forum, if not a traditional public forum.” But the district court also notes “the Second Judicial District has not specifically argued for a finding that the Courthouse Plaza is a nonpublic forum. Rather, it says that ‘resolving [the type of forum at issue] is not necessary for the purposes of this proceeding because the [Plaza Order] would satisfy even the strictest test.’”

Our review of the record is consistent with the district court’s assessment of the Judicial District’s argument. During the briefing and argument to the district court in opposition to Plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary injunction, the Judicial District never provided legal argument supporting its conclusory statement that the Restricted Areas are nonpublic fora. As noted, it instead indicated the forum status of the Plaza was an open question the district court need not decide, and further conceded it was a question the district court could not decide based on the evidence presented. In sum, the Judicial District made the strategic decision to accept Plaintiffs’ characterization of the Restricted Areas as a public forum for purposes of analysis and to present only an argument that the Order is constitutional under the scrutiny applicable to restrictions of speech in public fora. And the Judicial District maintained that position throughout the district court proceedings.

The Judicial District filed a motion in the district court to stay the injunction pending appeal, in which it stated “courthouse plazas are not traditional public fora,” and cited, without further analysis, Hodge v. Talkin, 799 F.3d 1145 (D.C. Cir. 2015), a new decision at the time holding the plaza of the Supreme Court building is not a public forum. But again, the Judicial District did not seek a ruling that the Restricted Areas are nonpublic fora or provide reasoned analysis to support such a claim. Consistent with its earlier strategy, the Judicial District argued that “even if the [Courthouse Plaza] were a traditional public forum,” the district court applied the wrong level of scrutiny. Significantly, the Judicial District never claimed it could bar or reasonably restrict speech in the Restricted Areas because they were nonpublic fora; it argued the district court had erred because “[s]trict scrutiny applies only to content-based restrictions on speech in a public forum.”

For the first time on appeal, the Judicial District provides substantive argument for the claim that the Restricted Areas are nonpublic fora and, therefore, the district court should have considered only whether the content-neutral restrictions contained in the Order were reasonable. When a party pursues a new legal theory for the first time on appeal, we usually refuse to consider it. See Richison v. Ernest Grp., Inc., 634 F.3d 1123, 1127–28 (10th Cir. 2011); Lone Star Steel Co. v. United Mine Workers of Am., 851 F.2d 1239, 1243 (10th Cir. 1988) (“Ordinarily, a party may not lose in the district court on one theory of the case, and then prevail on appeal on a different theory.”).

As noted, the Judicial District was aware of the “open question” with respect to the forum status of the Restricted Areas but made the strategic decision to forgo presenting meaningful argument on this point. In its response brief to Plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary injunction filed with the district court, the Judicial District cited three cases in support of its statement that the forum question remains open. But it provided no argument incorporating those decisions into a cogent legal analysis of the Restricted Areas as nonpublic fora. See United States v. Wooten, 377 F.3d 1134, 1145 (10th Cir. 2004) (“The court will not consider such issues adverted to in a perfunctory manner, unaccompanied by some effort at developed argumentation.” (internal quotation marks omitted)). And although forum status is a fact-intensive inquiry, the Judicial District failed to explain how the particular facts here color that analysis. Cf. Fed. R. App. P. 28(a)(8)(A) (providing that appellant’s opening brief must contain an argument section that includes “appellant’s contentions and the reasons for them, with citations to the authorities and parts of the record on which the appellant relies”).

Thus, the Judicial District has waived this issue, at least for purposes of our review of the preliminary injunction order. Richison, 634 F.3d at 1127 (explaining that if a party intentionally chooses not to pursue an argument before the district court, “we usually deem it waived and refuse to consider it”). 7 And the forum status issue is not properly before us even if we generously conclude the Judicial District presented alternative arguments to the district court that (1) the Restricted Areas are not public fora; or (2) even if the Restricted Areas are public fora, the Order can survive the applicable level of scrutiny. Although the Judicial District presented cogent legal argument on the second issue, it failed to present reasoned argument on the first to the district court. See Ark Initiative v. U.S. Forest Serv., 660 F.3d 1256, 1263 (10th Cir. 2011) (holding that the “scant discussion” of an issue in the district court “appear[ed] as an afterthought, and [did] not meet the standard for preserving an issue for review”).

—————
7 Even if this argument had been merely forfeited, it would nevertheless be an inappropriate basis for reversal because the Judicial District has not argued plain error. See Richison v. Ernest Grp., Inc., 634 F.3d 1123, 1131 (10th Cir. 2011) (“And the failure to do so —the failure to argue for plain error and its application on appeal— surely marks the end of the road for an argument for reversal not first presented to the district court.”). Nor are we inclined to exercise our discretion to consider the forum status issue despite the failure to raise it to the district court because we agree with the Judicial District that the preliminary injunction record is inadequate for that purpose. Cf. Cox v. Glanz, 800 F.3d 1231, 1244–45 (10th Cir. 2015) (exercising discretion to consider forfeited argument on “clearly established” prong of qualified immunity).
———————

Our conclusion that the Judicial District failed to adequately present this issue to the district court is further supported by the district court’s view that “the Second Judicial District ha[d] not specifically argued for a finding that the Courthouse Plaza is a nonpublic forum.” Id. (“Not surprisingly, the district court never addressed” the issue.). Accordingly, the argument that the Restricted Areas are nonpublic fora was waived either by the Judicial District’s strategic decision not to present it, or by the Judicial District’s failure to adequately brief the issue. As such, the district court’s application of a public forum analysis is not a legitimate ground on which to reverse the preliminary injunction order.

We now address the only other challenge the Judicial District makes to the preliminary injunction: that the district court abused its discretion by applying the wrong test, even if the Restricted Areas are public fora.

c. The district court did not apply the wrong standard to the content-neutral restrictions imposed by the Order

Having determined the district court did not abuse its discretion by treating the Restricted Areas as public fora for purposes of analysis, we next consider whether the district court abused its discretion when it found Plaintiffs had demonstrated a likelihood of success on the question of whether the Order violated their constitutional rights under the relevant First Amendment standards. 8 In a public forum, the government cannot ban all expressive activity. Perry Educ., 460 U.S. at 45. But even in a public forum, the government can restrict speech through “content-neutral time, place, and manner restrictions that: (a) serve a significant government interest; (b) are narrowly tailored to advance that interest; and (c) leave open ample alternative channels of communication.” Doe, 667 F.3d at 1130–31. Content-based restrictions, however, “must satisfy strict scrutiny, that is, the restriction must be narrowly tailored to serve a compelling government interest.” Summum, 555 U.S. at 469.

The Judicial District argues the district court abused its discretion by applying an incorrect legal standard. Specifically, the Judicial District contends the district court applied the stringent strict scrutiny analysis reserved for content-based restrictions. And because the Order imposes only content-neutral restrictions, the Judicial District claims this was an abuse of discretion. Although we agree the restrictions are content-neutral, we are not convinced the district court applied the more stringent standard applicable to content-based restrictions.

The district court explained that under the relevant standard, “[t]he state may . . . enforce regulations of the time, place, and manner of expression which [1] are content- neutral, [2] are narrowly tailored to serve a significant government interest, and [3] leave open ample alternative channels of communication.” On its face, then, the district court appears to have invoked the correct legal standard. Cf. Doe, 667 F.3d at 1130–31 (same). Nevertheless, the Judicial District argues that in considering whether the restrictions are “narrowly tailored,” the district court inappropriately applied the more demanding standard applicable to content-based regulations.

————
8 “Government restrictions on speech in a designated public forum are subject to the same strict scrutiny as restrictions in a traditional public forum.” Pleasant Grove City v. Summum, 555 U.S. 460, 470 (2009). Thus, our analysis does not turn on whether the Restricted Areas are considered traditional or designated public fora.
——————

The term “narrowly tailored” appears in the tests for both content-based and content-neutral regulations on speech. See Doe, 667 F.3d at 1130–31 (indicating a content-neutral regulation must be “narrowly tailored” to advance a significant government interest); Pleasant Grove, 555 U.S. at 469 (stating that content-based restrictions “must be narrowly tailored to serve a compelling government interest”) (emphasis added)). And, as the Judicial District correctly notes, there are subtle differences in the way courts apply the concept of narrow tailoring in the two contexts. For the purposes of a content-neutral regulation, “the requirement of narrow tailoring is satisfied so long as the regulation promotes a substantial government interest that would be achieved less effectively absent the regulation, and does not burden substantially more speech than is necessary to further the government’s legitimate interests.” Wells v. City & Cty. of Denver, 257 F.3d 1132, 1148 (10th Cir. 2001) (ellipsis and internal quotation marks omitted). In contrast, a content-based restriction is narrowly tailored only if it is the least restrictive means of achieving the government’s compelling objective. See Ashcroft v. ACLU, 542 U.S. 656, 666 (2004); United States v. Playboy Entm’t Grp., Inc., 529 U.S. 803, 813 (2000).

According to the Judicial District, the district court considered alternatives to the Order that might have been employed to achieve the Judicial District’s objectives, and such consideration proves the district court applied the “least restrictive means” standard. In the Judicial District’s view, any inquiry into alternative means of achieving the government objective is inappropriate where, like here, the restrictions are content-neutral, rather than content-based, and thus not subject to the least restrictive alternative form of narrow tailoring. We disagree.

The Supreme Court has not discouraged courts from considering alternative approaches to achieving the government’s goals when determining whether a content- neutral regulation is narrowly tailored to advance a significant government interest. Although the Court has held that a content-neutral regulation “need not be the least restrictive or least intrusive means of serving the government’s interests,” it has also explained that “the government still may not regulate expression in such a manner that a substantial portion of the burden on speech does not serve to advance its goals.” McCullen, 134 S. Ct. at 2535 (internal quotation marks omitted). And when considering content-neutral regulations, the Court itself has examined possible alternative approaches to achieving the government’s objective to determine whether the government’s chosen approach burdens substantially more speech than necessary. Id. at 2537–39. That is, the government may not “forgo[] options that could serve its interests just as well,” if those options would avoid “substantially burdening the kind of speech in which [Plaintiffs’] wish to engage.” Id. at 2537; id. at 2539 (“The point is not that [the government] must enact all or even any of the proposed [alternative approaches]. The point is instead that the [government] has available to it a variety of approaches that appear capable of serving its interests, without excluding individuals from areas historically open for speech and debate.”). Thus, “[t]o meet the requirement of narrow tailoring [in the context of content-neutral regulations], the government must demonstrate that alternative measures that burden substantially less speech would fail to achieve the government’s interests, not simply that the chosen route is easier.” Id. at 2540.

As a result, we cannot conclude the district court applied the wrong legal standard merely because it considered whether the Judicial District had options other than the complete ban on speech contained in Paragraph 1 of the Order that would equally serve its interests. We now turn our attention to whether, under the standard applicable to content-neutral regulations in a public forum, the district court abused its discretion when it found Plaintiffs had demonstrated a likelihood of success on the question of whether the Order survives constitutional scrutiny.

d. The district court did not abuse its discretion by concluding that Plaintiffs were likely to succeed on the merits

As discussed, for purposes of the preliminary injunction analysis, the Judicial District acquiesced in the district court’s acceptance of Plaintiffs’ characterization, and Denver’s Stipulation, that the Restricted Areas are public fora. Under that assumption, we can easily conclude the district court did not abuse its discretion in finding Plaintiffs were likely to succeed on their claim that a complete ban of their expressive activities violates the First Amendment. Our resolution of this issue is informed by the Supreme Court’s recent decision in McCullen, which is highly analogous.

In McCullen, the Supreme Court considered the constitutionality of a state law creating thirty-five-foot buffer zones around the entrances of facilities where abortions are performed. Id. at 2525. The McCullen plaintiffs wished to approach and talk to women outside such facilities —to engage in “sidewalk counseling”— in an attempt to dissuade the women from obtaining abortions. Id. at 2527. The buffer zones forced the McCullen plaintiffs away from their preferred positions outside the clinics’ entrances, thereby hampering their sidewalk counseling efforts. Id. at 2527–28. The McCullen plaintiffs brought suit, arguing the buffer zones restricted their First Amendment rights and seeking to enjoin enforcement of the statute creating the buffer zones. Id. at 2528. After the First Circuit upheld the statute as a reasonable content-neutral time, place, and manner restriction, the Supreme Court granted certiorari. Id.

The Court began its analysis by recognizing that the buffer-zone statute operated to restrict speech in traditional public fora: streets and sidewalks. Id. at 2529. It then held the buffer-zone statute was a content-neutral restriction because violations of the act depended not on what the plaintiffs said, but on where they said it. Id. at 2531 (“Indeed, petitioners can violate the Act merely by standing in a buffer zone, without displaying a sign or uttering a word.”). The Court then proceeded to apply the test for content-neutral restrictions in a public forum, assessing whether the buffer-zone statute was “narrowly tailored to serve a significant governmental interest.” Id. at 2534. Because the plaintiffs had not challenged the significance of the government’s asserted interests, the Court’s analysis largely focused on the question of whether the statute was narrowly tailored to serve that interest.

The Court noted the buffer zones placed serious burdens on the plaintiffs’ speech activities. Id. at 2535. Specifically, by preventing the plaintiffs from engaging in quiet, one-on-one conversations about abortion and distributing literature, the buffer zones “operate[d] to deprive petitioners of their two primary methods of communicating with patients.” Id. at 2536. Although the First Amendment does not guarantee a right to any particular form of speech, the Supreme Court explained that some forms of speech -one-on-one conversation and leafletting on public sidewalks— “have historically been more closely associated with the transmission of ideas than others.” Id. The Court held that “[w]hen the government makes it more difficult to engage in [one-on-one communication and leafletting], it imposes an especially significant First Amendment burden.” Id.

The Court also rejected the idea that the buffer zones were constitutional because they left ample alternative channels for communication. Id. at 2536–37. In McCullen, the size of the buffer zone made it difficult to distinguish persons headed to the clinic from passersby “in time to initiate a conversation before they enter[ed] the buffer zone.” Id. at 2535. As a result, the plaintiffs were often forced to raise their voices from outside the buffer zone once they identified the clinic patients, thereby forcing a mode of communication contrary to their compassionate message and preventing them from distributing pamphlets. Id. at 2535-36. Where the plaintiffs wished to engage in quiet conversations with women seeking abortions and not in noisy protest speech, the Court held it was “no answer to say that petitioners can still be ‘seen and heard’ by women within the buffer zones.” Id. at 2537. Instead, the Supreme Court concluded the thirty-five foot buffer zones had “effectively stifled petitioners’ message” by prohibiting the plaintiffs’ chosen means of communication. Id.

Finally, the Court held the buffer zones burdened substantially more speech than necessary to achieve the state’s asserted interests in public safety, preventing harassment of women and clinic staff seeking entrance to clinics, and preventing deliberate obstruction of clinic entrances. Id. Although the Court acknowledged the importance of these interests, it determined the state’s chosen method of achieving them —categorically excluding most individuals from the buffer zones— was not narrowly tailored. Id. at 2537–41. That is, the Court held the government had not demonstrated “that alternative measures that burden substantially less speech would fail to achieve the government’s interests.” Id. at 2540. In so doing, the Court expressly rejected the argument that the government could choose a particular means of achieving its interests merely because that method was easier to administer. Id.

Here, the Order imposes substantially similar restrictions on Plaintiffs’ First Amendment activities as the buffer-zone statute did in McCullen. Specifically, the Order imposes a categorical ban on First Amendment activity within the Restricted Areas. This ban effectively destroys Plaintiffs’ ability to engage in one-on-one communication and leafletting within the Restricted Areas. And the record is silent on whether Plaintiff could adequately identify and thereby engage in their preferred method of communication before the public entered the Restricted Areas. Where the district court’s preliminary injunction analysis was based on a public forum analysis and the record does not contain facts to distinguish McCullen, we cannot conclude that the district court abused its discretion in finding that the Plaintiffs are likely to succeed on the merits of their First Amendment claim.

Moreover, the Judicial District’s asserted interests in banning First Amendment activity in the Restricted Areas are largely identical to the government interests asserted in McCullen: unhindered ingress and egress and public safety. See id. We agree these interests are legitimate. But on this record at least, the district court did not abuse its discretion in concluding the means chosen to achieve those interests —a total ban on expressive activity— is not narrowly tailored, as even content-neutral regulations in a public forum must be. 9

————–
9 This is not to say that the Judicial District cannot impose content-neutral time, place, and manner restrictions that are narrowly-tailored to advance the significant interests it identifies. Indeed, several of the provisions contained in the Order were not enjoined by the district court. As one example, paragraph 4 of the Order prohibits the use of sound amplification equipment. This type of content-neutral restriction has long been upheld. See Ward v. Rock Against Racism, 491 U.S. 781, 796–97 (1989).
——————

In summary, the district court did not abuse its discretion by analyzing the issues at the preliminary injunction stage as if the Restricted Areas were public fora, or by considering alternative means of achieving the governmental interests in determining whether the Order is narrowly tailored to serve a significant government interest. Similarly, the district court did not abuse its discretion by finding Plaintiffs were likely to prevail on their claim that the complete prohibition of Plaintiffs’ plans to distribute pamphlets to people in a public forum is unconstitutional. See United States v. Apel, __ U.S. __, 134 S. Ct. 1144, 1154–55 (2014) (Ginsburg, J., concurring) (“When the Government permits the public onto part of its property, in either a traditional or designated public forum, its ‘ability to permissibly restrict expressive conduct is very limited.’” (quoting United States v. Grace, 461 U.S. 171, 177 (1983)).

Nevertheless, because the question of the forum status of the Restricted Areas will remain central to the district court’s permanent injunction analysis on remand, we now address principles relevant to the resolution of this issue. See Cook v. Rockwell Int’l Corp., 618 F.3d 1127, 1142 n.15 (10th Cir. 2010) (“[I]t is proper to . . . decide questions of law raised in this appeal that are certain to arise again . . . in order to guide the district court on remand.”). In doing so, we express no opinion as to the merits of that question.

C. Issues on Remand

To determine whether a permanent injunction should be granted, the district court must reach a final decision on the First Amendment issues in this case. Because the relevant First Amendment test varies according to the nature of the forum involved and because the Judicial District will presumably contest Plaintiffs’ characterization of the Restricted Areas as public fora, the district court is required to first determine the forum status of the Restricted Areas. In resolving this question, the parties must present evidence, and the district court must enter factual findings supporting its conclusion, that each of the Restricted Areas constitutes a traditional public forum, a designated public forum, or a nonpublic forum. See, e.g., Huminski v. Corsones, 396 F.3d 53, 90–92 (2d Cir. 2004) (separately considering the forum status of state courthouses, court lands/grounds, and parking lots); Sammartano v. First Judicial Dist. Ct., 303 F.3d 959, 966–68 (9th Cir. 2002) (concluding plaintiffs were likely to succeed on First Amendment challenge to rule restricting expressive clothing in municipal complex, including courtrooms, because the rule “does not differentiate between courtrooms and other public areas”), abrogated on other grounds by Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7 (2008); United States v. Gilbert, 920 F.2d 878, 884 (11th Cir. 1991) (Gilbert I) (holding portions of courthouse grounds were designated public fora, while other parts of the grounds were nonpublic fora). We summarize the relevant precedent on these issues now in an attempt to aid the district court and the parties in this task on remand. In addition, we provide some limited guidance to the district court and the parties on the tension between the Judicial District and Denver over the appropriate use of the Restricted Areas.

1. Traditional Public Fora

The Supreme Court has long recognized “that public places historically associated with the free exercise of expressive activities, such as streets, sidewalks, and parks, are considered, without more, to be public forums.” United States v. Grace, 461 U.S. 171, 177 (1983) (internal quotation marks omitted); see also Perry Educ. Ass’n v. Perry Local Educators’ Ass’n, 460 U.S. 37, 45 (1983) (identifying as “quintessential” public fora those spaces that “time out of mind[] have been used for purposes of assembly, communicating thoughts between citizens, and discussing public questions”). Here, the Restricted Areas include the arced walkway that runs from the corner of Elati Street and Colfax Avenue in a curved path across the front of the Courthouse to the Patio in front of the main entrance to the Courthouse. The inclusion of this area raises at least a question concerning its status as traditional a public forum.

The Supreme Court has also cautioned, however, that not all streets and sidewalks are traditional public fora. See United States v. Kokinda, 497 U.S. 720, 727 (1990) (discussing a postal sidewalk “constructed solely to provide for the passage of individuals engaged in postal business” from the parking area to the post office door); Greer v. Spock, 424 U.S. 828, 835–37 (1976) (speech restrictions on a military reservation that contained streets and sidewalks). Instead, the particular characteristics of a sidewalk are highly relevant to the inquiry. See Grace, 461 U.S. at 179–80. “The mere physical characteristics of the property cannot dictate” the outcome of the forum analysis. Kokinda, 497 U.S. at 727. Rather, “the location and purpose of a publicly owned sidewalk is critical to determining whether such a sidewalk constitutes a public forum.” Id. at 728–29.

The Supreme Court’s discussion in Grace is likely to be of particular relevance on remand. In Grace, the Court considered whether a federal statute prohibiting expressive activities on the Supreme Court’s grounds could be constitutionally applied to the adjacent public sidewalks. 461 U.S. at 172–73. The Court found the public sidewalks along the perimeter of the grounds were physically indistinguishable from other public sidewalks in Washington, D.C. Id. at 179. “There is no separation, no fence, and no indication whatever to persons stepping from the street to the curb and sidewalks that serve as the perimeter of the Court grounds that they have entered some special type of enclave.” Id. at 180. See also Int’l Soc’y for Krishna Consciousness, Inc. v. Lee, 505 U.S. 672, 680 (1992) (“[W]e have recognized that the location of property also has a bearing [on whether it is a traditional public forum] because separation from acknowledged public areas may serve to indicate that the separated property is a special enclave, subject to greater restriction.”). In the absence of some physical distinction between typical public sidewalks and the sidewalks making up the perimeter of the Court grounds, the Court in Grace held the perimeter sidewalks were traditional public fora, subject only to those restrictions normally allowed in such spaces. 461 U.S. at 180. Thus, on remand here, the district court must determine whether the evidence supports a finding that the arced walkway is physically distinguishable from other public sidewalks.

But the physical similarity to public sidewalks is not alone determinative of these sidewalks’ forum status. In Kokinda, the Supreme Court held that a sidewalk owned by and in front of a United States Post Office was not a traditional public forum, despite the fact that it was physically identical to a public sidewalk across the parking lot from the post office entrance. 497 U.S. at 727. The Court reasoned the post office sidewalk did not share the characteristics of a sidewalk open to the public at large. Although the public sidewalk formed a public passageway that served as a general thoroughfare, in contrast, “the postal sidewalk was constructed solely to provide for the passage of individuals engaged in postal business.” Id. As a result, the Court held the postal sidewalk was not a traditional public forum. Id. at 729–30. Accordingly, the evidence and findings of fact on remand should be focused on the physical characteristics and the intended and actual use of any sidewalks included in the Restricted Areas.

Importantly, the mere fact a sidewalk abuts a courthouse or its grounds is not determinative of the forum status of the sidewalk. 10 The Grace Court expressly rejected the idea that a traditional public forum could be transformed into a nonpublic forum merely because of its physical proximity to government property. 461 U.S. at 180. The Court stated

[t]raditional public forum property occupies a special position in terms of First Amendment protection and will not lose its historically recognized character for the reason that it abuts government property that has been dedicated to a use other than as a forum for public expression. Nor may the government transform the character of the property by the expedient of including it within the statutory definition of what might be considered a non-public forum parcel of property.

Id.; see also Rodney A. Smolla, 1 Smolla & Nimmer on Freedom of Speech § 8:32 (“With the development of modern public forum doctrine, courts increasingly have come to recognize that they are not immune from the rules set down for other public property.”). In Grace, the Supreme Court concluded, “[w]e are convinced . . . that the [statute], which totally bans the specified communicative activity on the public sidewalks around the Court grounds, cannot be justified as a reasonable place restriction primarily because it has an insufficient nexus with any of the public interests [asserted].” 461 U.S. at 181. Similarly, the fact that the arced walkway abuts the Courthouse here is not determinative alone of its forum status.

——————
10 The cases relied on by the Judicial District do not support the blanket proposition that all courthouse grounds are automatically nonpublic fora merely because they physically abut a courthouse. Rather, these cases first conclude the grounds are not a traditional public forum and then carefully consider the physical characteristics of the government property, as well as the prior use of that property for expressive activities, to determine its forum status. See Huminski v. Corsones, 396 F.3d 53, 90–92 (2d Cir. 2004) (holding courthouses were nonpublic fora where buildings housing the courts had not been traditionally open to the public for expressive activities and such activities inside the courthouse would likely be incompatible with the purposes the courthouse serves); Sammartano v. First Judicial Dist. Ct., 303 F.3d 959, 966 (9th Cir. 2002) (holding civil complex, including courts and public offices had not “by long tradition or by government fiat” been open to public expression and agreeing with parties that it was a nonpublic forum), abrogated on other grounds by Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7 (2008). See also United States v. Gilbert (Gilbert I), 920 F.2d 878, 884–85 (11th Cir. 1991) (considering prior expressive activities on different areas of court grounds and holding some portions had been designated as public fora, while other parts of the grounds were nonpublic fora).
——————

The district court will also be required to decide the forum status of the Patio before it can apply the proper standard to restrictions on expressive activity in that Restricted Area. The D.C. Circuit recently applied the Court’s forum analysis in Grace to the question of whether the plaza in front of the Supreme Court was a traditional public forum. See Hodge v. Talkin, 799 F.3d 1145, 1158 (D.C. Cir. 2015), petition for cert. filed, 84 U.S.L.W. 3388 (U.S. Jan. 4, 2016) (No. 15-863). The court’s analysis focused on the plaza’s physical characteristics, emphasizing the architectural integration of the plaza with the Supreme Court building itself, as well as the physical separation between the plaza and the perimeter sidewalks. Id. at 1158–59. In particular, the D.C. Circuit relied on evidence that the Supreme Court plaza is elevated from the public sidewalk by a set of marble steps that contrast with the public sidewalk, but match the steps leading to the entrance of the Supreme Court building. It also relied on evidence that the plaza is surrounded by a low wall that matches the wall surrounding the Supreme Court building. Id. at 1158. According to the court, a visitor would be on notice that the pathway to the Supreme Court begins on the plaza. Id. Because the physical characteristics of the plaza indicated an intentional separation from the surrounding sidewalks and because the plaza had not traditionally been a space open for expressive activities, the D.C. Circuit held the Supreme Court plaza was a nonpublic forum. Id. at 1159–60.

Here, the parties should present evidence and the district court should make findings about the physical characteristics of the arced walkway and Patio, with attention to the ways in which each is distinguished from public sidewalks and the public areas of the Plaza. Specifically, the district court should consider whether it would be apparent to a visitor that by entering the Patio he is entering an enclave connected with the Courthouse and whether the use of the arced walkway is limited to courthouse ingress and egress.

?2. Designated Public Fora

If the district court finds that one or more of the Restricted Areas is not a traditional public forum, it must next consider whether the Restricted Area has been nevertheless designated as public fora. The Supreme Court has explained that “a government entity may create ‘a designated public forum’ if government property that has not traditionally been regarded as a public forum is intentionally opened up for that purpose.” Pleasant Grove City v. Summum, 555 U.S. 460, 469 (2009) (holding that placement of certain privately donated permanent monuments in public park while rejecting others constituted government, not public, speech). To create a designated public forum, “the government must make an affirmative choice to open up its property for use as a public forum.” United States v. Am. Library Ass’n, Inc., 539 U.S. 194, 206 (2003) (holding that library’s provision of internet access did not open a designated public forum, but was offered as a technological extension of its book collection). The Court has further cautioned that “[t]he government does not create a public forum by inaction or by permitting limited discourse, but only by intentionally opening a nontraditional forum for public discourse.” Cornelius v. NAACP Legal Def. & Educ. Fund, 473 U.S. 788, 802 (1985). See also Walker v. Tex. Div., Sons of Confederate Veterans, Inc., ___ U.S. ___, 135 S. Ct. 2239, 2249–50 (2015) (holding that Texas did not intentionally open its license plates to public discourse). Thus, the government’s intent is the focus of this inquiry. See Cornelius, 473 U.S. at 802; see also Gen. Media Commc’ns, Inc. v. Cohen, 131 F.3d 273, 279 (2d Cir. 1997) (“Governmental intent is said to be the ‘touchstone’ of forum analysis.”), as corrected and reported at 1997 U.S. App. LEXIS 40571, *15 (March 25, 1998).

The Supreme Court has further instructed that it “will not find that a public forum has been created in the face of clear evidence of a contrary intent, nor will [it] infer that the government intended to create a public forum when the nature of the property is inconsistent with expressive activity.” Cornelius, 473 U.S. at 803. If the “principal function of the property would be disrupted by expressive activity,” the Supreme Court is “particularly reluctant” to conclude the government designated it as a public forum. Id. at 804. Consequently, prohibitions on speech within a courthouse have been routinely upheld. 11 See, e.g., Hodge, 799 F.3d at 1158 (upholding statute banning expressive activities within Supreme Court building); Mezibov v. Allen, 411 F.3d 712, 718 (6th Cir. 2005) (“The courtroom is a nonpublic forum.”); Huminski, 396 F.3d at 91 (collecting cases and holding that the interior of a courthouse is not a public forum); Sefick v. Gardner, 164 F.3d 370, 372 (7th Cir. 1998) (“The lobby of the courthouse is not a traditional public forum or a designated public forum, not a place open to the public for the presentation of views. No one can hold a political rally in the lobby of a federal courthouse.”); Berner v. Delahanty, 129 F.3d 20, 26 (1st Cir. 1997) (holding that courtroom is a nonpublic forum).

———–
11 The preliminary injunction here does not enjoin the Order’s restrictions on speech within the Courthouse.
—————

Under facts similar to those here, the Seventh Circuit held the plaintiffs had no First Amendment right to distribute jury nullification pamphlets in the lobby of the county courthouse. Braun v. Baldwin, 346 F.3d 761, 764 (7th Cir. 2003) (“[Plaintiffs] have no greater right than a criminal defendant’s lawyer to tell jurors in the courthouse to disobey the judge’s instructions.” (emphasis added)). See also United States v. Ogle, 613 F.2d 233 (10th Cir. 1979) (upholding conviction for jury tampering where the defendant, who did not raise a First Amendment defense, attempted to have jury nullification literature delivered to a juror in a pending case).

Although there is little doubt the interior of a courthouse is a nonpublic forum, the forum status of a courthouse’s exterior is dependent upon the unique facts involved. Compare Grace, 461 U.S. at 182 (acknowledging “necessity to protect persons and property or to maintain proper order and decorum within the Supreme Court grounds,” but striking as unconstitutional a ban on expressive activities on abutting sidewalks), with Cox v. Louisiana, 379 U.S. 559, 562–64, 572–74 (1965) (upholding statute prohibiting demonstration outside a courthouse intended to affect the outcome of pending criminal charges, but reversing defendant’s conviction pursuant to the statute under the circumstances). In determining whether the government “intended to designate a place not traditionally open to assembly and debate as a public forum,” the Supreme Court “has looked to the policy and practice of the government and to the nature of the property and its compatibility with expressive activity.” Walker, 135 S. Ct. at 2250 (internal quotation marks omitted).

Applying these principles, the Eleventh Circuit reached contrary conclusions regarding different portions of the grounds of a federal building housing a federal district court and federal agencies. Gilbert I, 902 F.2d at 884. In Gilbert I, the plaintiff challenged an injunction prohibiting him from using the federal building as his home and from engaging in certain expressive activities in and around the building. The ground level of the federal building included an interior lobby and, outside the lobby doors, a covered portico leading to an uncovered plaza. Id. at 880–81. Because demonstrations had occurred frequently on the uncovered plaza, the Eleventh Circuit held the uncovered plaza had been designated as a public forum. In contrast, it determined the covered portico area was not a public forum. In reaching that conclusion, the court relied in part on the district court’s finding that the Government Services Agency (GSA) had an unwritten policy of excluding demonstrators from the covered portico. Although there was evidence demonstrators had occasionally used the portico during protest activities, the Eleventh Circuit relied on the district court’s finding that these were “isolated instances of undiscovered violations” of the GSA policy and not the intentional “opening of a nontraditional forum for public discourse.” 12 Id. at 884–85.

———————
12 After the Eleventh Circuit issued this decision, an unrelated security issue caused the GSA to place a row of planters across the uncovered plaza and to issue a statement limiting the public forum to the area between the planters and the public street. Mr. Gilbert again sued and the circuit court upheld the district court’s ruling that the GSA had effectively withdrawn the area between the planters and the building previously designated as a public forum. See United States v. Gilbert (Gilbert III), 130 F.3d 1458, 1461 (11th Cir. 1997) (“The government is not required to retain indefinitely the open character of a facility.”). Between Gilbert I and Gilbert III, the Eleventh Circuit upheld Mr. Gilbert’s conviction for obstructing the entrance to the federal building. United States v. Gilbert (Gilbert II), 47 F.3d 1116, 1117 (11th Cir. 1995).
————————————

As the decision in Gilbert I demonstrates, the issue of whether an area associated with a courthouse has been designated as a public or nonpublic forum is highly dependent on the evidence of the government’s intent to open the area to public speech. That intent can be established by the government’s policy statements, 13 affirmative actions by the government to designate the area as a public forum, 14 stipulation, 15 the compatibility of expressive activity with the principal function of the property, 16 and whether and the frequency with which public speech has been permitted in the forum. 17 To avoid post hoc justification for a desire to suppress a particular message, courts have considered the government’s statement of policy in light of the government’s actual practice. Air Line Pilots Ass’n, Int’l v. Dep’t of Aviation of City of Chi., 45 F.3d 1144, 1153–54 (7th Cir. 1995) (“[A] court must examine the actual policy —as gleaned from the consistent practice with regard to various speakers— to determine whether a state intended to create a designated public forum.”); Hays Cty. Guardian v. Supple, 969 F.2d 111, 117–18 (5th Cir. 1992) (“[T]he government’s policy is indicated by its consistent practice, not each exceptional regulation that departs from the consistent practice.”). Accordingly, forum status is an inherently factual inquiry about the government’s intent and the surrounding circumstances that requires the district court to make detailed factual findings. See Stewart v. D. C. Armory Bd., 863 F.2d 1013, 1018 (D.C. Cir. 1988) (holding that “identifying the government’s intent . . . raises inherently factual issues that cannot be resolved on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion”); Air Line Pilots, 45 F.3d at 1154 (same). And the ultimate question is whether the facts indicate the government intended to open a nontraditional forum to expressive activity. See Cornelius, 473 U.S. at 802 (“The government does not create a public forum by inaction or by permitting limited discourse, but only by intentionally opening a nontraditional forum for public discourse.”).

——————————
13 Church on the Rock v. City of Albuquerque, 84 F.3d 1273, 1276-77 (10th Cir. 1996) (relying on senior citizen center policies to determine forum status of senior centers); Paulsen v. County of Nassau, 925 F.2d 65, 69 (2d Cir. 1991) (relying on county charter and local law as indicia of county’s intent to dedicate coliseum to a broad array of public and expressive purposes); Gilbert I, 920 F.2d at 884 (relying on unwritten GSA policy banning demonstrations from the covered portico).

14 Church on the Rock, 84 F.3d at 1278 (holding that senior centers were designated as public fora because the city had “permitted lectures and classes on a broad range of subjects by both members and non-members”); Huminski, 396 F.3d at 91 (holding courthouse parking lot is not a public forum because there was no evidence the government did anything to designate it as such).

15 Grider v. Abramson, 180 F.3d 739, 748 n.11 (6th Cir. 1999) (relying on stipulation of the parties that courthouse steps are a public forum).

16 Paulsen, 925 F.3d at 70 (holding that coliseum grounds are a public forum, in part, because the property can accommodate a wide variety of expressive activity without threatening the government function of the facility); Greer v. Spock, 424 U.S. 828, 835– 37 (1976) (holding military reservation is not a public forum); Adderley v. Florida, 385 U.S. 39, 47 (1966) (same as to jailhouse).

17 Widmar v. Vincent, 454 U.S. 263, 267-68 (1981) (holding university’s policy of accommodating student meetings created a forum generally open for student use); Paulsen, 925 F.3d at 70 (“The grounds of the Coliseum have been used for parades, political rallies and speeches, religious weddings and circuses. . . . Routinely, banners have been displayed by patrons . . . . Significantly, . . . many groups, including war veterans, the Christian Joy Fellowship and the Salvation Army, were regularly permitted to solicit contributions or distribute literature.”); Gilbert I, 920 F.2d at 884 (holding that unenclosed plaza of a federal building that houses courtrooms has been opened by the government as a public forum because “[d]emonstrations occur there on a frequent basis,” but holding covered portico was not opened as a public forum because occasional demonstrations there were undetected violations of GSA policy).
—————————————————

3. Disagreement Over Opening the Restricted Areas as Public Fora

Here, the issue of the government’s intent is complicated by the disagreement between Denver and the Judicial District about the forum status of the Restricted Areas.

According to Denver, it intended to and did open all areas of the Plaza, including those within the Restricted Areas, to the public for expressive activity. In fact, Denver (one of the Defendants) entered into a Stipulation to this effect with Plaintiffs. Cf. Grider v. Abramson, 180 F.3d 739, 748 n.11 (6th Cir. 1999) (noting that parties had stipulated that courthouse steps are a public forum). In contrast, the Judicial District argues Denver’s Stipulation that the entire Plaza is a public forum cannot control the status of the Restricted Areas because Colorado law vests the judicial branch with inherent authority to regulate state courthouses. As such, the Judicial District asserts that its intent —not Denver’s— should control the forum status of the Restricted Areas.

This argument between Defendants raises difficult and novel questions about the intersection between a government property owner’s power to designate its property as a public forum and the rights of the occupant of the government property —in this case another governmental entity— to use that property without interference. The parties have not directed us to any authority addressing the question of whose intent controls when two governmental entities disagree about the status of the same forum, and our own research has not revealed any decision precisely on point. But a review of the evolution of the Supreme Court’s doctrine on speech forums reveals some fundamental principles that may guide resolution of this difficult question.

The Supreme Court has not always recognized a First Amendment right of the public to use publicly owned property for expressive purposes. Indeed, the Court’s early jurisprudence recognized the absolute right of the government to exclude the public from using its property. See Davis v. Massachusetts, 167 U.S. 43, 46–47 (1897); see also Geoffrey R. Stone, Fora Americana: Speech in Public Places, 1974 Sup. Ct. Rev. 233, 236–37 (discussing the Supreme Court’s early forum jurisprudence). In Davis, the Court considered a First Amendment challenge to a Boston city ordinance forbidding “any public address” on public property “except in accordance with a permit from the mayor.” 167 U.S. at 44. The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts had affirmed a preacher’s conviction for violating the ordinance by preaching on Boston Common without first obtaining a permit from the mayor, stating “[f]or the Legislature absolutely or conditionally to forbid public speaking in a highway or public park is no more an infringement of the rights of a member of the public than for the owner of a private house to forbid it in his house.” Id. at 47 (quoting Commonwealth v. Davis, 39 N.E. 113, 113 (Mass. 1895) (Holmes, J.)). The Supreme Court unanimously affirmed, concluding that “[t]he right to absolutely exclude all right to use necessarily includes the authority to determine under what circumstances such use may be availed of, as the greater power contains the lesser.” Id. at 48. Under the Supreme Court’s jurisprudence at the time, the government —as the owner of public property— retained an absolute right to exclude the public from that property, just as any private property owner would have the right to exclude others. See Stone, supra, at 237 (“[T]he state possessed the power absolutely to prohibit the exercise of First Amendment rights of speech on public property simply by asserting the prerogatives traditionally associated with the private ownership of land. The complex and difficult problem of the public forum had been ‘solved’ by resort to common law concepts of private property.”).

Later, the Supreme Court revisited the question of the public’s use of government property for expressive purposes and again relied on traditional notions of private property ownership. See Hague v. Comm. for Indus. Org., 307 U.S. 496 (1939). In Hague, the Court considered the constitutionality of city ordinances prohibiting all public meetings and leafletting in streets and other public places without a permit. Id. at 501–03. Departing from its analysis in Davis, Justice Roberts, writing for a plurality of the Court, stated:

Wherever the title of streets and parks may rest, they have immemorially been held in trust for the use of the public and, time out of mind, have been used for purposes of assembly, communicating thoughts between citizens, and discussing public questions. Such use of the streets and public places has, from ancient times, been a part of the privileges, immunities, rights, and liberties of citizens. The privilege of a citizen of the United States to use the streets and parks for communication of views on national questions may be regulated in the interest of all; it is not absolute, but relative, and must be exercised in subordination to the general comfort and convenience, and in consonance with peace and good order; but it must not, in the guise of regulation, be abridged or denied.

Id. at 515–16. Justice Roberts’s position accepted the underlying premise of Davis —that the owner of government property enjoyed the same prerogatives as any private property owner— but then extended that premise to predicate a “public forum right upon established common law notions of adverse possession and public trust.” Stone, supra, at 238. See also Harry Kalven, Jr., The Concept of the Public Forum: Cox v. Louisiana, 1965 Sup. Ct. Rev. 1, 13 (describing Justice Roberts’s analysis in Hague as establishing “a kind of First-Amendment easement” in which the public, through long use and tradition, has acquired a right to use certain types of public property for First Amendment purposes).

Although Justice Roberts spoke only for a plurality of the Hague Court, his formulation has since been accepted by the Supreme Court as the prevailing rationale underlying the concept of traditional public fora. See, e.g., Perry Educ., 460 U.S. at 45 (defining traditional public fora by adopting Justice Roberts’s “time out of mind” description). Even in the context of a traditional public forum in which the government property owner’s power to exclude and curtail use is sharply circumscribed, the underlying rationale is premised on traditional notions of private property ownership. Indeed, the government’s power to control speech in a traditional public forum is circumscribed precisely because the public has, through the extent and nature of its use of these types of government property, acquired, in effect, a “speech easement” that the government property owner must now honor.

The Supreme Court has continued to rely on traditional notions of property ownership to describe the government’s ability to control the use of its property. For example, the Supreme Court has recognized that the government, “no less than a private owner of property, has power to preserve the property under its control for the use to which it is lawfully dedicated.” Greer, 424 U.S. at 836 (emphasis added). This includes the ability to designate portions of government property for expressive purposes. See Perry Educ., 460 U.S. at 45. But the underlying rationale of a designated public forum is that the governmental entity with control over the property can decide whether and to what extent to open nontraditional fora to public speech. See Christian Legal Soc’y Chapter of the Univ. of Cal., Hastings Coll. of Law v. Martinez, 561 U.S. 661, 679 (2010) (“[I]n a progression of cases, this Court has employed forum analysis to determine when a governmental entity, in regulating property in its charge, may place limitations on speech.”) (emphasis added)).

In this case, the record before the district court at the preliminary injunction hearing indicated that Denver is the owner of the Courthouse and its surrounding grounds. It was also undisputed that there is no lease agreement between Denver and the Judicial District that could have transferred some of Denver’s property interests to the Judicial District. And the Judicial District is not the only occupant of the building; the county also has courtrooms in the building. As a result, Denver’s intent will be particularly relevant to a determination of whether the Restricted Areas were designated as a public forum.

Nevertheless, the Judicial District argues Denver may not unilaterally designate the Restricted Areas as public fora because, under Colorado law, the state judicial branch is endowed with inherent authority as an independent and co-equal branch of government to regulate state courthouses. The first problem with this argument is that it ignores the limits of that inherent authority. Although Colorado permits its courts to do all that is “reasonably required to enable a court to perform efficiently its judicial functions, to protect its dignity, independence, and integrity, and to make its lawful actions effective,” the Colorado Supreme Court has recognized that this inherent authority is not without its limitations. Bd. of Cty. Comm’rs of Weld Cty. v. Nineteenth Judicial Dist., 895 P.2d 545, 547–48 (Colo. 1995) (quoting Pena v. District Ct., 681 P.2d 953, 956 (Colo.1984)). Specifically, the “court’s inherent authority terminates when its ability to carry out its constitutional duty to administer justice is no longer threatened.” Id. at 549.

On the existing record, the Judicial District has not demonstrated that Plaintiffs’ First Amendment activities interfered with the ability of the Judicial District to carry out its essential functions. Mr. Steadman testified that Plaintiffs’ pamphleteering presented no security risk to the Courthouse. And the Judicial District presented no evidence indicating that the narrow preliminary injunction issued by the district court would interfere with its judicial functions. On the record before us, therefore, the Judicial District has not demonstrated that the preliminary injunction issued by the district court implicates the court’s inherent authority.

But it is also true that Denver’s statement of its intent is only one factor to be considered by the district court in determining whether a permanent injunction should issue. Recall that the government’s statement of policy should be weighed against the evidence of its actual practice to avoid post hoc justifications. See Air Line Pilots, 45 F.3d at 1153; Hays Cty. Guardian, 969 F.2d at 117–18. Denver’s concession in the Stipulation and its expressions of past intent could be motivated by fiscal or other considerations that are inconsistent with its actual practice.

For example, although the evidence indicated that some expressive activity has occurred in the Restricted Areas, those occasions may have been “isolated incidents of undiscovered violations,” rather than evidence of affirmative acts to open the Restricted Areas as public fora. Gilbert I, 920 F.2d at 885. And a contrary intent might be gleaned from the design of the Restricted Areas and the extent to which public and private areas are clearly separated. See Grace, 461 U.S. at 179–80. Also of importance in assessing whether the Restricted Areas have been designated as public fora is the extent to which doing so is incompatible with the primary use of the Courthouse. See Cornelius, 473 U.S. at 803. That is, it would be strong evidence that Denver did not intend to designate all of the Restricted Areas as public fora if to do so would destroy the primary function of the Courthouse. Or in different terms, the district court must assess whether it is credible that a governmental owner would construct a courthouse and install state and county judicial operations within it, only to designate public fora so intrusively that the essential function of the courthouse is thwarted. Thus, although the Stipulation provides some evidence on the question of whether the Restricted Areas have been designated as public fora, it is not alone determinative of that question.

III. CONCLUSION

Based on the record before it, the district court did not abuse its discretion in granting Plaintiffs’ request for a preliminary injunction. We therefore AFFIRM the order entering a limited preliminary injunction in favor of Plaintiffs, and REMAND for further proceedings consistent with this decision.

All is fair in love and battlespace

Posted on December 16, 2016 by Eric Verlo

US Navy brass are upset that a Chinese vessel pulled a US unmanned submarine drone from the South China Sea and kept it. That’s against the rules apparently, Admiralty, whatever. They point out the drone belongs to the National Oceanographic Office, the information it gathers is unclassified, and it’s piloted by civilians. Sorry but “civilian” is synonymous with “contractor” and the Navy needs to rename its underwater glider drones if it wants to pretend their function is oceanic research. The drone fished out by the Chinese is called a “littoral battlespace sensing” vehicle. It may be unarmed, but there’s nothing environmental, humanitarian, collegiate, or goodwill-tourish about BATTLESPACE. China has been asserting territorial claims in the South China Sea, so whose “battlespace” is it?

Have you heard that Snopes pretends to be the last word on not just rumors?

Posted on July 30, 2016 by Eric Verlo

TRUE OR FALSE? SNOPES began as a website to debunk urban myths, but since being bought by a major internet conglomerate, Snopes acts as final word on which conspiracy theories have merit and which are too disruptive of the dominant narrative. As the internet grew, Snopes gathered geek cred to join National Geographic Magazine and the History Channel as de facto authoritive brands trusted to provide nonpartisan accounts of current and past events, except of course all three simply confirm the authorized story. Another would-be gatekeeper, on who says what’s what, is Wikipedea. Because the online encyclopaedia is crowd-sourced, its authority is regularly questioned, and Wikipedia entries on controversial issues are demonstraby slanted by editorial teams advancing agendas that mirror the fully funded propaganda campaigns dominating conventional media. While Snopes was great at arresting rumors about vanishing hitchhikers or microwaved babies, more and more we see Snopes consulted about news scoops and whistleblower revelations, and it’s no surprise that Snopes summarily dismisses incidiary exposees that threaten established power. Don’t take my word for it, let’s ask Snopes!

Denver jury convicts homeless man of trespassing on their yuppy lifestyle. DJ Razee’s tiny house idea was too big.

Posted on March 2, 2016 by Eric Verlo

DENVER, COLORADO- In the witness stand Delbert “DJ” Razee spoke eloquently about the Tiny House movement and Resurrection Village, a local experiment sponsored by advocates Denver Homeless Out Loud to suggest one remedy for the house-less of Colorado. Razee’s lawyer Frank Ingham made fools of the Denver Housing Authority stooge and four police officers who testified against the chronically homeless English Lit grad. Razee was charged with trespass on public land, on an empty city block which was supposed to have been used for affordable housing. Razee was among ten homeless activists arrested one night in November for refusing to vacate several very small structures they’d erected on property which the DHA was converting from a community garden to gentrified condos. After two days of trial, a jury of well-housed peers found Razee guilty, lest others of his untouchable caste darken their doorsteps or the vacant lots near them. On Thursday March 3rd at 8:30am DJ Razee reports to Judge Beth Faragher for sentencing.

It was an amazing trial. While his compatriots sought continuances or plea deals, DJ held his ground and never waived speedy trial. DJ was impatient to put the Denver Housing Authority on the stand. Their representative Ryan Tobin blew off a February 3rd subpoena, but when DJ’s lawyer Frank Ingham cross-examined Tobin on the 22nd, Tobin incriminated himself more than Razee. Ryan Tobin was the DHA goon who pressed charges against the activists for trespassing on the public lot opposite his $650K home. Tobin also sought a protection order against one of the activists, which restrained that person from approaching not just Tobin but the entire public lot. Can one do that? The protection order didn’t come up at DJ’s trial.

DHA
The DHA is a quasi-municipal entity which handles city property meant to accomodate lower income residents. The DHA is Denver’s second largest property owner. The city blocks at 26th and Lawrence used to be low income housing but have been razed for years. More recently a portion was used for a community garden but the DHA was evicting the urban farmers to sell the block to a high rise developer.

The logic offered was that DHA could use the proceeds of land speculation to build more affordable housing elsewhere. That strategy might impress business people but it’s clearly absurd. Instead of being a counterbalance to gentrification, this housing authority thinks its role is to be a tool for displacement.

Tobin’s testimony will benefit all the Tiny House defendants, depending on their juries. DJ is only the first of the arrestees to be brought to trial. Tobin admitted he had never clearly expressed who had the authority to issue a trespass order. Tobin also couldn’t say who precisely was present when he made his initial announcement to the group, although he claimed it was “everyone”. This was a chief contention of the city attorneys.

How about an sidebar for activists, as a sort of debrief:

On Tobin’s first visit, someone among the activists called EVERYONE together to listen to his announcement, austensibly to have a dialog. As a matter of practice this was regretable. First, because the action was already underway and there was no expectation that dialog could or should redirect the action. Second, it presented exactly what an authority issuing a formal notice needed: everyone in one place to BE GIVEN NOTICE.

Two, the city prosecutors used a video recording of the event, made by the activists themselves, to prove that the trespassers had received notice. While the taped discussion was not so clear, and the many subsequent announcements over police bullhorns were garbled, it didn’t help that the videographer offered narration to make what was being said explicit to viewers and bystanders. Offering, for example: “so basically we’ve been given notice that if we don’t leave the cops will come to arrest us.” Which alas is the confirmation prosecutors need that lawful orders were understood.

Although the city sought to incriminate Razee with the video, the footage provided wonderful context for the larger issue, the paradox faced by the homeless, had the jury been receptive. It also captured Ryan Tobin’s cavalier attitude about housing inequities. When he was asked by the group “Move along to where?” Tobin made this thoughtless suggestion: “Where did you come from?” Boos from his audience at the scene were echoed by the viewers in the courtroom.

Ryan Tobin couldn’t identify DJ at all, neither that he’d given DJ notice to leave, nor that he’d ever seen DJ before in his life. DJ described Tobin’s failure to recognize him in a FB post:

For six weeks, from October 23rd until December 9th, I shoveled the walks, carted away the trash, and resided at Resurrection Village at the same location as Sustainability Park, and Ryan Tobin who lives directly across the street from the property, testified that he has never seen my face. Of course, he hadn’t- I am one of the invisible people who is a criminal in the eyes of the housed, and the law.

DPD
The testimony of four DPD officers was also self-damning. Neither commander, nor lieutenants, nor arresting officer could fully justify why they deployed in combat gear. Even the jurors were set back by the militarized atmosphere, the helicopter overhead, and the overabundance of cops for a TRESPASS INFRACTION. About the helicopter, a lieutenant claimed she called in a mere “fly-by” but police video proved it hovered for nearly an hour.

One amusing aspect for many of us in the audience, was how the DPD witnesses would always refer to the offending activists as “Occupiers”. Denver Homeless Out Loud, in its need to gain cooperation with civic and law enforcement entities, takes great pains to distance itself from its roots in Occupy Denver. At any demonstration in Denver, an “Occupy” presence, usually merely the familiar OD faces, always means an escalated police escort and unseen armored-up reserves. While it may have been inaccurate to label the Tiny House trespassers as occupiers, it’s true that when protesters are holding their ground in Denver, refusing police orders, they are occupying. Like the Black Bloc, it’s not a who, it’s a tactic.

Attending the trials of activists is worth it if only to hear the testimony of the police. You learn what they’re trained to do, what their objectives are, and what they think you’re doing. Most officers, even commanders, think we need a permit to demonstrate. HA!

The first four witnesses could not place DJ at the scene, but the arresting officer finally fingered the accused. Asked if he could identify DJ, he pointed to the defendant’s table and described DJ’s courtroom attire for the record. You have to wonder if police witnesses look to the defendant’s chair by default, without regard to what they remember. How could they remember so many arrestees, months after the incident? I’m guessing that anyone sitting in DJ’s seat would have been ID’d as DJ.

I pose this question because of how DJ’s arresting officer was allowed to identify DJ on the crime scene video. Instead of letting the video play through and asking the officer if DJ appeared on the video and where, DJ’s prosecutors froze the video when the camera lingered on DJ and then asked the officer to ID him. The defense counsel objected vehemently and when overruled he motioned for a mistrial. So the judge reconsidered and granted Ingham’s motion. She then asked the jury to disregard the officer’s response and she made the prosecutor play the video again without prompting the officer, even though of course now he knew at which frame DJ appeared.

The jury
The entire trial was so farcical and so mercenary considering the inconsequence of the charge, that audience members were certain the jury was empathic to DJ and the victimization of Denver’s homeless. Nope. We knew from Voir Dire that the jury included an entrepreneur, a trader, and an inheritance consultant. All but one of the NPR listeners had been eliminated but we hoped she’d be a holdout. It was not to be. When the jury emerged with its verdict, the foreman carrying the written decision was the fratboy day trader.

Fratboy had been the juror submitting written questions to supplement what neither attorney had asked. We knew from the bent of his inquiries that he was playing a role that defense attorneys fear, a self-deputized investigator for the prosecutor, filling in the gaps of the testimony, seeking, if even unconsciously, to eliminate the “reasonable doubt” which is supposed to remain as a reason to aquit. That’s why defense attorneys generally object to Colorado’s rule allowing jurors to interject with their own questions to witnesses. On the plus side, such questions do offer both sides a hint of where those jurors are leaning.

As Denver gentrifies, it should be no surprise that juries will represent the affluent more than the demographics being displaced. DJ’s jury had absolutely zero concern for punishing a homeless man for his elegant protest gesture or for his unresolved circumstance. They laughed and made no eye contact with the audience as they turned their backs to return to their homes and leave a homeless man in greater jeopardy with the penal system.

DJ was not tried by a jury of his peers. Can the homeless get justice in the US court system? American juries are racist and classist, but you’re unlikely to find someone more untouchable to jurors than someone who is dispossessed.

As activists, we’ve got to do something about these Denver juries. Advocating for jury nullification is not enough. Denver’s urban social climbers need a welcome-to-the-community brochure, or swift kicks in the ass until they acknowledge there’s a brotherhood of man.

Argonaut Liquor helped city of Denver jail Caryn Sodaro, the DPD’s most vocal critic of police brutality.

Posted on July 31, 2015 by Eric Verlo

DENVER, COLORADO- On Thursday July 30 in Denver Municipal Court, Argonaut Liquor succeeded with what the City of Denver and its violent policemen have been trying to do for years: take down Occupy Denver activist Caryn Sodaro. Earlier this year, Caryn was attempting to film the DPD as they brutalized a handcuffed detainee in the parking lot of the liquor store on Colfax Ave. When store managers couldn’t block her camera phone with their hands, they authorized officers to arrest Caryn for trespassing. Of course they had to pretend she’d been warned once before.

Yesterday a jury found Caryn Sodaro guilty of trespass, though they heard scant mention of the crime she was trying to document and prevent. It didn’t come up and video evidence was snipped to exclude it. Videos from multiple vantage points were excluded and witnesses were not questioned about the brutality they saw. Protesters were characterized as protesting the police, not police VIOLENCE and not protesting to PREVENT IT.

In one of the trial’s most surreal moments, the city attorneys were trying to admit officer body cam evidence taken of Caryn after her arrest, angrily describing the brutality she witnessed. The prosecutors hoped her coarse language would displease the jury. The defense attorney objected for that reason, even though it would have been the only evidence to explain why Caryn risked arrest, if indeed she knew she was not allowed on the Argonaut lot. The judge disallowed that video in the only ruling she made in favor of the defense.

Caryn’s protesting activity has been given area restrictions before and friends know how strictly she adhered to them, unconstitutional as they were. Drivers giving her rides had to take detours to keep Caryn geographically safe. When a defense witness tried to add this detail, or that he’d returned often to the Argonaut even while the managers had testified that he too had been “trespassed”, the defense attorney cut him off, stopping his own friendly witness with “I ask the questions here.”

I’ve seen valiant public defenders, but this free public servant was determined to give Caryn her money’s worth. No character witnesses, no context of Caryn’s activism, nor even sympathy for her altruism. The argument was restricted to: did Caryn trespass or not, and Argonaut employees perjured themselves claiming that Caryn had been instructed twenty days before that she was “trespassed” from Argonaut’s property. That incident was provoked by Caryn being harassed and humiliated by an in-store Argonaut rent-a-cop who followed her to the checkout stand and told her she was “too drunk” to purchase a bottle of wine. He initiated a shouting match, not she, and that’s another detail the PD declined to exploit.

Did I mention Caryn’s public defender opted to forgo his opening statement! The jury was let to assume the case was about a retailer’s property rights versus a group of protesters’ whim for trespassing.

Even when public defenders are brighter than you expect, it’s important to remember they don’t work for you. Public defenders serve the judicial system, this one determined to preserve law and order even when it is demonstrably racist and violent. Mr. DiPetro, the Judge and the city attorneys colluded to frame Caryn’s prosecution as independent of the DPD’s agenda to target her and bring her down. At moments of the two day trial, the audience was equal parts fellow activists, armed sheriff deputes, and DA attorneys gathered to oversee the exploitation of charges pressed by Argonaut Liquor. The only laugh the audience was allowed was when officer descended on Caryn, eager to put her in handcuffs, before she even had time to sign the paperwork required to imprison her.

Drop symbols of White Supremacy, but don’t embolden government supremacy

Posted on June 25, 2015 by Eric Verlo

SORRY, I DO HAVE A PROBLEM with government telling me how to think or telling me what I can’t say. Flags mean a lot to me and I CAN imagine MY flag being declared hateful or a public threat. How is anyone to rally like-minded dissenters when a government and its corporate media can declare their rallying symbol non grata? I don’t like the Confederate rebel flag either, it is modern code for unrepentant white racism, but I’m hugely skeptical when Big Brother is driving the bandwagon. How amusing that activists eager to burn Confederate flags find that the major retailers have already banned them. There’s a statement you’re being prevented making.

Scrap White Supremacy but we must cling tightly to the supremacy of individuals over their government.

Could the censors come for your flag too? I’m not big on national flags. However, the flags with which I associate ideologically, let’s be honest, scream regicide.

Imagine if the next mass shooter lunatic leaves selfies with an Anarchist flag or an Anon mask. “Rise up” is hate speech to oligarchs.

Guys, when Walmart, Target, Dixie politicians and the White House are on your side, you’re fantasizing and you’re on the wrong side.

If the vocabulary of racism, such as the word “nigger”, is effaced, how are we to talk about it? We had this argument about Mark Twain’s use of the word in Huckleberry Finn. Literature lost as I remember.

How blessed we would be to forget about slavery, except the same demographic is enslaved today in the prison system, while we white-out the words we need to recognize it.

Let’s be generous for a moment. The “Rebel” Flag, even as it draws racists like flies, is also about rebellion. Did you know the Civil War wears a revisionist title? Until America’s foreign excursions, the Civil War was called the War of Rebellion. Formal documents of the period are still bound as the Union’s record of the War of Rebellion.

Who effected the name change and why? Did it benefit the victor to write the history of the Civil War to cast slavery as its predominant issue? To justify the sacrifice of lives and trampling of state sovereignty?

The American national identity is that of revolutionaries rebelling against authoritarian rule. Was it confusing to let the bad guys usurp the rebel image?

I think it’s a lie to believe the common Southerner fought to preserve slavery. Just as it is to pretend the common German soldier defended the extermination camps. The average Johnny Rebel fought off the Yankee foreigner. Johnny Rebel was racist but no more so than his northern adversary. Lynchings of black men happened in both North and South.

If you want to hold a flag to account for racism, you’ll find a greater offender in the Union Flag, and today’s fifty star equivalent. The Stars and Stripes flew over the slave trade, the genocide of Native Americans, and the conquest and exploitation of indigenous peoples everywhere since.

If you want to fight racism, address its mechanisms. Address its leaders, not its disputable standard. The flag is a distraction. Who are racism’s enforcers? I read that Maryland police just killed another unarmed black man. Eye on that ball.

Judging history as we’ve distilled it, the cause of the Confederacy was unjust, but the Southern soldiers fought the Union as rebels.

I am damn partial to REBELS.

I’m reminded of the lyrics to I’m a Good Old Rebel. These reflect sentiments contemporary to the Reconstruction era, unreconstructed by the abolitionist narrative. Read ’em and weep.

Oh, I’m a good old rebel,?
Now that’s just what I am.?
For this Fair Land of Freedom,
?I do no give a damn.?
I’m glad I fought again’ her,
?I only wish we won.
?I ain’t asked any pardon for anything I’ve done.

I hates the Yankee Nation and everything they do.
?I hates the Declaration of Independence, too.?
I hates the glorious Union, ’tis dripping with our blood.?
I hates the striped banner, and fought it all I could.

I rode with Robert E. Lee,?
For three years, thereabout.?
Got wounded in four places,
?And I starved at Point Lookout.
?I catched the rheumatism
?A campin’ in the snow.?
But I killed a chance of Yankees
?And I’d like to kill some more.

Three hundred thousand Yankees
?Is stiff in southern dust.?
We got three hundred thousand?
Before they conquered us.?
They died of Southern Fever
?And Southern steel and shot.?
I wish there were three million
?Instead of what we got.

?I can’t pick up my musket?
And fight ’em down no more.?
But I ain’t agonna love ’em?
Now that is certain sure.
?And I don’t want no pardon?
For what I was and am.?
I won’t be reconstructed?
And I do not give a damn.

Oh, I’m a good old rebel,
?Now that’s just what I am.?
And for this Yankee Nation,
?I do no give a damn.?
I’m glad I fought again’ her,?
I only wish we won.?
I ain’t asked any pardon for anything I’ve done.?
I ain’t asked any pardon for anything I’ve done.

Take down THAT flag

Posted on June 22, 2015 by Eric Verlo

If you think taking down a flag can address the systemic oppression of people of color, have at it, but BOY DO YOU HAVE THE WRONG FLAG.

The “Confederate flag” flies over civil war memorial cemeteries and gravestones across America. Veteran and veteran-lovers cling to the notion that soldiers don’t give their lives in vain, so they are honored by the flag they fought for, in half the cases, the Confederate States. The Confederacy is as defunct as the sovereign nation of Texas, or the Third Reich for that matter, whose flags and insignia retain a similar appeal, often to the same demographic. Even if we pretend the Rebel flag represented the half of the US which defended slavery, it is not the standard that flew over the slave ships or plantations, or Charleston Bay for that matter, for the hundreds of years before the 1861-65 War of Rebellion. Those flags were many and international but it’s safe to say that the nationalist flag that most symbolizes Western racist imperialism is the American Red, White and Blue.

Who presided over the retention of slavery, over segregation, over lynching, over genocide, over the continued suppression of African American empowerment? Whose flag assailed the Native Americans, crossed the Pacific, and hasn’t stopped yet? To address America’s ingrained racism, take THAT flag down!

There’s an easy fix for our country’s Civil War graves and memorials. Replace the rebel flags with the “Stars and Bars” the authentic flag of the Confederate States. It has none of the white klan cache. As for the mistakenly iconic “Battle Flag”, BURN IT! If that offends Southerners, too bad, but have some empathy, you’re probably clinging to the Stars and Stripes with the same unbecoming nostalgia.

The frequently cited St Paul Principles had their time and place: ST PAUL

Posted on May 3, 2015 by Eric Verlo

In my circle they’re called “Saint Paul’s Principles” because my colleagues think the edicts are Catholic I guess. The St Paul Principles came from St Paul Minnesota, circa 2008, and were formally adopted by the varied groups organizing to disrupt the Republican National Convention of 2008. They’ve lived on as guiding principles for activists of all ilk. In 2011 many Occupy encampments ratified the StPP as their own code of conduct, indifferent to whether they were applicable or even beneficial. Let’s examine the well intended dogma. Do they apply universally? Are they constructive? And how did they work out for St Paul? The last one is easy. As you may remember, disruption of the 2008 RNC failed spectacularly.

The St. Paul Principles

1. Our solidarity will be based on respect for a diversity of tactics and the plans of other groups.

2. The actions and tactics used will be organized to maintain a separation of time or space.

3. Any debates or criticisms will stay internal to the movement, avoiding any public or media denunciations of fellow activists and events.

4. We oppose any state repression of dissent, including surveillance, infiltration, disruption and violence. We agree not to assist law enforcement actions against activists and others.

It’s hard to argue against this elegant expression of solidarity. With the SPPs, the protest organizers aimed at preempting COINTELPRO style disruption from generating conflict within the movement. The implicit condemnation of violence was of state sponsored violence, not authentic barricade defense. And no snitching. The SPPs addressed the problems which were already scuttling Denver’s 2008 DNC protests. In Denver, “Recreate ’68” planners let the press infer they meant to revive the Chicago riots of 1968, prompting almost every traditional social justice group to circulate a contract which everyone was expected to sign. It was a vow of nonviolence. Organizations who refused to sign were ostracized and could expect the violent police clobbering they invited.

Essentially the SPPs aimed to unite the nonviolent and non-nonviolent activists, to ensure neither denounced the other, and that physically neither wound up caught in each other’s fights or sit-ins. Probably the chief concession was being asked of the nonviolent crowd: Please, as long as we promise not to shroud your family atmosphere and your baby strollers in tear gas, please let the Black Blocs do their thing without your repudiation. Please. We share the same goals.

Can you begin to see where such a strategy might fail to lead?

But the St Paul organizers did share the same goals. Their aim was to disrupt the RNC via a strategy they called “3S” actions. SWARM, SEIZE. STAY. It’s easy to see why three years later Occupy Wall Street was attracted to these directives. “3S” defines Occupy and another three years on, OWS activist followed the 2014 Climate March with an action called “Flood Wall Street” the instructions for which rephrased 3S aquatically.

The “movement” to which the SPPs refer shared a goal, to disrupt the RNC, by means of swarming, seizing, and staying, by whatever tactic each member group wanted. They shared a further agreement, that the city of St Paul was to be partitioned in sectors allowing groups to conduct their actions in isolation, united in time, but separated geographically so that red zone, yellow zone and green zone participants needn’t mix and find themselves out of their respective confort zones.

The groups organizing against the 2008 RNC shared one more thing in common, bound as they were to the St Paul Principles, they were all signatories to the principles.

Do the St Paul Principles apply universally?
It’s easy to see that the 2011 OWS occupations in major cities across the country shared a similar goal. It was, if perhaps more vague than to prevent a party convention, to disrupt the wheels of commerce by means of encampments; the “3S” tactic now reduced to a single verb “Occupy”. Allies such as unions and antiwar organizations, while sympathetic, cannot be said to have shared the same determinaton to disrupt. Even MoveOn with their “99% Spring”, FireDogLake with their merchandizing, and Adbusters had to relent with the revolutionary rhetoric. Eventually OWS spinoffs like Occupy Sandy Relief began to serve functions diametrically opposed to disruption. Did they expand the “movement”? Of course. But did the more inclusive “movement” outgrown the capacity for St Paul Principles to maintain its unity? Are activists bent on disruption expected to respect and support activists determined to prevent disruption?

I know it’s lovely to imagine every social justice effort as anti-authoritarian, and whether nonviolent or indulgent, each comprises a unique wing of a broad anti-government movement. If you are prepared to pretend that everyone’s aims are progressive, we share similar enough goals and we are reformists. But if some aims are revolutionary, explicitely anti-Capitalist for example like Occupy Wall Street, then reformists are counterrevolutionary. If you think reformists aren’t Capitalism’s first line of defense, even as they consider themselves activists, then you don’t know your adversaries from your allies. To imagine that activists shouldn’t address such chasms of understanding in favor of upholding popular delusion is going to get a movement nowhere.

At last year’s Climate March in NYC, the prevailing sentiment was against Capitalism. The organizers didn’t want to mouth it, but a vast number of marchers began to grasp instinctively that Capitalism has no solution for Climate Change. The anti-Capitalist movement can become “the movement” but reformists will have to understand they are obstructionists before they as individuals can be said to share the common goal.

The St Paul RNC Welcoming Committee aimed to disrupt the Republican National Convention for a WEEK. Can activist groups as they grow and transform over years and compete for membership and community resources expect that they shouldn’t be critical of one another’s missteps or aggressions even as their goals diverge?

How scalable are the St Paul Principles? Do they apply to no matter who considers themselves part of a greater “movement”. Do they apply to signatories and non-signatories alike?

Are the St Paul Principles constructive?
I would argue: Hardly. While it seems safer to segregate the Black Bloc from the civil disobedients from the family picnic crowd, you’re not going to reach critical mass with each on its own. With public dischord still in its infancy and while we have nowhere near the numbers to defend against or deter violent repression, perhaps it is only reasonable to program our street protests according to color zones, as if marches were amusement rides for protest tourism.

If you’re satisfied to lead combatants to jail and probation for mere symbolic shows of defiance, and you’re prepared to let nonviolent activists subject themselves to brutality which even when filmed will not awaken the conscience of the sociopathic oligarchs, and you’re resigned to let the masses burn themselves out with boredom given nothing to challenge their apathy, then the St Paul Principles are for you.

Stockholm Syndrome becomes Glasgow Syndrome as Scots vote no to self-rule

Posted on September 19, 2014 by Eric Verlo

By now “Stockholm Syndrome” is accepted to be a misnomer, not the behavior but the geographical attribution. But the term fits the Scotish people who have just rejected independence in favor of continued vassalage to the United Kingdom. If Scotland had elected autonomy, Wales might have followed, then Northern Ireland and even England, to pull the rug from under monarchic London, the feudal center of the vampiric British empire. Scotland’s “Glasgow Syndrome” proves London is in charge of the UK no doubt about it.

The Putin knock-knock joke is easier to find than his Kremlin speech on Crimea

Posted on March 27, 2014 by NMT

This graphic circulating on the interwebs is a lot easier to find than Vladimir Putin’s March 18 address to the Kremlin about the referendum in Crimea after the Western coup in Ukraine. Bypassing dubious translations excerpted on Capitalist media sites, here is a transcript of his speech direct from the Kremlin. Putin is no hero, but he threatens US-EU banking hegemony, gives asylum to Edward Snowden, and executes zero people with drones.

QUOTING PRESIDENT OF RUSSIA VLADIMIR PUTIN:
Federation Council members, State Duma deputies, good afternoon. Representatives of the Republic of Crimea and Sevastopol are here among us, citizens of Russia, residents of Crimea and Sevastopol!

Dear friends, we have gathered here today in connection with an issue that is of vital, historic significance to all of us. A referendum was held in Crimea on March 16 in full compliance with democratic procedures and international norms.

More than 82 percent of the electorate took part in the vote. Over 96 percent of them spoke out in favour of reuniting with Russia. These numbers speak for themselves.

To understand the reason behind such a choice it is enough to know the history of Crimea and what Russia and Crimea have always meant for each other.

Everything in Crimea speaks of our shared history and pride. This is the location of ancient Khersones, where Prince Vladimir was baptised. His spiritual feat of adopting Orthodoxy predetermined the overall basis of the culture, civilisation and human values that unite the peoples of Russia, Ukraine and Belarus. The graves of Russian soldiers whose bravery brought Crimea into the Russian empire are also in Crimea. This is also Sevastopol – a legendary city with an outstanding history, a fortress that serves as the birthplace of Russia’s Black Sea Fleet. Crimea is Balaklava and Kerch, Malakhov Kurgan and Sapun Ridge. Each one of these places is dear to our hearts, symbolising Russian military glory and outstanding valour.

Crimea is a unique blend of different peoples’ cultures and traditions. This makes it similar to Russia as a whole, where not a single ethnic group has been lost over the centuries. Russians and Ukrainians, Crimean Tatars and people of other ethnic groups have lived side by side in Crimea, retaining their own identity, traditions, languages and faith.

Incidentally, the total population of the Crimean Peninsula today is 2.2 million people, of whom almost 1.5 million are Russians, 350,000 are Ukrainians who predominantly consider Russian their native language, and about 290,000-300,000 are Crimean Tatars, who, as the referendum has shown, also lean towards Russia.

True, there was a time when Crimean Tatars were treated unfairly, just as a number of other peoples in the USSR. There is only one thing I can say here: millions of people of various ethnicities suffered during those repressions, and primarily Russians.

Crimean Tatars returned to their homeland. I believe we should make all the necessary political and legislative decisions to finalise the rehabilitation of Crimean Tatars, restore them in their rights and clear their good name.

We have great respect for people of all the ethnic groups living in Crimea. This is their common home, their motherland, and it would be right – I know the local population supports this – for Crimea to have three equal national languages: Russian, Ukrainian and Tatar.

Colleagues,

In people’s hearts and minds, Crimea has always been an inseparable part of Russia. This firm conviction is based on truth and justice and was passed from generation to generation, over time, under any circumstances, despite all the dramatic changes our country went through during the entire 20th century.

After the revolution, the Bolsheviks, for a number of reasons – may God judge them – added large sections of the historical South of Russia to the Republic of Ukraine. This was done with no consideration for the ethnic make-up of the population, and today these areas form the southeast of Ukraine. Then, in 1954, a decision was made to transfer Crimean Region to Ukraine, along with Sevastopol, despite the fact that it was a federal city. This was the personal initiative of the Communist Party head Nikita Khrushchev. What stood behind this decision of his – a desire to win the support of the Ukrainian political establishment or to atone for the mass repressions of the 1930’s in Ukraine – is for historians to figure out.

What matters now is that this decision was made in clear violation of the constitutional norms that were in place even then. The decision was made behind the scenes. Naturally, in a totalitarian state nobody bothered to ask the citizens of Crimea and Sevastopol. They were faced with the fact. People, of course, wondered why all of a sudden Crimea became part of Ukraine. But on the whole – and we must state this clearly, we all know it – this decision was treated as a formality of sorts because the territory was transferred within the boundaries of a single state. Back then, it was impossible to imagine that Ukraine and Russia may split up and become two separate states. However, this has happened.

Unfortunately, what seemed impossible became a reality. The USSR fell apart. Things developed so swiftly that few people realised how truly dramatic those events and their consequences would be. Many people both in Russia and in Ukraine, as well as in other republics hoped that the Commonwealth of Independent States that was created at the time would become the new common form of statehood. They were told that there would be a single currency, a single economic space, joint armed forces; however, all this remained empty promises, while the big country was gone. It was only when Crimea ended up as part of a different country that Russia realised that it was not simply robbed, it was plundered.

At the same time, we have to admit that by launching the sovereignty parade Russia itself aided in the collapse of the Soviet Union. And as this collapse was legalised, everyone forgot about Crimea and Sevastopol – the main base of the Black Sea Fleet. Millions of people went to bed in one country and awoke in different ones, overnight becoming ethnic minorities in former Union republics, while the Russian nation became one of the biggest, if not the biggest ethnic group in the world to be divided by borders.

Now, many years later, I heard residents of Crimea say that back in 1991 they were handed over like a sack of potatoes. This is hard to disagree with. And what about the Russian state? What about Russia? It humbly accepted the situation. This country was going through such hard times then that realistically it was incapable of protecting its interests. However, the people could not reconcile themselves to this outrageous historical injustice. All these years, citizens and many public figures came back to this issue, saying that Crimea is historically Russian land and Sevastopol is a Russian city. Yes, we all knew this in our hearts and minds, but we had to proceed from the existing reality and build our good-neighbourly relations with independent Ukraine on a new basis. Meanwhile, our relations with Ukraine, with the fraternal Ukrainian people have always been and will remain of foremost importance for us.

Today we can speak about it openly, and I would like to share with you some details of the negotiations that took place in the early 2000s. The then President of Ukraine Mr Kuchma asked me to expedite the process of delimiting the Russian-Ukrainian border. At that time, the process was practically at a standstill. Russia seemed to have recognised Crimea as part of Ukraine, but there were no negotiations on delimiting the borders. Despite the complexity of the situation, I immediately issued instructions to Russian government agencies to speed up their work to document the borders, so that everyone had a clear understanding that by agreeing to delimit the border we admitted de facto and de jure that Crimea was Ukrainian territory, thereby closing the issue.

We accommodated Ukraine not only regarding Crimea, but also on such a complicated matter as the maritime boundary in the Sea of Azov and the Kerch Strait. What we proceeded from back then was that good relations with Ukraine matter most for us and they should not fall hostage to deadlock territorial disputes. However, we expected Ukraine to remain our good neighbour, we hoped that Russian citizens and Russian speakers in Ukraine, especially its southeast and Crimea, would live in a friendly, democratic and civilised state that would protect their rights in line with the norms of international law.

However, this is not how the situation developed. Time and time again attempts were made to deprive Russians of their historical memory, even of their language and to subject them to forced assimilation. Moreover, Russians, just as other citizens of Ukraine are suffering from the constant political and state crisis that has been rocking the country for over 20 years.

I understand why Ukrainian people wanted change. They have had enough of the authorities in power during the years of Ukraine’s independence. Presidents, prime ministers and parliamentarians changed, but their attitude to the country and its people remained the same. They milked the country, fought among themselves for power, assets and cash flows and did not care much about the ordinary people. They did not wonder why it was that millions of Ukrainian citizens saw no prospects at home and went to other countries to work as day labourers. I would like to stress this: it was not some Silicon Valley they fled to, but to become day labourers. Last year alone almost 3 million people found such jobs in Russia. According to some sources, in 2013 their earnings in Russia totalled over $20 billion, which is about 12% of Ukraine’s GDP.

I would like to reiterate that I understand those who came out on Maidan with peaceful slogans against corruption, inefficient state management and poverty. The right to peaceful protest, democratic procedures and elections exist for the sole purpose of replacing the authorities that do not satisfy the people. However, those who stood behind the latest events in Ukraine had a different agenda: they were preparing yet another government takeover; they wanted to seize power and would stop short of nothing. They resorted to terror, murder and riots. Nationalists, neo-Nazis, Russophobes and anti-Semites executed this coup. They continue to set the tone in Ukraine to this day.

The new so-called authorities began by introducing a draft law to revise the language policy, which was a direct infringement on the rights of ethnic minorities. However, they were immediately ‘disciplined’ by the foreign sponsors of these so-called politicians. One has to admit that the mentors of these current authorities are smart and know well what such attempts to build a purely Ukrainian state may lead to. The draft law was set aside, but clearly reserved for the future. Hardly any mention is made of this attempt now, probably on the presumption that people have a short memory. Nevertheless, we can all clearly see the intentions of these ideological heirs of Bandera, Hitler’s accomplice during World War II.

It is also obvious that there is no legitimate executive authority in Ukraine now, nobody to talk to. Many government agencies have been taken over by the impostors, but they do not have any control in the country, while they themselves – and I would like to stress this – are often controlled by radicals. In some cases, you need a special permit from the militants on Maidan to meet with certain ministers of the current government. This is not a joke – this is reality.

Those who opposed the coup were immediately threatened with repression. Naturally, the first in line here was Crimea, the Russian-speaking Crimea. In view of this, the residents of Crimea and Sevastopol turned to Russia for help in defending their rights and lives, in preventing the events that were unfolding and are still underway in Kiev, Donetsk, Kharkov and other Ukrainian cities.

Naturally, we could not leave this plea unheeded; we could not abandon Crimea and its residents in distress. This would have been betrayal on our part.

First, we had to help create conditions so that the residents of Crimea for the first time in history were able to peacefully express their free will regarding their own future. However, what do we hear from our colleagues in Western Europe and North America? They say we are violating norms of international law. Firstly, it’s a good thing that they at least remember that there exists such a thing as international law – better late than never.

Secondly, and most importantly – what exactly are we violating? True, the President of the Russian Federation received permission from the Upper House of Parliament to use the Armed Forces in Ukraine. However, strictly speaking, nobody has acted on this permission yet. Russia’s Armed Forces never entered Crimea; they were there already in line with an international agreement. True, we did enhance our forces there; however – this is something I would like everyone to hear and know – we did not exceed the personnel limit of our Armed Forces in Crimea, which is set at 25,000, because there was no need to do so.

Next. As it declared independence and decided to hold a referendum, the Supreme Council of Crimea referred to the United Nations Charter, which speaks of the right of nations to self-determination. Incidentally, I would like to remind you that when Ukraine seceded from the USSR it did exactly the same thing, almost word for word. Ukraine used this right, yet the residents of Crimea are denied it. Why is that?

Moreover, the Crimean authorities referred to the well-known Kosovo precedent – a precedent our western colleagues created with their own hands in a very similar situation, when they agreed that the unilateral separation of Kosovo from Serbia, exactly what Crimea is doing now, was legitimate and did not require any permission from the country’s central authorities. Pursuant to Article 2, Chapter 1 of the United Nations Charter, the UN International Court agreed with this approach and made the following comment in its ruling of July 22, 2010, and I quote: “No general prohibition may be inferred from the practice of the Security Council with regard to declarations of independence,” and “General international law contains no prohibition on declarations of independence.” Crystal clear, as they say.

I do not like to resort to quotes, but in this case, I cannot help it. Here is a quote from another official document: the Written Statement of the United States America of April 17, 2009, submitted to the same UN International Court in connection with the hearings on Kosovo. Again, I quote: “Declarations of independence may, and often do, violate domestic legislation. However, this does not make them violations of international law.” End of quote. They wrote this, disseminated it all over the world, had everyone agree and now they are outraged. Over what? The actions of Crimean people completely fit in with these instructions, as it were. For some reason, things that Kosovo Albanians (and we have full respect for them) were permitted to do, Russians, Ukrainians and Crimean Tatars in Crimea are not allowed. Again, one wonders why.

We keep hearing from the United States and Western Europe that Kosovo is some special case. What makes it so special in the eyes of our colleagues? It turns out that it is the fact that the conflict in Kosovo resulted in so many human casualties. Is this a legal argument? The ruling of the International Court says nothing about this. This is not even double standards; this is amazing, primitive, blunt cynicism. One should not try so crudely to make everything suit their interests, calling the same thing white today and black tomorrow. According to this logic, we have to make sure every conflict leads to human losses.

I will state clearly – if the Crimean local self-defence units had not taken the situation under control, there could have been casualties as well. Fortunately this did not happen. There was not a single armed confrontation in Crimea and no casualties. Why do you think this was so? The answer is simple: because it is very difficult, practically impossible to fight against the will of the people. Here I would like to thank the Ukrainian military – and this is 22,000 fully armed servicemen. I would like to thank those Ukrainian service members who refrained from bloodshed and did not smear their uniforms in blood.

Other thoughts come to mind in this connection. They keep talking of some Russian intervention in Crimea, some sort of aggression. This is strange to hear. I cannot recall a single case in history of an intervention without a single shot being fired and with no human casualties.

Colleagues,

Like a mirror, the situation in Ukraine reflects what is going on and what has been happening in the world over the past several decades. After the dissolution of bipolarity on the planet, we no longer have stability. Key international institutions are not getting any stronger; on the contrary, in many cases, they are sadly degrading. Our western partners, led by the United States of America, prefer not to be guided by international law in their practical policies, but by the rule of the gun. They have come to believe in their exclusivity and exceptionalism, that they can decide the destinies of the world, that only they can ever be right. They act as they please: here and there, they use force against sovereign states, building coalitions based on the principle “If you are not with us, you are against us.” To make this aggression look legitimate, they force the necessary resolutions from international organisations, and if for some reason this does not work, they simply ignore the UN Security Council and the UN overall.

This happened in Yugoslavia; we remember 1999 very well. It was hard to believe, even seeing it with my own eyes, that at the end of the 20th century, one of Europe’s capitals, Belgrade, was under missile attack for several weeks, and then came the real intervention. Was there a UN Security Council resolution on this matter, allowing for these actions? Nothing of the sort. And then, they hit Afghanistan, Iraq, and frankly violated the UN Security Council resolution on Libya, when instead of imposing the so-called no-fly zone over it they started bombing it too.

There was a whole series of controlled “colour” revolutions. Clearly, the people in those nations, where these events took place, were sick of tyranny and poverty, of their lack of prospects; but these feelings were taken advantage of cynically. Standards were imposed on these nations that did not in any way correspond to their way of life, traditions, or these peoples’ cultures. As a result, instead of democracy and freedom, there was chaos, outbreaks in violence and a series of upheavals. The Arab Spring turned into the Arab Winter.

A similar situation unfolded in Ukraine. In 2004, to push the necessary candidate through at the presidential elections, they thought up some sort of third round that was not stipulated by the law. It was absurd and a mockery of the constitution. And now, they have thrown in an organised and well-equipped army of militants.

We understand what is happening; we understand that these actions were aimed against Ukraine and Russia and against Eurasian integration. And all this while Russia strived to engage in dialogue with our colleagues in the West. We are constantly proposing cooperation on all key issues; we want to strengthen our level of trust and for our relations to be equal, open and fair. But we saw no reciprocal steps.

On the contrary, they have lied to us many times, made decisions behind our backs, placed us before an accomplished fact. This happened with NATO’s expansion to the East, as well as the deployment of military infrastructure at our borders. They kept telling us the same thing: “Well, this does not concern you.” That’s easy to say.

It happened with the deployment of a missile defence system. In spite of all our apprehensions, the project is working and moving forward. It happened with the endless foot-dragging in the talks on visa issues, promises of fair competition and free access to global markets.

Today, we are being threatened with sanctions, but we already experience many limitations, ones that are quite significant for us, our economy and our nation. For example, still during the times of the Cold War, the US and subsequently other nations restricted a large list of technologies and equipment from being sold to the USSR, creating the Coordinating Committee for Multilateral Export Controls list. Today, they have formally been eliminated, but only formally; and in reality, many limitations are still in effect.

In short, we have every reason to assume that the infamous policy of containment, led in the 18th, 19th and 20th centuries, continues today. They are constantly trying to sweep us into a corner because we have an independent position, because we maintain it and because we call things like they are and do not engage in hypocrisy. But there is a limit to everything. And with Ukraine, our western partners have crossed the line, playing the bear and acting irresponsibly and unprofessionally.

After all, they were fully aware that there are millions of Russians living in Ukraine and in Crimea. They must have really lacked political instinct and common sense not to foresee all the consequences of their actions. Russia found itself in a position it could not retreat from. If you compress the spring all the way to its limit, it will snap back hard. You must always remember this.

Today, it is imperative to end this hysteria, to refute the rhetoric of the cold war and to accept the obvious fact: Russia is an independent, active participant in international affairs; like other countries, it has its own national interests that need to be taken into account and respected.

At the same time, we are grateful to all those who understood our actions in Crimea; we are grateful to the people of China, whose leaders have always considered the situation in Ukraine and Crimea taking into account the full historical and political context, and greatly appreciate India’s reserve and objectivity.

Today, I would like to address the people of the United States of America, the people who, since the foundation of their nation and adoption of the Declaration of Independence, have been proud to hold freedom above all else. Isn’t the desire of Crimea’s residents to freely choose their fate such a value? Please understand us.

I believe that the Europeans, first and foremost, the Germans, will also understand me. Let me remind you that in the course of political consultations on the unification of East and West Germany, at the expert, though very high level, some nations that were then and are now Germany’s allies did not support the idea of unification. Our nation, however, unequivocally supported the sincere, unstoppable desire of the Germans for national unity. I am confident that you have not forgotten this, and I expect that the citizens of Germany will also support the aspiration of the Russians, of historical Russia, to restore unity.

I also want to address the people of Ukraine. I sincerely want you to understand us: we do not want to harm you in any way, or to hurt your national feelings. We have always respected the territorial integrity of the Ukrainian state, incidentally, unlike those who sacrificed Ukraine’s unity for their political ambitions. They flaunt slogans about Ukraine’s greatness, but they are the ones who did everything to divide the nation. Today’s civil standoff is entirely on their conscience. I want you to hear me, my dear friends. Do not believe those who want you to fear Russia, shouting that other regions will follow Crimea. We do not want to divide Ukraine; we do not need that. As for Crimea, it was and remains a Russian, Ukrainian, and Crimean-Tatar land.

I repeat, just as it has been for centuries, it will be a home to all the peoples living there. What it will never be and do is follow in Bandera’s footsteps!

Crimea is our common historical legacy and a very important factor in regional stability. And this strategic territory should be part of a strong and stable sovereignty, which today can only be Russian. Otherwise, dear friends (I am addressing both Ukraine and Russia), you and we – the Russians and the Ukrainians – could lose Crimea completely, and that could happen in the near historical perspective. Please think about it.

Let me note too that we have already heard declarations from Kiev about Ukraine soon joining NATO. What would this have meant for Crimea and Sevastopol in the future? It would have meant that NATO’s navy would be right there in this city of Russia’s military glory, and this would create not an illusory but a perfectly real threat to the whole of southern Russia. These are things that could have become reality were it not for the choice the Crimean people made, and I want to say thank you to them for this.

But let me say too that we are not opposed to cooperation with NATO, for this is certainly not the case. For all the internal processes within the organisation, NATO remains a military alliance, and we are against having a military alliance making itself at home right in our backyard or in our historic territory. I simply cannot imagine that we would travel to Sevastopol to visit NATO sailors. Of course, most of them are wonderful guys, but it would be better to have them come and visit us, be our guests, rather than the other way round.

Let me say quite frankly that it pains our hearts to see what is happening in Ukraine at the moment, see the people’s suffering and their uncertainty about how to get through today and what awaits them tomorrow. Our concerns are understandable because we are not simply close neighbours but, as I have said many times already, we are one people. Kiev is the mother of Russian cities. Ancient Rus is our common source and we cannot live without each other.

Let me say one other thing too. Millions of Russians and Russian-speaking people live in Ukraine and will continue to do so. Russia will always defend their interests using political, diplomatic and legal means. But it should be above all in Ukraine’s own interest to ensure that these people’s rights and interests are fully protected. This is the guarantee of Ukraine’s state stability and territorial integrity.

We want to be friends with Ukraine and we want Ukraine to be a strong, sovereign and self-sufficient country. Ukraine is one of our biggest partners after all. We have many joint projects and I believe in their success no matter what the current difficulties. Most importantly, we want peace and harmony to reign in Ukraine, and we are ready to work together with other countries to do everything possible to facilitate and support this. But as I said, only Ukraine’s own people can put their own house in order.

Residents of Crimea and the city of Sevastopol, the whole of Russia admired your courage, dignity and bravery. It was you who decided Crimea’s future. We were closer than ever over these days, supporting each other. These were sincere feelings of solidarity. It is at historic turning points such as these that a nation demonstrates its maturity and strength of spirit. The Russian people showed this maturity and strength through their united support for their compatriots.

Russia’s foreign policy position on this matter drew its firmness from the will of millions of our people, our national unity and the support of our country’s main political and public forces. I want to thank everyone for this patriotic spirit, everyone without exception. Now, we need to continue and maintain this kind of consolidation so as to resolve the tasks our country faces on its road ahead.

Obviously, we will encounter external opposition, but this is a decision that we need to make for ourselves. Are we ready to consistently defend our national interests, or will we forever give in, retreat to who knows where? Some Western politicians are already threatening us with not just sanctions but also the prospect of increasingly serious problems on the domestic front. I would like to know what it is they have in mind exactly: action by a fifth column, this disparate bunch of ‘national traitors’, or are they hoping to put us in a worsening social and economic situation so as to provoke public discontent? We consider such statements irresponsible and clearly aggressive in tone, and we will respond to them accordingly. At the same time, we will never seek confrontation with our partners, whether in the East or the West, but on the contrary, will do everything we can to build civilised and good-neighbourly relations as one is supposed to in the modern world.

Colleagues,

I understand the people of Crimea, who put the question in the clearest possible terms in the referendum: should Crimea be with Ukraine or with Russia? We can be sure in saying that the authorities in Crimea and Sevastopol, the legislative authorities, when they formulated the question, set aside group and political interests and made the people’s fundamental interests alone the cornerstone of their work. The particular historic, population, political and economic circumstances of Crimea would have made any other proposed option – however tempting it could be at the first glance – only temporary and fragile and would have inevitably led to further worsening of the situation there, which would have had disastrous effects on people’s lives. The people of Crimea thus decided to put the question in firm and uncompromising form, with no grey areas. The referendum was fair and transparent, and the people of Crimea clearly and convincingly expressed their will and stated that they want to be with Russia.

Russia will also have to make a difficult decision now, taking into account the various domestic and external considerations. What do people here in Russia think? Here, like in any democratic country, people have different points of view, but I want to make the point that the absolute majority of our people clearly do support what is happening.

The most recent public opinion surveys conducted here in Russia show that 95 percent of people think that Russia should protect the interests of Russians and members of other ethnic groups living in Crimea – 95 percent of our citizens. More than 83 percent think that Russia should do this even if it will complicate our relations with some other countries. A total of 86 percent of our people see Crimea as still being Russian territory and part of our country’s lands. And one particularly important figure, which corresponds exactly with the result in Crimea’s referendum: almost 92 percent of our people support Crimea’s reunification with Russia.

Thus we see that the overwhelming majority of people in Crimea and the absolute majority of the Russian Federation’s people support the reunification of the Republic of Crimea and the city of Sevastopol with Russia.

Now this is a matter for Russia’s own political decision, and any decision here can be based only on the people’s will, because the people is the ultimate source of all authority.

Members of the Federation Council, deputies of the State Duma, citizens of Russia, residents of Crimea and Sevastopol, today, in accordance with the people’s will, I submit to the Federal Assembly a request to consider a Constitutional Law on the creation of two new constituent entities within the Russian Federation: the Republic of Crimea and the city of Sevastopol, and to ratify the treaty on admitting to the Russian Federation Crimea and Sevastopol, which is already ready for signing. I stand assured of your support.

Colorado police brutality retrospective: the 1934 Relief Strike Battle, UP story “Girl Radical Leads Mob in Denver Riot”

Posted on July 22, 2012 by Eric Verlo

If one image captures the “Relief Strike Riot” of October 30, 1934, it’s of Patrolman CV Satt who continues to fire his service revolver after he’s felled by a bottle thrown by a striking picketer. Although Colorado newspapers were anti-union, their accounts vary enough to reveal the escalation of violence for which the DPD was responsible and for which they and the newspapers I’ll bet have never apologized. This article will be the first of a series to unearth the newspaper accounts which documented the events of Oct. 29 through Nov. 3, 1934, mostly because the police tactics and media defamation are remarkably similar today.

(Caption on above photograph: “This remarkable photograph was taken when the rioting between Denver police and “relief strike” picketers was at its height at W. Jewell ave. and the Platte River yesterday. Patrolman C. V. Satt is shown rising after he had been struck over the head with bricks and a shovel. He has his service pistol in his hand, ready to fire at his assailants, but Sergt. Henry Durkop is restraining him.”)

INTRODUCTION: THE BATTLE
As with many “riots”, the confrontation of Oct. 30, 1934 was instigated by the abrupt arrest and detention of a union organizer. What follows is an entertaining eyewitness account which attempts to defame the picketers and laud the police officers for their restraint, although the other reports and photographic record suggested otherwise.

Colorado Springs Evening Telegraph, October 31, 1934, page 1, column 8: GIRL RADICAL LEADS MOB IN DENVER RIOT — FERA Project Pickets Spurred Into Battle by Woman Believed Imported Agitator By DAVIS CAMPBELL, United Press Staff Correspondent

DENVER, Colo, Oct 30 (UP)– A dark haired, attractive girl led demonstrators into hand to hand battle with police here today, as the picketers, under alleged communist leadership, sought to force a strike of Denver FERA workers.

The girl, who was believed by police to have been an imported communist sympathizer, was the spearhead of the rush of demonstrators who attempted to rescue their arrested leader, Gene Corish, 35, of Denver, from the hands of police.

I followed the demonstrators from the time they gathered with the intention of picketing the FERA projects. Police believed they planned to descend on a project at Alameda avenue and Cherry creek. Instead they headed for another at Evans street and the Platte river.

FERA Workers Fight Reds.

There they rushed into a group of FERA workers and sought to take away their tools. The relief workers fought back. But, by the force of superior numbers the demonstrators were winning the spirited battle when police rushed up.

Several picks and shovels had been thrown into the stream.

The police leaped into the midst of the hand to hand fighting. They seized Corish, who appeared to be the leader of the rioters, and dragged him to a patrol wagon.

Instantly the girl leader of the rioters set up a cry of “Don’t let the (here she used an unprintable epithet) have him” and she started toward the patrol wagon swinging a shovel someone had wrenched from a worker.

Others joined the rush. Bricks and clods flew thru the air toward the little band of a dozen husky policemen, outnumbered about 50 to 1 by the rioters.

The patrolmen formed a cordon around the patrol wagon, and retreated slowly toward it, fighting every step of the way, but using only their clubs and fists. They very apparently were seeking to avoid serious injury to anyone.

Officer Felled by Bottle.

Suddenly a beer bottle flew thru the air and struck one of the patrolmen (I learned later he was Carl V. Satt), squarely on the head. Satt dropped like a log.

A rioter stood over him with a shovel in his hands, apparently ready to swing another blow at the unconscious man.

Driven to desperation by this development, police drew their pistols and fired what sounded to me like more than 30 shots.

A rioter dropped, wounded thru the hip. He was Henry Brown, later found to be superficially wounded.

I think Patrolman Marshall Stanton shot him. Stanton told me later he believed this was the case.

I was certain, as I watched from some distance away, that I saw two other rioters drop, but, if others were wounded, they were carried along by their fellows and were not taken to hospitals.

Rapidly the ranks of the demonstrators broke, giving ground before the police fire. Several paused long enough to hurl bricks and rocks such as those which had already injured Sergt. James Pitt and Sergt. Henry Duerkop.

The police made 10 arrests in all.

Thru all the violence, FERA workers sided with police. They appeared determined not to give up their jobs.

INTRO 2: PHOTOGRAPHS
From the Rocky Mountain News, October 31, 1934, page 4

Caption reads: “A group of the “strikers” parading near the Cherry Creek relief project. Only 21 bona fide relief workers in Denver left their jobs yesterday to strike.”

Caption reads: “This view was taken just before police and so-called relief striker started their bloody battle at the Platte River near W. Jewell ave. yesterday. The arrow points to Patrolman C. V. Satt, who was struck in the head by a missile and critically injured. Other patrolmen are shown on duty around the patrol wagon, as one of the picket leaders is being placed inside.”

Caption reads: “During the heat of the battle. This view shows the action in the encounter between police and strike picketers on the Platte River yesterday. Two of the picketers, knocked down by policemen, are shown lying on the ground.”

Caption reads: “After the smoke of battle. This shows the battleground where strikers and police met yesterday just after all the action had ceased. Two strikers are shown down on the ground and beyond them is Patrolman C. V. Satt, who was perhaps fatally injured when struck by missiles of the strikers. He is prone on the ground but has pulled out his revolver.”

Caption reads: “R. W. Rankin, a relief supervisor, shown waiting for the ambulance after he had been struck over the head by a patrolman following a private fight at the strike demonstration held yesterday at Civic Center. He suffered a severe scalp wound.”

Caption reads: Henry W. Brown, who was shot in the hip during the encounter between the demonstrators and police on the Platte River yesterday. He is shown here as he lay on a cot in county jail after his wound had been treated in Colorado General Hospital.”

INTRO 3: NEWS HEADLINES

CS Gazette, (AP) Oct 29, 1934:
Relief Strikers March on Capitol – Governor Refuses to Talk to Crowd When One ‘Red’ Won’t Keep Still

Rocky Mountain News, Oct 30
‘Relief Strikers’ March On Capitol, make Demands – Threaten Violence at Projects Today If Officials Do Not Grant All They Seek
Will Rogers – Says Bread Line Is Encouraged by Deficit of New York Stock Exchange
Young Folk Lambast Older Generation For Getting World Into Present Mess – No Punches Pulled as Boys and Girls Have Their Say

CS Evening Telegraph, Oct 30,
RELIEF RIOTERS BATTLE DENVER POLICE
Agitators Shot and Four Officers Injured as Mob Tries to Foment Strike – Blazing Guns Disperse Communist Led Crowd, Radio Car and Gas Station Burned, Score of Attackers Hurt, FERA Workers Refuse to Walk Out
Girl Radical Leads Mob in Denver Riot – FERA Project Pickets Spurred Into Battle by Woman Believed Imported Agitator

RMN, Oct 31
POLICE ARMY WITH MACHINE GUNS WILL GUARD FERA WORKERS TODAY
Force of 300 Officers Will Use Bullets and Tear Gas If Necessary to Protect Relief Workers From Molestation – Agitators Threaten Violence After Yesterday’s Bloody Clash
Witness Says Police Fired When Driven Back to Car – Gives Graphic Account of Rush by Screaming Men and Women Who Volleyed Rocks at Officers

CS Gazette, Oct 31,
RESUMPTION OF VIOLENCE IN DENVER STRIKE FEARED
City Tense After Bloody Riot on South Platte – Barricade Erected at Table Mountain, to Be Visited Today by Agitators

CS Evening Telegraph, Oct 31,
DENVER QUIET BUT TENSE AFTER RIOTING
Mob Gathers But Fails to Carry Out Threat to March on projects – Police Precautions Against Further Outbreaks Nip New Demonstrations; Report Agitators on Way to Foment Trouble in El Paso County – Mob Gathers in Englewood but Fails to Carry Out Threat to March Against FERA Projects
Don’t Expect Any Agitator Trouble on C. S. Relief Jobs p1, c7
Mountain at Golden Resembles Fortified Castle as Workers Prepare to Resist Strike Mob p1, c7

New York Times, Oct 31
‘Hunger Marchers’ Routed at Albany; Rioting in Denver – Many Injured in Denver – Relief Strikers Attempt to halt Federal Project–One Shot Fighting Police, p1, c1

RMN, Nov 1
Relief Strike Riots Subside as Police Act – Agitators Fail to Start Anything at Various FERA Projects
Pretty Girl From Illinois Finds Denver Police Nice p4, c1

CSET, Nov 1
Roundup Ends Denver Relief Strike Threat – With Agitators Arrested, Leaderless Mob’s Spirit Broken; Plot to Spread Disorder in State Fails
U.C.L.A. Branded Communist Hotbed

RMN, Nov 2
File Charges Today Naming 15 as Rioters – Two of Group Face Fine of $1,000 and Year in Jail If Acts Are Proved, p14
College Students Battle Radicalism – Form Vigilante Committee at Coast School

War memorial to Global War On Terror, aka War on Islam For World Resources now logging “Horn of Africa” casualties

Posted on July 18, 2012 by Eric Verlo

By now you’ve read elsewhere that many of the wounded soldiers being medivac’d to the US surgery hub in Germany are coming from parts unknown more specifically not-known to be US-declared war zones. Their flight origin is only revealed as “Horn of Africa”, but it’s telling isn’t it? US disrespect for foreign sovereignty means not even uttering the nation states involved. USG spokesmen know, for the geographically challenged, calling it the Horn can obfuscate the spheres of disputed influence stretching from Somalia, for you Blackhawk Downers, to Mali, where three US special ops were recently killed with their prostitute attaches, while the corporate media breathed a collective “huh?” Thankfully US adversaries in Mali had the better sense not to string the American bodies from bridges like pre-Falluja’d Fallujah, or did they? NATO’s media cameras weren’t there to exploit it in any case. Basically the Horn is where US AFRICOM has yet to beat back the continent’s last Islamic protectors as the Western serial rape of Africa drops its pretense that strangulation isn’t the final act.

Moms For Pot, damn the kids

Posted on May 13, 2012 by Eric Verlo

For Mother’s Day I was wondering about… MOMS FOR MARIJUANA. Are you kidding me?! Could cannabis users choosing motherdom as commonality for a niche advocacy group be any more half-baked? Motherhood is more than a special interest, demographic or hobby; it bears maternal responsibility. Women For Marijuana for example, doesn’t imply there are children around. One infers from Moms For Pot that there’s a role for drugs in the mothering process, a Just-Say-Yes policy in store for her children, if even there’s an age of consent.

How literally do you want to chain yourself to the adage that an apple doesn’t fall far from the [stupid] tree? Let’s set aside the stupor-addled myopia. Where is that child supposed to go to school? I wouldn’t want a Moms For Pot parents participating with my school. Remember the permissive mother who let kids drink in her basement because they’re going to drink, she rationalizes, why not somewhere safe? But this is worse, more than the condoning of drug use, it’s advocacy of drug use, as a medical treatment, as home remedy, as cure for cancer, who knows, she might recommend it for acne.

I think Moms For Pot are taking a big gamble that pot legalization happens before their kids reach school age. Who is going to be the first one suspected of dealing in school, having the most obvious ready supply? Who will be called to always explain his mother’s public preoccupation with addiction? If the pretext is Medical Marijuana, does he have to describe her as disabled? Will he have to denounce her public advocacy or be accused of being in denial? All pretty heavy for a kid.

Instead of a family leg up, this is a push off the cliff, but not out of character with the drug abuser mentality of me me me.

CLARIFICATION: I’m in favor of drug legalization, and MMJ, just not pushed on kids. And I’d like to see people, for whom chemical dependency doesn’t upset going about their normal life, give serious thought and empathy to the large number who succumb to pot’s worst predations. I know far too many victims of pot and alcohol than can be ignored.

Growth Busters’ all white cast asks dark skinned people not to have kids

Posted on November 10, 2011 by Eric Verlo

COLORADO SPRINGS- Local filmmaker, city council candidate, and critic of urban sprawl, Dave Gardner, screened his new doc GROWTHBUSTERS to a receptive hometown audience last night, on the heels of its world premier in Washington DC. Gardner has long defined his personal mission as questioning the wisdom of “growth”. Finally his unpopular theme is gaining traction. With GrowthBusters Gardner addresses economic growth, rampant consumption, carbon footprints and over-development, building to what he’s decided is the most elephantine challenge in the room, global population growth. Except, I’m sorry, that’s an elephant of another color. I resisted the Q & A, not wanting to pull down the evening’s celebratory curve. A giddy panel of white folk is for me as much a temptation as the easy target Gardner chose. In the privacy of the internet, we at Not My Tribe don’t have bubbles we’re too reluctant to burst.

Dave Gardner’s long unrewarded campaign against our city’s recidivist, graft-driven, and ever tragically unsustainable growth is so damn laudable, and his chopping away at the Capitalist assumptions of neoclassical economists is so urgently pertinent. But by folding both into the Inconvenient Truth of exponential global population rise, does Gardner mean the Colorado Springs audience takeaway to be we must distribute condoms to our Machiavellian land developers?

Let me first applaud Gardner’s critique of our region’s imbecilic growth. It’s ugly and residents are unhappy but powerless to depose the greedy exploitative speculators in charge. A memorable segment describes the Southern Delivery system being built to bring Pueblo water northward to serve El Paso County’s endless eastward developments. The energy to pump that water uphill will require the output of an average coal fired power plant, that much more emissions, pollution and coal ash.

Over the years Gardner has proven to be more than a gadfly battling our land barons. When he challenged Jerry Heimlicher, a pro-growth incumbent for a seat at the city council, the otherwise like-minded progressive adversary beat him, only to resign after his victory to make a sudden move out of town, leaving the position to be chosen by the usual undemocratic powers, looking suspiciously like his campaign had been a desperate measure to keep Gardner’s anti-growth voice off the council. There’s more to applaud about Gardner locally, but first–

I know this is easy to overlook in Colorado Springs, but Dave, the demographic character of the Stargazer Theater audience was what, last night, entirely white? It was, and probably not coincidentally, the dozens of experts you interviewed onscreen were also with one single exception white. Further, I’m sure we can agree the economic class represented was equally homogeneous; let’s call it comfortable. Tell us then, Dave, what does Middle America’s middle class white birthrate add to the worrisome arc of population growth?

Not that I think any socioeconomic group should address itself to out-breeding the next, but an audience with a zero or negative birthrate hardly needs to concentrate on curbing its numbers. Anticipating the challenges of exponential population growth is important, but HOW UNSEEMLY for a white community to plot counter-reproductive measures for the larger masses, specifically the darker-complected Global South, virtually all of its peoples lesser advantaged?

And let me add, how embarrassing that a Grist Magazine editor wants to brag about her lifestyle choice not to have a family, exchanged for the benefit of a “more dynamic schedule” which leaves her more easily free to join three similarly unencumbered friends for coffee.

We’re trading our biological imperative to live a Seinfeld episode?

I am not accusing anyone of deliberate racism, unlike the Sierra Club, who was certain this documentary took aim at Hispanic Americans. This was a detail we learned from the post-screening panel discussion. The local Sierra Club chairperson who sat on the panel last night told us that the national office was alarmed to learn that its Colorado Springs chapter was cosponsoring a documentary which called for curbing population growth. She assured her headquarters that she knew Dave Gardner personally and that GrowthBusters‘s thesis was above reproach. In particular, she explained, it didn’t target illegal immigration, which she presumed was their worry. To clarify, she was thinking: not birthrate but immigration rate, not global population growth but national population growth.

Population growth as it threatens America.

Once again we are reminded of the provincial brain freeze that characterizes our community. Even progressive ideals become distorted by the gravitational pull of our Tea Party tendencies. We support national reformist campaigns, but only to the limit of our stunted conservative comprehension.

Yes, discussing how to limit the birthrate of people of color is racist. It’s White Man’s Burden theology to believe that it is the privilege of the developed white world to decide for our lesser brethren whether they can procreate.

How is rushing to Dave Gardner’s defense, vouching for him that no racist insensitivity was intended, very much different from the excuse given by Congressman Doug Lamborn when he called President Obama a Tar Baby? Lamborn explained that he didn’t know black people were offended by “Tar Baby”. Would it really surprise Gardner that his call for White America to be alarmed about population growth, would threaten the of-color communities whose cultures still encourage having children?

Dave Gardner partnered with strange bedfellows when he took his anti-growth message to what he thought was the next level. The experts he interviewed are well aware their prognostications invite accusations of racism. I found it rather odd that one of them, speaking for the Club of Rome, was not introduced with his organization’s repute fully disclaimed.

If I were to guess, hitting upon the population question is where Gardner’s production finally took wing. Friends were recounting last night how he’d labored on the project for over half a decade, one scene shows Gardner lamenting the lack of financing available for a subject such as his. In the local sequences of GrowthBusters, the subject was about development and sustainability, while all the national interviews concerned population growth. When Gardner described the last year spent immersed in the project, I’m guessing that’s when underwriting for the population meme kicked in. The small cadre of usual suspects advancing today’s equivalent of eugenics theory were probably eager to add a fresh name to their roster. Yesteryear’s infamous population doomsayer Malthus was reviled because people inherently equated dire population projections with depopulation solutions. Malthus’ inheritors are accustomed to the same heat.

It is hard not to wonder if the First World’s cavalier disregard of climate change is because depopulation programs are being readied on the front burner. Peak oil, diminishing resources, declining agricultural yields and higher ecological toxicities cease to threaten human survival with the implementation of depopulation scenarios. Presentations like Gardner’s which reinforce the imperative of reducing the world population, create the popular consent with which population control compliance can be manufactured.

I’d have no problem with population growth engineering if it meant applying in the Third World, the proven method that has subdued the birthrate in the First World. Prosperity. If developed nations could share their abundance and education with the developing world, rendering the wealth of Africa’s natural resources back to Africa’s people for example, they’ll arrive at zero birthrates just like ours.

SPOILER ALERT: Redistribution of resources is not in the cards among the solutions which GrowthBusters suggests. Instead the feel good conclusion of this movie revolves around local applications of sustainability measures. Here I should confess I have a prejudice to corpulent over-eaters lecturing others on sustainability. Austerity measures are danced around, and a suggestion of cutting work hours to twenty one hours a week masks obviously a 50% cut in income.

Just as Gardner celebrates a return to hands-on farming, the oversimplified doubt he casts on the benefit of financial growth ignores the technological progress we all enjoy as its result. Gardner lampoons government planners who look to compensate for trends toward zero birthrates. They’re not “pro-growth”, they mean to fill diminishing labor pools. This is why the US invites its illegal immigrant workers. An increasingly idle population, mostly aging, needs people to service it. The benefit of growth and development was by design at least a rising tide for all.

I say we all, but who is comforted by Gardner’s thesis? How many of us have the savings to invest in a house with land to farm, install an orchard and solar panels to take ourselves off the grid, prepared to barter with our neighbors for the necessities we cannot make ourselves? Few of us live near an American dairy brave enough to defy government regulations against raw milk, I dare say that demographic has shrunk to approximate, no coincidence, the currently proverbial “one percent”. How many of us have access to community shared farms? I’ll hazard a guess you probably can’t afford to buy shares in the farms we have already, Grant Farms or Venetucci.

Let’s be honest about who’s supposed to be cutting back on having babies, and who’s in the position to weather the austere future mankind faces. One of the final scenes of Gardner’s domestic sustainable bliss depicted a model family unit belonging to one of the population growth think tanks. I’d like to think this was an oversight, but in a passing bit of the b-roll footage the audience was let to see that one of the white affluent women was pregnant.

Will occupying the streets Sept 17, Oct 6 and 15 precipitate an American Fall?

Posted on August 29, 2011 by Eric Verlo

“American Fall” would be a pun, yes. A pan-Arabian-like Spring causing the US anti-democracy to tumble, being the objective. The English riots have put a dark spin on what might be Middle America’s reception to popular uprising, but mark the dates, because the brass ring nears whether you have the courage or not, and you won’t have the stomach for the alternative.

You’ve probably already sensed the buzz about #SEPT17, campus groups across the country have been bypassing the conventional chaperones to coordinate OCCUPY WALL STREET. Can they do it? Not without your help, and that doesn’t mean switching your phone service or knocking on doors to Get Out The Vote.

Donate, organize or help with the logistics. If you’ve the temerity, attend in person. At the very least, you’ll have your expenses reimbursed when the city settles your civil suit against them for false arrest. New York City already budgeted for the insurance policy that will pay the legal settlements for the probably now textbook law enforcement practice of kettling inconvenient protests. Or, thinking positively, you may just witness history. To make history you have to make it. Don’t leave it up to the Little Red Hen if you want a piece.

Next up is #OCT6, although the day varies regionally. The date marks the 10th anniversary of the Afghan invasion, but social justice groups of all stripes are throwing their sundry complaints unto one banner and have organized marches nationwide. Of course the nationals aims to SEIZE DC, where activists will converge on Freedom Square, English for “Tahrir Square”, with plans to camp there until the people’s voice is heard. DC has passed ordinances against overnight protests, but Freedom Square may be cut some slack for being off the National Mall. It’s a smaller public space which lies on the diagonal between the White House and the Capitol Building, abreast of General Tecumseh Sherman’s horse actually.

The determination to reclaim American Democracy with an action in DC hopes to recreate Madison Wisconsin on the Potomac, with the same grassroots support for a broad set of issues to which both parties have shown themselves unresponsive.

A successful DC foothold will get real traction being closely followed by an international call for a worldwide uprising. #OCT15 is being spearheaded by Spain’s movement for GLOBAL DEMOCRACY. Will it dilute regional efforts to have actions running concurrently, or will synchronized demonstrations overwhelm our transnational overseers? We can wait and see, or we can give it our best shot.

Here are more graphics in support of the kickoff September 17. Borrowing from Tunisia and Egypt, and before that Chicago 1968, it’s US Days of Rage.

In the course of a single spring we’ve seen massive demonstrations which provoked governments to interrupt cellphone service, shut down internet access, and answer protestors with direct gunfire. To what extreme will the USG be driven? What rights remain inviolate in the US? Not communication. Activist cellphones were blocked on the BART in San Francisco to thwart protests against police brutality.

Organize, but think outside the school

Posted on August 3, 2011 by Eric Verlo

I love this graphic, it’s clever, it’s instructional, sort of. It offers at least the illusion of parity in a big fish eats little fish world. Because you know, it’s not going to work unless one of the little fishies is packing a spear gun.

Oslo bomber was less Christian Jihadist than Dexter, Arrested Development

Posted on July 27, 2011 by Eric Verlo

Another excerpt from Breivik’s dairy, covering the preliminary phases, backdated to 2002:

Personal reflections and experiences during several preparation phases April/May 2002

I am the Norwegian delegate to the founding meeting in London, England and ordinated as the 8th Justiciar Knight for the PCCTS, Knights Templar Europe. I joined the session after visiting one of the initial facilitators, a Serbian Crusader Commander and war hero, in Monrovia, Liberia. Certain long term tasks are delegated and I am one of two who are asked to create a compendium based on the information I have acquired from the other founders during our sessions. Our primary objective is to develop PCCTS, Knights Templar into becoming the foremost conservative revolutionary movement in Western Europe the next few decades. This in relation to developing a new type of European nationalism referred to as Crusader Nationalism. This new political denomination of nationalism will become the foremost counterweight to National Socialism and other cultural conservative political denominations, on the cultural right wing. Everyone is using code names; mine is Sigurd (the Crusader) while my assigned mentor is referred to as Richard (the Lionhearted). I believe I’m the youngest one here.

I am going to discontinue my involvement in the Norwegian Progress Party as I have lost faith in the democratic struggle to save Europe from Islamification. After 65 years of harsh political oppression, demonization and ridicule from the communist-globalist cultural establishment, directed at any and all who opposes multiculturalism, there are still no indications that this communist-globalist hegemony will ever allow PP to take control. My party is systematically vilified and sabotaged by a united media before every single election. And even if they ever did manage to form a majority government with Høyre (the Conservative Party) their principles and party program would not be conservative enough to halt the ongoing Islamic demographic warfare OR increase the ethnic Norwegian fertility rate from 1.4 to 2.1. The only thing PP has achieved so far is to give false hope to Norwegians. They say that democratic struggle is the only solution, when it is clearly already lost. How can we democratically compete with a regime that is mass-importing hundreds of thousands of new voters? The PP is pacifying Norwegians by giving them false hope and I refuse to continue to have any involvement in this. Armed struggle appears futile at this point but it is the only way forward.

2002-2006
I am required to build a capital base in order to fund the creation of the compendium. I don’t know if I will ever proceed with a martyrdom operation at this point as it simply seems too radical.

My plan A is to attempt to acquire 3 million Euro, in which case I plan to establish a pan- European organizational platform that will attempt to grow organically as a support organization which will distribute a “legal version” of the compendium.

If I fail to generate the specified amount I will move forward with the operation, in order to market the compendium that way.

As of 2005 I have managed to generate 500,000 Euro, but I am still 2.5 million Euro short. I will attempt to generate the remaining amount through continued stock/options speculation. I can afford to lose up to 250,000 Euro without it compromising the completion of the compendium and the subsequent effectuation of the operation.

Stock/option speculation did not work out. I will need to cut my losses and proceed to plan B.

After cutting my losses, I now have a minimum of funds to complete my two tasks (in excess of 250,000 Euro).

2006-2008
Researching and writing the compendium: “A European Declaration of Independence”

Autumn – 2008
I attended a birthday party in Oscarsgate, Oslo. We were attending a birthday party organized by a good friend of Axels’ girlfriend, Synne. I noticed the woman who celebrated her birthday was working as a judge. A majority of the people at the party where jurists – judges and lawyers in the public sector. I chatted with most of the people at the party. It really struck me how incredibly politically correct everyone were, as if they were all members of the Norwegian Labour Party. I have never before experienced a group of people who are completely freaked out about discussing political issues relating to multiculturalism and Islamization. I noticed a majority of these people were Labour Party sympathizers. I guess they don’t really have a choice considering the fact that they are all climbing the public sector hierarchy. A thought occurred. The judges during WW2 who had party affiliations with the NS or any affiliation with the SS were prosecuted and imprisoned. Is it therefore only fair that judges of high rank with party affiliations to the Labour Party and the other parties who support multiculturalism (and therefore Islamization) are to be considered category B or C traitors? They obviously have a considerable responsibility and should be considered traitors of their people. I would imagine most of them would be considered category C though as their influence is considerably less prevalent than that of any parliamentarian, editor/journalist or university professor/lecturer. In any case, nice people though and we had a good time. If only they had any idea that one of their guests was a Justiciar Knight of an organization affiliated with the Norwegian and European Resistance Movement, I would be thrown out immediately most likely. It is completely understandable as their careers would be over if they had any affiliation with such organizations or individuals.

Autumn – 2009 – Birthday party
My best friend, Peters, 30th birthday. We are going to Budapest to party hard for 5 days. This is my second trip to Hungary. I really love that country and the people. Clubs in Buda are top notch. Excellent elektronica scene, among the best in the world. Hungarian girls are hot as hell, too bad I have to avoid relationships for the good of my mission. Doesn’t hurt having fun though 😀 I don’t think I’ve consumed this much alcohol for many years, totally awesome. My best friends, Martin, Axel, Marius and Peter went down and hooked up with another band of Norwegians we have known for some years. One of Martins best friends are Jon-Niclas, really cool guy. He’s a rather well known Norwegian comedian, together with his partner and friend Anders, and a few others. We had a lot of fun down there, the ten of us. Most of us know each other from Nissen High School in Oslo.

Autumn – 2009 – Phase shift
I’m in a phase shift with my project. The compendium is complete and I currently preparing for the next phase. I’m creating two different and “professional looking” prospectuses for “business ventures”. A mining company and a small farm operation. The reasoning for this decision is to create a credible cover in case I am arrested in regards to the purchase and smuggling of explosives or components to explosives – fertilizer. In this regard I created a new company called Geofarm, which might act as a credible cover for such activities. I spent about 2 weeks cannibalizing an existing Mining prospectus. In addition to the prospectus I have created I will create two websites and business cards. I also intend to contact suppliers of equipment related to these industries so that they may act as future witnesses, collaborating my story, should I ever need it. If I do get arrested in this “acquirement phase” I figure that they will have a hard time proving that my intention is to contribute and fight in the ongoing European civil war. Sure, they will attempt to charge me with terror but they will not have enough evidence to incarcerate me (due to my covers). Also considering the fact that I have never done anything illegal in the past. If I do get caught I will, however, be placed on every imaginable watch list for the rest of my life and will thus be unable to partake in any advance operation. In this case I will have to cancel the primary operation and instead go with my secondary operation of lesser significance. Such is the life of a resistance fighter.

November – 2009
I’ve spent a few weeks contributing to set up a cultural conservative newspaper with national distribution in Norway. The idea is to develop Document.no, a cultural conservative blog into a newspaper company with 12 publications per year. I’ve developed a relatively complex strategy and forwarded it to Hans, the editor and manager. I have made a few attempts to seek funding although my efforts haven’t materialized yet. I tried to formalize cooperation between the Progress Party and Document (both moderate cultural conservative entities), at least in an incubation period. However, after discussing this with both FrP and Hans it would appear as they do not want to take part in any form of cooperation with each other. I have spent approximately 50 hours developing potential strategies for Document.no, pro bono, but I will have to limit any further involvement due to my primary operation. Hans Rustad, the leader of Document.no, seems like an odd fellow. I’m usually excellent in psycho analyzing people but I haven’t figured him out at all. I know he has a Marxist background and I believe he is in fact something of a rarity – an actual national Bolshevik, and thus not a real nationalist. He likes to criticize the multiculturalist media hegemony in Norway but is completely unwilling to contribute to create any form of political platform or consolidation. He seems extremely paranoid and suspect of most people and he likes to attempt to ridicule and mock Fjordman, every time he writes a comment. Document.no has developed into a kind of moderate cultural conservative think tank where moderate cultural conservatives exchange thoughts and make comments on the articles posted. Hans likes to criticise cultural Marxist media (MSM) but is unwilling to present any solutions or to contribute to any form of consolidation of an “alternative”. Despite of that, I don’t mind contributing somewhat as it benefits our cause, regardless.

December – 2009
I’ve now worked with email farming for two months. God, I wouldn’t have imagined it was going to be this f…… boring 😀 I’m using Facebook to target various nationalist related groups and inviting every single member. I’ve managed to farm approximately 1,700 email addresses this way. I did generic swipes of various blogs and internet sites earlier this year as well. Total number of email addresses is approx 3,000-5,000, haven’t made an exact count yet <3 Ofc, it’s a quite tedious task due to the fact that Facebook has a 50 invitations cap per day. Even with my two accounts I’m limited to inviting a maximum of 100 per day, where an average of 40-50% accepts. Of these 40-50% around 90% have email addresses whereas approx only 50% are checked on a regular basis. So of 1,000 Facebook friends I will achieve a penetration rate of around 20-30%. Not optimal but then again, I can’t think of a more efficient way to get in direct touch with nationalists in all European countries. Christmas – 2009
Have been in a few Christmas parties with friends, fun although I’ve gained some extra kilos 😀 I’m currently 7 kg overweight up 3-4 kilos the last three months. I started the hardcore training program a few months ago but chose to end it in order to complete the book and email farming process. At this point I’ve extended the writing phase 4 times due to the urge to extend certain chapters. These delays are starting to severely affect my budget leaving me with less than 42k Euro in direct funds and another 25k in credit. I really need to finalize this compendium soon and move on to next phase (research into weaponry, armor and explosives followed by acquirement phase). Will have to destroy my old hard drives and buy new ones before the research phase, and then destroy these ones again before acquirement phase. It takes ages to farm quality email addresses from Facebook.

Anyways, moral is on an all time high but physically I’m at an all time low. I really need to start my training program soon… but still aprox 1-2 months before my time budget allows me to focus on this. Btw, I just read that an alleged Swedish neo-Nazi group, who allegedly planned to assassinate Swedish category A and B traitors, had been uncovered in connection with the theft of the “Arbeit macht Frei sign”. Hmm, I always wondered if these guys are actually National Socialists or if it’s just typical cultural Marxist propaganda. Perhaps it’s my fellow co-founder of PCCTS, my sister-cell??? I guess I won’t find out unless they publish the names. I doubt it though. They seem to be using the outdated, traditional and vulnerable hierarchical military cell-model which indicates that they are from an old school and un-related resistance fraction.

January 2010
I was out with Peter and Didrik today. We had some drinks at Peter’s bachelor pad near Bogstadveien, probably the most prestigious place to live for bachelors in Oslo and not far from where I used to live when I was still in the “game”. We then went on to a nearby restaurant, had an incredible meal, drank some more and met Peter’s girlfriend and her friends. We had a few beers and talked, very cosy <3 I remember telling Christine about my career as a writer, telling her that I wasn’t planning on actually selling the book but rather to distribute it freely in order to more efficiently propagate our cause to a broader audience (they were all cultural conservative btw). Christine told me that she believed I was driven by idealism, which is of course true, but that I actually lived my dream. While I didn’t want to start to argue that particular factor, as I don’t like appearing like a pooper or to risk blowing my cover, it got me thinking. Are, we, the reactionary revolutionary conservatives really living our dream or are we making a sacrifice? To be honest, if I felt that other people could do my job I would not do what I do, that I can guarantee you. I don’t want to do what I do, I would rather focus on starting a family and focus on my career again. But I can’t do that as long as I feel like a person caught in a burning spaceship with nowhere to go. If you see the ship is burning you don’t ignore it and start cooking noodles do you? You put out the fire even if it endangers your life. You don’t enjoy putting out the fire but it is your duty to yourself and your fellow crewmen. And let’s say your crewmen have been infected with a rare virus that shuts down their rational senses and they try to stop you from putting out the fire. You can’t really allow yourself to be stopped by any of them as it will lead to your collective death. You will do anything to put out that fire despite of the fact that they are trying to stop you. Anything else would be illogical. But sacrificing yourself for others who probably detest you for it doesn’t necessarily have to be a miserable experience. After all, we have the truth and logic on our side and we will learn to find rewards and comfort in our actions. After all, sometimes being uncompassionate is the most compassionate thing you can do. Anyway, back to email farming on Facebook, aaaaarrrrggh :/ It’s driving me nuts, lol. I’m currently working on French leads/FB groups. An extremely tedious and boring task – preparing quality contacts from scouring patriotic Facebook groups and sending out 100 select invitations per day (from 2 FB accounts). I’ve been doing this for 60 days straight now, 3-4 hours per day. FB networking isn’t all that bad though as you do meet a lot of interesting, like minded people. This is the main reason why my book has been delayed. I just feel that I must send my book to at least 10 000 primary nationalists in the European world and I’m currently at 6000 email addresses. Good vocal trance music makes this task a lot less boring ;). My funds are depleting gradually though; currently at 50,000 Euro + 30,000 Euro in credit limits (12 credit cards ftw), which will force me into the next phase of the operation soon. A usual day for me involves email farming, writing, sharing “moderate” resources from my book on debate groups to coach fellow cultural conservatives, smoking, eating chocolate lol, taking a daily 1 hour walk/motivational meditation and doing some occasional battlegrounds in WoW on my badass Horde resto druid. I just completed Dragon Age Origins not long ago. A brilliant game! 😀 It’s important to have fun a few hours every day. I regret to admit that I’ve become a notorious downloader of pirated movies, series and games etc. but have noticed that an increasing number of sites have been closed down lately. Stealing is bad, I admit, but then again, when you have devoted your entire life to a good cause you can allow yourself some naughtiness especially if it can contribute to conserve your funds, cough ;). Yes, yes, no one's perfect 😛 February 2010
I just bought Modern Warfare 2, the game. It is probably the best military simulator out there and it’s one of the hottest games this year. I played MW1 as well but I didn’t really like it as I’m generally more the fantasy RPG kind of person – Dragon Age Origins etc .and not so much into first person shooters. I see MW2 more as a part of my training-simulation than anything else. I’ve still learned to love it though and especially the multiplayer part is amazing. You can more or less completely simulate actual operations.

I’ve continued with email farming until now, on a daily basis. The email farming phase is coming towards its end and I will conclude it by at least attempting to acquire as many email addresses to members of parliament in Western European countries as possible. Because I think focusing solely on distributing the compendium to patriots would be a mistake as they have little to no political influence in the EUSSR/USASSR hegemony. It is important that our enemies know “how we see what they are doing”. The national intelligence agencies of Europe will do everything they can to limit its distribution. They will not allow the parliament members of any nation to read it, so we must send it directly to them.

It’s a shame I have to purge my 5,000 Facebook contacts. It took so much time and work to acquire all those contacts and I get the feeling I’m purging a little piece of my life, lol. But I did get what I came for after all; every individuals email address.

It is still too snowy and cold to initiate the acquirement phase (acquirement of weaponry and armor etc). My agenda the following months looks like the following:

1.
Conclude email farming

2.
Conclude the writing of 2083 and secure it. This post will be one of my last entries. I will have to secure the compendium at a safe location until the week before operation (today is Feb 7th btw).

3.
Change hard drives (phase shift), purge all evidence from other phase.

4.
Initiate the research phase: research the possibilities for the acquirement of weaponry and armor, the making of WMDs (explosives), acquirement of components of WMD, research of logistics and storage opportunities.

I have budgeted 2 weeks for the research phase, but it might take up to 6 weeks.

The research phase will be followed by the acquirement phase where I have budgeted 4-8 months. The acquirement phase will be followed by a one week only construction/preparation phase.

Btw, I just received what looks like a mass recruitment message from one of my 5000 Facebook contacts (he’s wearing a balaclava in his pic btw with a t-shirt with the SS skull insignia). The message goes like this:

Hails!

“help support are worldwide organization ATB Aryan Terror Brigade a branch Of blood and honour, if you are interested reply…..”

While I have to admire the young lad’s initiative and probably noble intention (he probably doesn’t have the faintest clue what National Socialism or constructive and meaningful resistance is) the lack of subtlety and discretion is unfortunately the current trademark of many European amateurish resistance groups. They probably want recruits in their Jew/immigrant bashing efforts… Many of these people are causing so much damage to the nationalist cause that I sometimes wonder if they are on the payroll of the cultural Marxists. Regardless, my hope is that this compendium will contribute to a significant “leap in evolution” of the current climate of cluelessness and incompetence.

March 2010
I have ended my “email acquisition phase” ending up with a grand total of 5,700 Facebook contacts (2 accounts) and a total of 8,000 high quality email addresses (representing all spheres of cultural conservative thought). I now have a direct way forwarding my compendium to a good portion of the most dedicated nationalist oriented individuals in all Western European countries, including the US, Australia, Canada, South Africa, certain Eastern European countries, Armenia, Israel and even India. This task has taken me several months and it pained me to purge all my FB contacts. I’ve talked and discussed with hundreds of patriotic individuals (many whom are nationalist oriented intellectuals fighting the good fight), many good people, which made the decision to purge the contacts even harder. I have now moderated by FB profile considerably and transformed it to a politically correct profile. I do fear sometimes that my endeavors relating to the research of the book, and acquisitions of these addresses has resulted in me being put on various watch lists. I know that at least a few of the profiles I invited are fake, and used for information gathering for various European and US intelligence agencies. The question is; have they flagged me? I guess I will find out eventually…

I went ahead and sold some of the last sets of items I possessed, from my former life, which had value. It was a complete 40 piece Versace-Rosenthal dinner set worth approximately 5,000 Euros. I bought it a few years ago for 2,000 Euros and just sold it for that price. I know I should sell my Breitling Crosswind (new price: 7,000 Euros), but sentimental value has thus far prevented me from doing that. Actually, I still have a corporate HP printer (new price 4,000 Euro). I may attempt to sell that later as it’s pointless for me to own one. I do have a quite large booze and wine collection which I have collected over the years. Several of the red wine flasks are from 1979, and therefore possibly worth a fortune. I do appreciate a glass of vintage red wine so I may actually drink it, prior to execution of operation. I have given away a few of my paintings to friends. I will keep the rest hanging, as I still appreciate the works.

The compendium is in its last phase. I have worked quite hard the last two months to complete it. I estimate that I will be able to complete it within 2 weeks.

Time is of the essence, and I really need to start the research phase (for the actual operation) and begin on the physical transformation phase. I have to wait until I have secured the compendium at multiple locations and purged and destroyed my hard drives.

Moral is peaking. I can’t wait to share the compendium with fellow brothers and sisters. This will be one of the last entries btw. I may or may not add more to this log prior to execution of operation.

July 2010
I recently successfully finished the “armor acquisition phase” and have created an armor cache by secured a full Pelican case underground. I basically dug it down somewhere deep in the Norwegian forest. It was my first experience with this type of assignment and I underestimated the planning needed to complete the job. A few days ago, I got up at 5.00 in the morning and spent a couple of hours packing for the trip. By using Google Earth I had selected a desolate location (approx), deep in the forests of Norway. I did not yet know the exact location when I set out on the trip, loaded with my cargo. The Pelican case contained a complete set of Lokis armor – shield included, caltrops, police insignias and various other equipment needed for the operation. I was unable to place the Damascus FX- 1 Flexforce riot suit and the Molle, pouch carrier in the Pelican case so I stashed it on the attic marking it as “air soft equipment”. That will have to do… The Pelican case was so full I had to physically sit on it to be able to lock it properly.

Anyway, after about a 3-4 hour drive I arrived at the area and I started to scout for small roads of the highway, as a car parked by the highway would cause unwanted attention. I found one potential location and drove my little Hyundai weenie car down a dirt road. These cheap urban cars are obviously not for off road use so I almost ended in the ditch. I parked the car and scouted the area on foot for an hour but with little success. An appropriate location involves finding an area with soil that you can actually dig in so it excludes areas close to rocks or near trees (all the roots will make it too hard to dig). I drove for half an hour and started scouting another location. I found what I thought could be an appropriate dig site and fetched the shovel and two big plastic covers for initial testing of the soil. I could tell by the topography that not many people had been here before. The forest was very compact with a lot of spider webs, and hundreds of flying bugs around. I have serious issues with spiders so I just had to block those thoughts out. Of course, it was a giant rock just 10 cm below the soil of my first attempt… Regardless, I continued digging close by and eventually found a suitable spot. When in the “identification process” you should expect a few unsuccessful attempts. You should at least dig 1.5-2 meters vertically and you obviously need a little bit of luck. I was considering getting an echo sensor gadget for this purpose, which can reveal whether there are obstructions below the ground etc. However, getting one would be a hassle, so I just decided to do it the old fashion way.

I started digging at 11:00 and continued for three hours straight. There were a lot of mosquitoes annoying the hell out of me despite of the fact that I was covered in anti-mosquito oil. Why oh why didn’t I bring a mosquito head-net… Due to the intensity of constantly digging, the heat and sweat forced me to remove everything except my boots and my Skins compression gear. The bugs had a field day for sure… Digging for hours is exhausting but I continued pushing my tolerance level as I really wanted to finish before dark. At around 16:00 I was out of water, I had emptied by 1.5 litre Camelbak pouch. I had been digging continuously for 5 hours and was completely exhausted, yet I hadn’t even finished digging the hole… I was getting increasingly frustrated as I couldn’t go on much longer without water. As I didn’t want another day of this hell (4-6 hours driving total + digging) I made the best out of the situation and went to prepare the cargo in my car for transportation to the dig site. I had originally planned to split the content of the case into four and carry it in my backpack to the site. The case was too heavy to transport in one go without problems. Unfortunately, with my water issue I really had no choice. I literally dragged the 70 kg case to the dig site. It was extremely exhaustive but it saved me approximately 30-60 minutes. At 18:00 I had secured the case underground and filled in all the dirt. I then spent around 40 minutes concealing the dig site by transporting branches and leaves from other parts of the forest. After one and a half hours drive I finally reached a gas station. I was quite dehydrated at the time. Needless to say; that was the best coke and hotdog I had consumed in ages…

I realize that I rushed the end process due to the fact that I had underestimated several aspects of “dig site management”. I will not make the same mistake when I’m securing my weapons after the “weapons acquirement phase”. Lesson learned.

August 2010, 1
Phase shift – armor phase to weapons phase; hard drive replaced with new one, and all evidence from former phase purged. I’m preparing for a car trip to Prague to establish a weapons connection for the acquisition of an assault rifle, a Glock, splint grenades and AP ammo (grenades and AP ammo is a bonus). Prague is known for being maybe the most important transit point for illicit drugs and weapons in Europe. I spent a couple of days planning the trip as it takes around 15-17 hours to drive and it involves the car ferry from Sweden to Denmark and another ferry from Denmark to Germany. I might just take a car ferry from Oslo to Germany. It will be hard to avoid using my visa during this trip but I will try. My mobile will be turned off during the entire duration and will only be turned on in an emergency. I have researched all relevant information; hostel info for Copenhagen, Berlin and Prague. If I fail to accomplish my objective in Prague my secondary attempt will be in Berlin. If that fails as well I will drive all the way to Serbia. My encounter with the criminal networks in Prague will not go without risk. I will have to try to establish a connection via Taxi drivers, and/or through the clubbing/prostitution scene. I just hope I make it out alive… I will at least avoid all ferries and electronic payments on the return trip and cross the northern border (it has minimal presence of custom officers), just in case I am somehow under surveillance. Better to be safe than sorry etc. When I return and secure the weapons I can finally initiate the “explosive phase”. More on that in another chapter.

August 2010, 2
As the “armor acquirement phase” has been successfully completed it is now time to move on to the “weapons research phase” followed by the “weapons acquirement phase”. I’m planning a road trip to Denmark and Germany as backup targets and Czech Republic as the primary destination with the intention of buying an AK-47 (7.62) and a Glock 17 or 19 (9 mm).I’ve spent the last two to three weeks researching clubs or similar places where medium-scale drug dealers frequent. Drug dealers are the best bet when looking to establish a weapons connection, after all. They, or their suppliers, have functional smuggler routes from other East bloc countries, the Balkans and from Turkey. While they prefer to trade drugs, due to the space efficient nature of narcotics, they are usually able to provide weapons as well. If they don’t have any weapons in stock, they are usually able to order arms from their couriers.

I can’t say I’m looking forward to this trip. I’ve heard that Prague is the most dangerous capital in Europe with a lot of very brutal and cynical criminals. There is a chance ill get killed down there by some desperate criminal individual. In any case; I’ve prepped by car, hollowed out the back seats of my Hyundai Atos and it should be room for weapons, a few frag grenades and AP ammo. The car is really crap so I hope it won’t break down in the middle of the autobahn. Several people on the Hyundai forum said I would never reach my destination and back in that car, lol. I guess we will see… The reason I chose it in the first place is that it looks like a pensioners car, so it not likely that I will be stopped in customs controls when I smuggle the arms back to Oslo.

Today is the day; I’m driving down to the ferry now. It will take me from Oslo to Kiel, whereas I need to drive approx 9 hours straight to Prague where I have booked a 6 day stay at a relatively cheap hostel. I have usually gone with hotels in the past but they are not great for socializing. Nothing beats a Hostel when it comes to partying and getting to know people etc. This trip is going to be a fascinating experience. I’m just trying not to think too much about what might happen when I approach drug dealers. I’ve decided I want to get most out of the trip so I have made a schedule including visits to all of Prague’s tourist attractions. I will do this during the day time, and go clubbing at night looking for a connection.

I’m been two days in Prague. I’ve sorted a few tasks I wanted to do. One involved professionally printing prospectuses which will serve to strengthen my cover stories in case I get apprehended pre-operation. The prospectus is basically a Mineral Extraction business plan explaining in detail why I would need to create explosives. The cover story involves the manufacturing of explosives without a permit. Everything is specified in the prospectus which should be enough to create a reasonable doubt regarding any potential terror charges, should I ever get caught. I also got several police ID badges and other related insignias professionally printed, paying cash of course. Printing these back in Norway would only result in the clerk notifying the authorities.

So only one thing remains; I need to find my weapons connection within 4 days…! I failed miserably yesterday; I went to two brothels and a couple of clubs. The people I approached got really nervous and thought I was either a cop or completely nuts, lol. I have had to refine my approach pitch. It started off really bad. Whatever you do when trying to establish a gun connection, never be too direct;

Hello there; I want to buy an AK-47, 4 frag grenades, 1 Glock and AP bullets. (Guy will run for the hills before you have completed the last sentence 🙂

This city doesn’t seem dangerous at all btw. I have no idea why that BBC documentary would present such incorrect information. In fact, I feel even safer here than back in Oslo. Probably because there is basically no Muslims living in this country. Most of the criminals here are Christian Gypsies and I have found out that most of them have been basically chased away from the capital, Prague, to other Czech cities. I can understand why the government would want to do this. Prague is like a giant Museum of ancient European historical sites and attracts millions of tourists annually. All the criminals that was here a few years ago was bad for business. I have never seen this many tourists in any other European city; Paris, London and Berlin included. Downtown Prague is packed with thousands and thousands of tourists, even now in September.

Day 5 in Prague. I’m getting desperate. This is the first major setback for me during my operation. I am so disappointed by myself. I realize now that Prague is far from the ideal city when looking to buy arms. Western European capitals are probably a more suitable location to establish a connection as that is the end destination of the arms that come through here. Prague may be a transit point but finding the actual couriers or sellers has proven to be a hard task. Also, I guess I wasn’t motivated enough, considering the fact that I could have just purchased a legal semi automatic rifle and a Glock in Norway. I have approached several shady looking individuals but I would have tried a lot harder if it weren’t for the fact that I could buy guns legally.

I have now decided to abort this sub-mission and rather focus on acquiring the weapons I need legally, back in Norway. Regardless of the outcome of this mission; I have had a great vacation and have experienced most of the historical sites and a lot of amazing architecture. I’ve also partied a lot with the people I met at the hostel. Time to go home…

The trip back was a bore. My Ipod batteries died halfway to Copenhagen. I stayed the night at a hostel and drove from Copenhagen to Oslo the next day.

September 2010
I originally wanted to try establishing a connection with Hells Angels in either Prague, Berlin or Copenhagen. However, I lost my motivation completely during my first few days in Prague. I now have to acquire a semi-automatic rifle and Glock legally. I don’t think the rifle will be a problem, as I have completed the 1 week duration hunter course, and I have had a Benelli Nova Pump-Action shot gun for 7 years without incident. I don’t have a criminal record so there is no reason why the police should reject my application.

I have now sent an application for a Ruger Mini 14 semi-automatic rifle (5.56). It is the most “army like” rifle allowed in Norway, although it is considered a “poor man’s” AR-15. I envy our European American brothers as the gun laws in Europe sucks ass in comparison. However, the EUSSR borders to Turkey and the Middle East so acquiring illegal arms isn’t exactly rocket science providing you are motivated enough. In any case; I would rather have preferred a Ruger Mini 30, but I already own a 7.62 bolt rifle and it is likely that the police wouldn’t grant me a similar caliber. On the application form I stated: “hunting deer”. It would have been tempting to just write the truth; “executing category A and B cultural Marxists/multiculturalist traitors” just to see their reaction 😛

Acquiring a pistol, legally, is more tricky. I have been a member of Oslo Pistol Club for a few years but it is required that you train regularly in order to be eligible. I will have to train more often this winter and ensure I build up a solid track record, which in turn should enable me to get a permit.
I have now changed my hard drive, again, and I’m now going to start the “explosives research phase”. I’ve been looking forward to this phase for a long time.

October-November 2010
I have just completed the “explosives research phase” and have summarized several new chapters for the compendium. My rifle application came through and I have now ordered a 800 Euro silencer specifically created for automatic and semi-automatic rifles. The Ruger Mini 14 costs about 1,400 Euro including a customized trigger job from the gun smith. I will have to buy a new stock with picatinny rails (400 Euro) and 30 bullet factory mags (60 Euro per mag) from a US supplier.

I have now cleared out all of the information (evidence) from the previous phase and changed my hard drive once again. I am now ready to start the chemical acquirement phase…! 🙂

I was at a party yesterday with a few friends from high school. One of them, Trond, who apparently had evolved into a relatively extreme Marxist, often joining ANTIFA (Blitz) demonstrations… We were both into hip hop back then and he had apparently continued down that road. We had some interesting debates that night while drinking… 🙂 Can you believe the hypocrisy of some people? The guy lives in a Norwegian only area in the middle of a Muslim ghetto at Tøyen in Oslo. I asked him; don’t you consider yourself to be a hypocrite considering the fact that you support mass Muslims immigration and at the same time refuse to actually live with them, and instead barricade yourself in a safe Norwegian area? Needless to say, he didn’t have a good answer… I went on about the fact that there is no such thing as a Palestinian. The concept known as Palestine and Palestinians is a Syrian effort to justify Jihad etc (this is a classic and awesome way to infuriate Marxists :-). We managed to push his buttons over and over again without him realizing that we were using him as a supplier for top notch entertainment :-). God, that was actually quite mean but I honestly think he will re-evaluate his Marxist world view after that night.

I’ve now ordered 50 ml, 99% pure liquid nicotine from a Chinese online supplier. 3-4 drops will be injected in hollow point rifle bullets, which will effectively turn it into a lethal chemical weapon. However, I am quite worried about any potential customs related issue as pure nicotine is considered an illegal substance. In a worst case scenario; a customs official will open the package, get a few drops on his skin and die, and I will have a full SWAT team serving me cock sandwiches at my door the next morning… However, I specifically instructed the Chinese supplier to send the package by courier to my company name, with extra wrapping and chemical labeling.

I have now made my first order for one of the chemicals required for my initiator from an online-based Polish supplier. I will have to order another 4-5 different ingredients online before I am done.

Needless to say; this is an extremely vulnerable phase. In fact, it is the most vulnerable phase of them all. If I get through this phase without trouble I will be very close to finalizing my operation. I am somewhat concerned but I have credible cover stories for each individual chemical (with the exception of one) should there be any complication.

It has been decided that the operation will be effectuated in Autumn, 2011. However, I cannot go into factors concerning why, at this point. My current funds are running low, and I have less than 15,000 Euro left with a 30,000 credit backup from my 10 different credit cards. My primary funds should cover all planned expenses without spending any of the credit.

So what do I do when I’m not working? I’m in the middle of another steroid cycle at the moment, training hard to exceed my 92 kg record from July. I’m currently at 90 kg and hope to reach at least 95 kg. Perhaps ill even reach 100 kg before I end the cycle in 4 week’s time! 🙂 I have a more or less perfect body at the moment and I’m as happy as I have ever been. My morale is at an all time high and I’m generally happy with how things are progressing. I may create an ideological Knights Templar Youtube movie this winter. I have some time to invest while I wait for my chemicals to arrive. My sister in Los Angeles invited me to spend Christmas with her, Kevin and my niece Kaia and nephew Tyler. I’m tempted to visit her for the fourth time but I don’t know if my budget will allow it. My sister supports the fundamental principles of the cause but she couldn’t care less about the struggle and politics in general. They are both career cynicisms and only really care about feeding their own egos. I understand that mentality though as I’ve been there myself. Still, such apathy is the root cause of both US and especially Western Europe’s problems.

I’ve been partying occasionally with my friends; Marius, Axel, Peter and a few others, since I came back from Prague. The cover story I used as justification towards everyone I know was that I was promoting my book.

I am happy to see that Axel is finally coming to his senses regarding his views on the Islamization of Europe. And I expect him to use his vote on the only anti-multiculturalist party during the election in a year’s time.

I am currently watching Dexter, the series about that forensic mass murderer. Quite hilarious. I’m also looking forward to watch the new movie-series about Carlos the Jackal (the Marxist-Islamist and Che wannabe scumbag). Hopefully, it will be as good as the Baader Meinhof Complex. I really enjoyed that one. Oh, and I’m also playing Fallout 3 – New Vegas atm after just finishing Bioshock 2. I’m also going to try the new World of Warcraft – Cataclysm when it is released in December. Time to dust off my image…

As for girlfriends; I do get the occasional lead, or the occasional girl making a move, especially now a day as I’m fit like hell and feel great. But I’m trying to avoid relationships as it would only complicate my plans and it may jeopardize my operation. And I don’t feel comfortable manipulating girls any more into one night stands. I am not that person any more. I did screw two girls in Prague though, but that was mainly because it was a realistic chance that I would end up dead during the process of establishing a weapons connection. I won’t make any effort to try to completely justify it though. Human males are imperfect by default as they are plagued by their biological needs. Nevertheless, screwing around outside of marriage is after all a relatively small sin compared to the huge amounts of grace I am about to generate with my martyrdom operation. And it is essential that you do what is required to keep moral and motivation at a high level; especially, just prior to operation critical moments. I have reserved 2000 Euro from my operations budget which I intend to spend on a high quality model escort girl 1 week prior to execution of the mission. I will probably arrange that just before or after I attend my final martyrs mass in Frogner Church. It will contribute to ease my mind as I imagine I will get tense and very nervous. It is easier to face death if you know you are biologically, mentally and spiritually at ease.

I received the 50 ml of 99% pure liquid nicotine shipment from China today. I’m relieved to see that there were no complications whatsoever.

I thought I’d add a little comment about general expenditure during the pre-operational phases. It is essential to maintain a low budget to conserve your limited budget. The importance of this cannot be stressed enough as having sufficient funds for the operation is everything! Approximately 4 years ago, in 2006, just before I started writing this compendium, I decided to move from my apartment in Frogner, one of the most priciest areas in Oslo, home to my mother. She accepted as she knew I would have to conserve my funds while I was writing the compendium. The cost of renting my old apartment was 1,250 Euro. My current accommodation expenditure (food included) is 450 Euro, a sum I transfer to my mother monthly for renting a room and for food. This wouldn’t have worked in my old life, when I was an egotistical career cynic as it would devastate my social image. However, individuals who choose to become a Justiciar Knight cares little about image (the pursuit to project a desirable façade to impress friends and potential mating partners). Sure, some people will think you are a freak for living with your parents at the age of 31 but this is irrelevant for a Justiciar Knight. The only thing that matters is to ensure that you have enough funds and free time to complete the objectives necessary to execute your individual mission. As for keeping secrecy while living with another person; sure, you need many cover stories and you need access to the loft and/or basement storage areas. As long as you ensure that there is no possibility that the person you are living with will find out what you are really working on, living with others shouldn’t pose a big problem until you initiate your manufacturing phase. My armor is dug down in the wilderness somewhere and I will soon dig down another pelican crate with my weapons, once I get them. I have a large Pelican chest in my room where I have secured items that might raise questions. Besides that, everything is on my PC and individual storage pins which I keep stored safe in the attic (they are 3 very small USB pins which are stored inside walls and properly concealed). They contain the required information for each of the coming phases. As soon as I have completed one phase I extract the information for the next phase from my pin, after I destroy my old hard drive. This has worked flawlessly so far. However, when I will start the actual manufacturing phase in a few months time, I will have no choice but to rent a cottage and/or small farm as I will require total anonymity while manufacturing and storing tons of materials.

I will not be able to update this log for a couple of months as I have to purge my old hard drive and store this information on a chip, externally. When this is done I will initiate the most critical of all phases; the “chemicals acquisition phase”. If I succeed with this phase I will have everything needed except the AN.

December, January and February 2011
When initiating the “chemical acquirement phase”, in end November/early December, I must admit I was filled with some angst. This was after all a critical phase, perhaps the most dangerous of all phases. If I messed this phase up, by being flagged, reported to the authorities etc. I would be neutralized before I could finalize my operation. Even when taking all possible precautions; I estimate it is a 30% chance of being reported to the system protectors at the national intelligence agency during this phase.

My concerns and angst relating to this phase impacted my motivation, to a point where I had to initiate specific counter-measures to reverse the loss of morale and motivation. I decided that the correct approach to reversing it was to initiate another DBOL steroid cycle and intensify my strength training. I also spent some time locating and downloading some new inspirational music. A lot of new vocal trance tracks and some inspirational music by Helene Bøksle. In addition; I decided I would allow myself to play the newly launched expansion: World of Warcraft – Cataclysm. The combination of these three counter measures, in addition to my 3 weekly indoctrination/ meditation walks, resulted in my morale and motivation again peaking.

I would now initiate the most critical of all phases; the “chemical acquirement phase” I will include a list of some of the items/components acquired during this period:

…

Continuation December log
As already mentioned; I initiated a second steroid test cycle: 3 first weeks on DBOL tabs (40 mg per day). Weight increased from 86 kg to 90 kg. No side effects. Cycle cancelled after three weeks because I felt I had to prioritize other tasks.

Pistol training November, December and January
Pistol training was initiated in order to fulfill the government requirement for purchase. 15 training sessions in November, December and January was completed and documented. The application for a Glock 17 was sent in mid January. Documentation and activity requirement was met. I joined my local pistol club back in 2005 for the first time but have only sporadically attended training until November 2010. The fact that I joined the club as early as 2005 was a planned move to increase my chances for obtaining a Glock, legally.

Rifle training December and January
3 rifle training sessions was completed during this period. The intention was to acquire a minimum of experience with, Gungnir, my semi automatic Ruger Mini 14, .223 caliber and to calibrate my Eotech sights properly at 100 meter distance.

December and January –
Rifle/gun accessories purchased –
10 x 30 round magazines –
.223 cal at 34 USD per mag. Had to buy through a smaller US supplier (who again ordered from other suppliers) as most suppliers have export limitations. An alternative supplier was located in Sweden but it would have cost 1.5 times more. Another possibility would have been to use Jetcarrier (or similar freight forwarder which allows you to order from a US address) but some companies have no- sale policies to New Jersey for this reason. Total cost: 550 USD

From Midway
– GG&G Picatinny Style Scope Base Ruger Mini-14, Ranch only: 95 Euro

– Aimshot Laser Sight and Flashlight Tri-Rail Barrel Mount: 30 Euro (3x picatinny/weaver rail)

– Allen Buttstock Shotshell Ammunition Carrier, 5 round Nylon (mounted on shotgun): 10 euro

– Loctite Blue Aluminum Threadlocker, cost 10 USD on Ebay, excellent for tightening screws on the alu rails used for fastening the holographic sight and 3 x sight.

From other suppliers
– LaserLyte Pistol Bayonet Quick Detachable – a picatinny/weaver rail bayonet purchased from Ebay using VISA/Paypal, cost: 62 USD.

– 4 x 30 round magazines for Glock 9mm from a national supplier, Capsicum Solutions, using VISA, cost: 230 Euro.

– Cammenga Easyloader for AR15/Mini14 from a national supplier, Capsicum solutions, cost: 70 Euro

– Hollow point ammo for .223 from a national supplier, 500 Euro. Had to research and use a cover when buying; bird hunting ftw.

– Slugs ammo for shotgun, 100 Euro, cover when buying; deer hunting ammo.

Equipment needed for creating chemical/biological ammo-

DREMEL Universal tool 200 series (the drill) –

DREMEL Workstation (used for stabilizing the drill in a stable 90 degree position) –

DREMEL Multichuck (allows you to use conventional drill bits on your dremel tool)
Total cost for these three items: 140 Euro from Pixmania.com

– 65mm Drill Press Vice (Quick Release) from Lathe Mill, ordered from Ebay via Paypal, cost: 33 USD (Anchortools.com). This item will hold the cartridge in place while I drill a portion of the lead core out of the bullet.

Note; I have concluded that .223 ammo is not suitable for creating bio rounds. The bullet simply lacks the size required to fit a deadly doze. 7.62 ammo would be preferable as it is more than double the size. 9 mm bullets are ok for this purpose, but I have to wait for my Glock license before I get access to 9 mm ammunition.

Other items bought from Clas Ohlson, general store:

– Manual filing set – Super glue, used for plugging the bullet after injection – De-isolation thong that lets you cut of the tip of bullets (looks like a wirecutter)

Other items ordered:

Marketing related
Casio EXZ 330 SR digital camera, for marketing purposes, from Expert, cost: 80 Euro. This would allow me to complete a photo session, without the need to use a professional photographer. I have used a professional in the past but it is obvious that the regalia I intend to use in the photo session will generate suspicion and threaten the security of the operation. Lack of professional digital equipment, green sheet background and other related and expensive photo gear can be compensated by my Photoshop skills.

Operational gear, components and accessories

– Latex tubing/surgical tubing 10” 1?4 1/32 wall latex tubing from Ebay 50 USD, used as the outer layer on a fuse to prevent early detonation.

– Ruger Mini 14 from national supplier, cost: 1100 Euro

– Trigger job on Ruger Mini 14, 100 Euro (bought in October I believe), to make the trigger lighter to press for rapid fire,

– Training ammo: 200 Euro – Barley Crusher MaltMill with 7 kg hopper, from barleycrusher.com, cost 250 USD incl shipping.

Received the Barley Crusher in January. I haven’t yet tested if it works but according to my calculation it should enable me pulverize fertilizer prills at record speed. When you attach a drill using a 3/8 drill motor at 500 RPM it should give you a crush rate of 3 kg per minute making the pulverization process of 2 tons of fertilizer fast and easy. The crusher rollers are adjustable at both ends so they can be adjusted according to prill size to ensure proper pulverization.

Fitness/muscle supplements

– 100% Whey Protein 9kg, cost: 250 Euro, for increasing muscle mass, 100 g per day in combination with training, top ranked protein supplement, short protein

– 100% Casein Protein 2 kg, cost: 70 Euro, for increasing muscle mass, 25 g per day before you go to bed in combination with training, top ranked protein supplement, long protein

– No-Xplode, cost: 50 Euro, pre-workout energy booster, this should also be used 10 min prior to mission

– Milk Thistle Herbal Supplement , 3 boxes, cost: 45 USD, Ebay, needed to strengthen the liver when using steroid tabs (Winstrol/DBOL). As steroid tabs are toxic for your liver you should use this liver supplement (3 tabs per day during a steroid cycle).

Logistic failures
I ordered an ASE Utra CQB-QM silencer (cost was 800 Euro) for my semi automatic rifle in September 2010 and the supplier, Intersport Bogstadveien, told me it would arrive in early January 2011. In January, the supplier told me ASE had suddenly cancelled all private orders due to the fact that they had just received a large military order… I’m not going to take the chance with a regular non-auto silencer because it might overheat and explode during rapid fire, with the risk of destroying Gungnir. I was not able to find another supplier of semi automatic silencers that could be sent to my country directly from the supplier or by jetcarrier. The only bonus I guess is that by eliminating the silencer aspect allows me to order and equip a bayonet instead. So I guess; “Marxist on a stick” will soon become an exclusive Knights Templar Europe trademark :D.

February
Initiated third steroid test cycle: 3 first weeks on winstrol tabs (40 mg per day) followed by 3 weeks of DBOL tabs (40 mg per day). Weight increased from 86 kg to 93 kg. No side effects. Cycle completed with great success. I have never in my life been more physically fit than I am today. Strength increased by 30-50% which will prove useful.

Creation of marketing movie trailer
Feb 15th to Feb 26th: created a 12.5 minute movie trailer (slideshow trailer) promoting the compendium: “2083 – A European Declaration of Independence”. All the slides were created in Photoshop. After 12 days of hard work I can say I am somewhat satisfied with the end result. I would love to make it even better but I really can’t afford to invest any more time into this trailer which might never see the light of day… Not happy with end resolution but higher res would just make the AVI file too large for efficient distribution. Was planning to hire a low cost Asian movie guy through scriptlance.com but I have to conserve my funds.

Other social related matters
After 5 years in the Freemasons I was finally accepted for rank 4-5 (it’s a combined rank). However, due to lack of time I decided to decline the offer. I told them I would be unavailable until Autumn 2011, due to extensive traveling.

Purchase of containers – primary, secondary and tertiary

To calculate the required size for cylinders (for primary, secondary, tertiary charge housings)

Google for an online Density Mass & Volume Calculator, like the following:
http://www.1728.com/density.htm

Mass: 12 gram (DDNP detonator content) You now need to find the volume and density Density: example density of water is 915 kg/m3 so density of the primer is approximately 700 Now, with the density and mass (700, 12) you can now calculate the volume

To calculate cylinder volume:
http://www.online-calculators.co.uk/volumetric/cylindervolume.php

With these calculations you now know the size of cylinder required for 12 gram primary, 500g secondary and 50 kg tertiary charge.

Cylinder housings purchased
Primary container (small, fits 12-20 grams) I bought the primary containers (detonator housing) from a general supply store. It was actually a long alu pipe which I intend to cut into three detonator housings. I also bought screws so that I may create lockable “ends” by using appropriate sized coins (placing two screws above and two below the coin. I was uncertain whether to select alu, copper or steel for the primary container but eventually decided to go with alu. Cost: 50 Euro Size: 10 x 1,6 cm (12g)

Secondary container (medium, fits 500-800 grams) I bought the secondary container (x 3) from IKEA, a metal toilet brush housing, the most expensive and robust alternative they had. I had reviewed various suppliers prior to concluding this transaction. Cost: 80 Euro. Size: 30 x 7 cm (692g), alternatively: 30 x 6,5 cm (597g)

Tertiary container (large, fits 50-60 kg) Ordered 3 x 61L barrels with a removable end cap(tertiary container) from a national supplier (Greif). Due to a minimum quantity policy I was allowed to leech on a main order placed by another company. After 3 weeks the order was ready for pickup. Cost: 90 Euro Size: 60 x 30 cm (52,8kg), alternatively: 75 x 45 (71,57 kg)

Fertilizer PP woven bags purchased
I was unable to find a supplier of this product in my country. I therefore ordered 60 units of large plastic bags able to contain 50 kg content (woven polypropylene, waterproof and robust fertilizer type bags, excellent for storage and transportation of chems). Chinese supplier found through Alibaba.com, cost: 50 USD for bags + 290 USD for EMS shipping courier. Paid by Western Union.

Cover story; I contacted 30 companies, a majority of them located in China and explained that I was planning to order 200 000 units per year with intent for distribution in Scandinavia. In this context I wanted to order 60 units for testing.

I don’t like lying, but I know from experience that you need a story like this if you want to prevent being ignored. These companies usually just ignore small purchases/inquiries.

I received the 60 units shortly after and they are optimal for their intended use.

Social life and continuation of cover
My best friends; Peter, 31, Marius, 31, Axel, 32, and Martin, 32, are now all in the process of settling down. Peter’s girlfriend Pia has a daughter, Mina, from another relationship. They are about to buy an apartment together. He’s currently in the process of selling his apartment close to Bogstadveien (not far from where I used to live), probably the best and most exclusive place to live as a bachelor in Oslo. Peter works as a co-captain on a supply ship outside the coast of southern US. He works 4 weeks on, and then has 4 weeks off etc. Although he and his parents fled from Soviet Hungary, they are unwilling to condemn the current cultural Marxist regime in Norway, possibly because they feel gratitude to the regime for welcoming them in the past. Peter loves to discuss politics but he’s not willing to take a clear stand on multiculturalism, possibly because he fears a future regime change, in our favor, may jeopardize his legal status. I have tried to convince him that it will not affect Christian Europeans, but he remains somewhat unconvinced. Regardless, he’s my closest friend and has been since I was 19. I have influenced him considerably the last few years, and vice versa, but I don’t consider him to be a fellow nationalist, as he doesn’t really care about anyone except the interests of himself, his family and his friends. This code, or rather lack of code, applies to the large majority of people though, so I don’t hold it against him.

Marius lives only 5 minutes away from my home. He’s been dating a very cute and nice girl named Christine for a couple of years now. She wants to settle down but he’s trying to delay it for as long as possible. He works as a fireman, quite ironic as I will soon ensure he gets his hands full… He has helped me out with my training regime as he is a die-hard fitness/bodybuilding person who has kept a very strict diet for several years. He’s a good friend (we’ve been “on-off” best friends since we were 11 years old – 21 years now)) and I often drop by his house. I guess Marius is the least ambitious of our group as he has traditionally focused all his energy on optimizing his physical and social image in relation to fitness for the purpose of hooking up with as many new girls as humanly possible, often at the same time. I think he has been with close to 1K atm including a Swedish midget :D. When it comes to partying, he’s a demi-god and I guess I can call him a master at what he does. His whole lifestyle revolves around having an optimal bad boy Playboy’ish image which includes multiple tattoos, perfectly toned muscles and endless partying etc. That lifestyle appeals’ to a lot of guys but few get to live it so fully. From my own experience, such a lifestyle does get very repetitive after a while though and you eventually just feel lonely and empty inside as everyone except yourself settles down. Regardless, he’s a great standup guy, and very fun to be around. Just ensure that you keep him at a miles distance away from your girlfriend when he’s drunk and it’s no problem at all :))

Axel works as a contract lawyer in the Norwegian Defense Department, quite ironically, with the acquisition of military equipment on behalf of the military forces pledged to defend the multiculturalist Kingdom of Norway. He’s currently the most career oriented of my friends. He and his girlfriend Synne has just purchased a new 650 000 Euro apartment. Everyone expects her to get pregnant soon as she is 35, he being 32. Axel is a really standup guy and is considerably more interested in high culture and discussing politics in general. Despite of the fact that he knows everything about the current Islamisation process and the indirect genocide of Europeans, he still says he supports “Venstre” (a multiculturalist party known for harsh demonization and vilification of cultural conservatives) but I now suspect he’s just saying that to tease me :))

Martin works for one of the more prestigious real estate brokers/developers in Oslo, Selvaag, and has just moved to Drammen with his girlfriend where they bought a house together, not long ago. She’s only 22 but has a son from another relationship. I haven’t seen Martin much the last few years as he has focused most of his energy on career advancement and his girlfriend.

Me, Peter, Marius and Axel (and a few other common friends) have seen a lot more of each other the last few months as I’ve had the opportunity to take some time off from the project. Traditionally, I have been the “glue/social administrator” of the gang, but in my absence, Peter has stepped up and has taken initiatives the last years. I still enjoy considerable respect and admiration from them in relation to my past achievements (establishing my company with 7 employees and making my first million at 24 and 4 million at 25-26). I believe, less than 5 self made individuals have accomplished more at that young age in my country. However, they just can’t comprehend why I halted my career at that point, which is understandable. It’s not like I can tell them that the only reason I generated those funds in the first place was to fund my current operation…

They, along with my sister Elisabeth, are constantly bugging me about getting a girlfriend as I’m the only one who is still single. I told them I will be dating again from August 2011, as I told them I will be moving to my own place then. I guess it’s the easiest way to avoid the social pressure. I also told them that I’m in the end phase of completing the research phase of 4 different business plans, one of which, I said, I will initiate from August. I’ve told them that one plan involves farming, one involves the design, creation and distribution of body armour with intent to become a supplier for the Norwegian Defense Department, one involves distribution of survival, gun accessories and other security related gear and I have also made hints about the mining project. Controlled distribution of information regarding these projects will potentially help me in the future, should one of them ever manage to stumble across sensitive information. Up until now, there has been absolutely no suspicion from them whatsoever as far as I can tell. I also told them that I’m in the end phase of my book project, which will be concluded by a final publishing tour visiting cultural conservative organizations in Western Europe followed by email distribution to 10 000 cultural conservatives around the European world.

I’ve also scheduled to meet my stepmom, Tove Øvermo, in March. She used to work as a director in Norwegian UDI (the foremost government organization tasked with approving applications and granting foreigners (mostly Muslims) legal permits). Ironically, UDI is a highly valued target for Knights Templar in Norway as it is an essential tool and facilitator for the Norwegian multiculturalist regime. However, I think she’s retired now, so she is currently not in danger of any KT attacks. Although I care for her a great deal, I wouldn’t hold it against the KT if she was executed during an attack against UDI, as she used to be a primary tool and category B traitor for the multiculturalist regime of Norway, high treason she should be familiar with. Tove, being very intelligent and committed in the advancement of her own career under the multiculturalist regime, is fully aware that she is a willing and participating subject/tool for the Multiculturalist Alliance in the indirect genocide of Norwegians through the continued Islamisation of Norway. People in her position are just unwilling to make any meaningful sacrifices as her career would be immediately terminated by the regime if she criticized them. Career termination followed by blacklisting and harsh vilification and character assassination is not a price most people of her position are willing to pay. Just like essential NS tools were guilty of facilitating the NSDAP, people in her position are guilty of facilitating the Multiculturalist Alliance. Regime sub-leaders such as her are on auto pilot though, and partly disconnected from reality and thus partly unaware of their own war crimes, since the multiculturalist media is ensuring that the public remain disconnected from reality and the truth. So when I meet her I will probably just end up talking about the usual social BS, to prevent raising any red flags. During our last meeting, I remember we discussed the central aspects of Wahhabism, and I was really impressed with her knowledge on the matter.

I have been storing three bottles of Château Kirwan 1979 (French red wine) which I purchased at an auction 10 years ago with the intention of enjoying them at a very special occasion. Considering the fact that my martyrdom operation draws ever closer I decided to bring one to enjoy with my extended family at our annual Christmas party in December. I brought the other flask to Marius` party a few days later and shared it with my friends. It was an absolutely exquisite experience that will not be forgotten. My thought was to save the last flask for my last martyrdom celebration and enjoy it with the two high class model whores I intend to rent prior to the mission. My interpretation of being a “Perfect Knight” does not and should not include celibacy, although some of my KT peers might disagree with me on this point. I believe that in order to strengthen the resolve, morale and motivation prior to a martyrdom operation, the Justiciar Knight should be encouraged to embrace and take advantage of a significant reward system designed to increase focus and remove any last doubts. A pragmatic approach, which involves acknowledging the primal aspects of man for the purpose of preparing him for a martyrdom operation, should always take precedence over misguided piety, which only increases the chance of jeopardizing the execution of the operation. And I believe the majority of war strategy analysts will agree with me on this.

Continued philosophizing about the future cultural conservative political model, when we, the cultural conservatives, again seize political and military power at one point between 2025-2083

I have been thinking about my post-operational situation, in case I survive a successful mission and live to stand a multiculturalist trial. When I wake up at the hospital, after surviving the gunshot wounds inflicted on me, I realize at least for me personally, I will be waking up to a world of shit, a living nightmare. Not only will all my friends and family detest me and call me a monster; the united global multiculturalist media will have their hands full figuring out multiple ways to character assassinate, vilify and demonize. They will possibly do everything they can to distort the truth about me, KT and our true objectives, and attempt to make even revolutionary conservatives detest me. They will label me as a racist, fascist, Nazi-monster as they usually do with everyone who opposes multiculturalism/cultural Marxism. However, since I manifest their worst nightmare (systematical and organized executions of multiculturalist traitors), they will probably just give me the full propaganda rape package and propagate the following accusations: pedophile, engaged in incest activities, homosexual, psycho, ADHD, thief, non-educated, inbred, maniac, insane, monster etc. I will be labeled as the biggest (Nazi-)monster ever witnessed since WW2.

I have an extremely strong psyche (stronger than anyone I have ever known) but I am seriously contemplating that it is perhaps biologically impossible to survive the mental, perhaps coupled with physical torture, I will be facing without completely breaking down on a psychological level. I guess I will have to wait and find out.

Regardless of the above cultural Marxist propaganda; I will always know that I am perhaps the biggest champion of cultural conservatism, Europe has ever witnessed since 1950. I am one of many destroyers of cultural Marxism and as such; a hero of Europe, a savior of our people and of European Christendom – by default. A perfect example which should be copied, applauded and celebrated. The Perfect Knight I have always strived to be. A Justiciar Knight is a destroyer of multiculturalism, and as such; a destroyer of evil and a bringer of light. I will know that I did everything I could to stop and reverse the European cultural and demographical genocide and end and reverse the Islamization of Europe.

I guess it is tempting for the many who have endured years of vilification, to just start believing the propaganda and embrace NS fully. However, I remain a staunch anti-Nazi and I blame NSDAP for the situation we are in. Hadn’t it been for the actions of the cultural right wing extremists known as the NSDAP our Western European countries would not be dominated by the cultural Marxist extremist regimes we witness today. If the NSDAP had been isolationistic instead of imperialistic(expansionist) and just deported the Jews (to a liberated and Muslim free Zion) instead of massacring them, the anti-European hate ideology known as multiculturalism would have never been institutionalized in Western Europe, because the Marxists would never have been so radicalized to begin with. The cultural conservatives would have been in a very strong and dominant situation today. Western European countries would have had cultural conservative doctrines similar to what we see in Japan and South Korea.

We must keep this lesson in mind. When we seize political and military power in the future; while tempting to unleash hell to avenge all our ravaged and dead brothers and sisters, we must keep in mind that replacing a cultural Marxist extremist regime with a cultural conservative extremist regime will only fail to break the cycle where history always repeats itself. So instead of replacing this tyrannical and extremist multiculturalist regime with an equivalent right wing one, we must think and act pragmatically with a long term objective. We must manage to break the historical “Marxist vs. Conservative” cycle or we risk that the cultural Marxists will emerge as a dominating force again after 20-100 years. As such, we should limit the executions of category A and B traitors to 200 000 in Western Europe. A better alternative than execution of the remaining, the category C traitors, would be to establish a large multiculturalist zone in southern/eastern Europe, perhaps Anatolia, or on other territories which has been invaded and occupied by Muslims. In these newly created zones; the cultural Marxists category C traitors and those of the non-Europeans considered as politically disloyal will be deported to and allowed to live and create their imaginary utopia. A cultural Marxist or a so called “internationalist” does not feel much love for his ancestral country as he believes we are all citizens in a global community. So they should recover easily from the process of being deported to another country.

Norwegian Intelligence Agency (PST) annual estimates – 2011
Feb 28th: The Norwegian Intelligence Agency (PST) just released its annual report on terror estimates in Norway. I have been waiting for this report for several weeks now. Apparently, it’s the same expectations as usual when it comes to Islamic terror; imminent danger. However, they then specify that the largest right wing threat in Norway is that a subsidiary of English Defense League (EDL); Norwegian Defense League (NDL) is in the process of gaining strength. They also state, between the lines, that both EDL and the NDL are dangerous and violent right wing extremists that adhere to racism, fascism and Nazism.

They conclude that they will ensure that any attempt to further develop NDL in Norway will be harshly suppressed.

I am not surprised that PST makes statements like this as the report has been designed by the Norwegian Labour Party, and does not reflect the views of actual PST operatives. The head of PST, Janne Kristiansen has never even worked as an intelligence officer, and is nothing more than a planted Labour Party agent, placed to lead the PST, against the will of most PST employees.

I know that the above description is nothing more than vile lies, a part of their psychological propaganda warfare against all cultural conservatives. I know this for a fact as I used to have more than 600 EDL members as Facebook friends and have spoken with tens of EDL members and leaders. In fact; I was one of the individuals who supplied them with processed ideological material (including rhetorical strategies) in the very beginning. The EDL are in fact anti-racist, anti-fascist and anti-Nazi. They even have many members and leaders with non-European background (African and Asian). They have worked so hard, and continue to work hard, to keep National Socialists out of the organization, but yet they are strategically labeled as racist-fascist-Nazi-monsters by the multiculturalist authorities. The EDL, although having noble intentions are in fact dangerously naïve. EDL and KT principles can never be reconciled as we are miles apart ideologically AND organizationally. The EDL even rejects taking a stand against multiculturalism which proves that they are even more naïve than Sarkozy, Merkel and Cameron who have all admitted that multiculturalism has been a failure and a disaster for Europe.

KT was formed back in 2002 as a revolutionary conservative movement because we had lost hope that the democratic framework can solve Europe’s current problems. The EDL, on the other hand, IS a democratic movement. They STILL believe that the democratic system can solve Britain’s problems… This is why the EDL harshly condemns any and all revolutionary conservative movements that employ terror as a tool, such as the KT. And this is why, we, the KT view the EDL as naïve fools, wasting all their energy monkey- screaming to deaf ears while they should instead have focused on means and methods that are meaningful in regards to achieving true political change, in regards to tearing down the multiculturalist regime known as Britain. Unfortunately, the only meaningful resistance at this point in time is to use military force. So instead of monkey-screaming, they should instead focus on strategically demolishing one of the many British nuclear power plants, which effectively would completely cripple the British economy, contributing to creating an optimal climate for significant political change.

Regardless; it is so obvious that the Multiculturalist Alliance feels it is important to label anyone who criticizes multiculturalism as racist, fascist, Nazi-monsters. It makes their job easier, as they can justify harsh suppression methods of all cultural conservatives. The truth of the matter is that the Multiculturalist Alliance and their tools are about to lose this propaganda war. The peoples of Western Europe are not stupid, and they know that less than half of the targets of character assassination are not what is claimed. I’m optimistic about the fact that the MA appears to have managed to paint themselves into a corner, and their false and desperate propaganda outbursts appears, for an increasing number of Europeans, to be stuck on auto pilot (similar to what was witnessed in the Soviet Union in the 70s and 80s). People are in the process of learning the truth about what is going on and the continued desperate propaganda outbursts only makes our job easier. It is not the cultural conservatives of Europe that are the monsters. It is in fact the Multiculturalist Alliance that are the true racist, fascist, Nazi-monsters. It is possible to avoid reality for up to several decades. The Soviet Union is proof of this. But eventually, the truth will be known as you cannot avoid the consequences of avoiding reality.

It is no longer a question IF the MA will crumble but WHEN the MA will crumble. They will lose when the Western European economy shatters, in combination with further Islamic colonization. And when this happens; the majority of the 340 000+ nationalist militants in Western Europe must be ready to strike hard and without mercy with the objective of seizing political and military power. We still have 14 years (2025) to arm ourselves, so let us continue to prepare for the coming coup d’état. Guns and ammo alone is not enough, you will need quality body armor, com/radio devices, rations and certain survival accessories as well. Chop-chop<3 For those of you who does not want to wait this long, should immediately ordinate yourself as a Justiciar Knight for the KT. Economic status (as of March 1st)
I decided to sell my dear Breitling Crosswind and my Montblanc Meisterstück pen in January in order to strengthen my operational budget. I was able to sell my Crosswind for 1800 Euro and my pen for 200 Euro.

My remaining budget is now:
In bank: 3750 Euro In cash: 3750 Euro Value of car: 4500 Euro Credit (9 credit cards): 28 750 Euro

Logistical plans ahead (as of March 1st)
I will shortly convert the public listing/definition of my company from regular to agricultural. This will allow me to acquire (rent) and register a farm with accompanying fields. The fields, registered through my company, will give me a specific “farming ID number” which is a requirement for ordering large amounts of fertilizer from the national supplier.

The cover I am using is; test production of sugar beet. I have created a 10 page “business plan” for this purpose, and have familiarized myself with the related terminology. As such, I am soon ready to place “rent adds” in agricultural newspapers, with intent to rent the farm/fields.

As soon as I rent the farm; I plan to move all my equipment to the farm house and initiate the “explosive manufacturing phase”. The operation will be executed shortly after the manufacturing phase is completed. Will attempt to initiate contact with cell 8b and 8c in late March.

Remaining items/components to buy:

• Plastic sheeting: 30 Euro

• Alu/wood ramp for loading/unloading truck: 30 Euro

• Fertilizer – large 500 kg bag: 1 x CAN, 1 x N34, 1 x 0-5-17 (for show), repeat after a couple of weeks: 2000 Euro

• Sementmixer – rent or buy: 100 Euro

• Ethanol 96%, x 6L: 30 Euro

• Blue Police – flashing LED light – for one of the trucks: 150 Euro

• Face – splash proof face mask: 30 Euro

• Fork jack – for 600 kg sacks: 200 Euro

• Plastic base for 600 kg sacks (used with above): 200 Euro

• Refrigerator: 100 Euro)

• Freezer: 100 Euro)

• Fume hood: 1,000 Euro, not yet decided

• Microballoons, 20 kg

• Glock 17: 700 Euro

• More ammo: 1,000 Euro

• Dunnage air-bag for transport load securing (centerload.com), bought from Ebay: 100 Euro

• Straps/net for securing large load in truck, may use alu/metal profiles with screws to support

Manufacturing of Picric Acid/DDNP
Foreword – why the manufacturing of picric acid as a secondary/booster and DDNP as a primary is the most rational approach:

As of 2011; the most popular primary explosive seems to be AP also referred to as Satan’s Mother. AP, although quite easy to manufacture, is an EXTREMELY dangerous substance which is likely to cause you great injury or even death. In the guides I have read about DDNP it is stated that this primary is very often disregarded since it is so difficult to make. This is deliberate misinformation as it is simply incorrect (If a chemistry amateur like myself can make Picric Acid AND DDNP on the first try then ANYONE can make it!!!). After merging 4 DDNP guides, I – who has no chemistry experience whatsoever, managed to synthesize DDNP on the first try. I tested the batch, and I confirmed the result myself. I even managed to create the first batch of DDNP with relatively impure picric acid. DDNP is more than 10 times as stable as AP and has more or less equal VOD (velocity of detonation). I even think that synthesizing DDNP was easier than manufacturing picric acid (which is considered to be perhaps the easiest secondary/booster to manufacture). In other words, the only reason you would not want to create DDNP as a primary is because you for some reason can’t get access to the materials required. So let’s review these materials and some of the equipment needed;

The following should be easy to acquire unless you’re called Abdullah Rashid Muhammad…:

Generic lab glassware
(EASILY OBTAINABLE): beakers, conical flasks, glass temperature rods etc.

Fume hood and fan
(EASILY OBTAINABLE): fume hood can easily be purchased or created using improvisation by using PVC plastic plates, screws, duct tape etc. You can use a 100 euro dust blower as a fan (I did and it worked perfectly).

Sulfuric acid
(EASILY OBTAINABLE): PA and DDNP – if you are having trouble buying this in bulk containers then simply buy 15 car batteries (new or used) which should contain approximately 2L of 28-37% sulfuric acid each. Just drill a hole in it (using protective gear) and pour it in a larger container. If you don’t need 1,5kg of PA booster and just want to create DDNP primary the required amount of sulfuric acid is less than 3L (which is boiled down to 1L of 90%+)!

Acetylsalicylic acid
(EASILY OBTAINABLE): PA – just buy aspirin at any drugstore. There are several brands of Acetylsalicylic acid (aspirin equivalents).

Sodium Nitrate
(MODERATELY OBTAINABLE): PA – you can order this at any drugstore as it is an essential substance for tanning/preserving meat. Hunters that needs to process hundreds of kilograms of meat before freezing it needs Sodium Nitrate (1 teaspoon for every 25kg of meat to prevent the growth of bacteria). You can also synthesize sodium nitrate quite easily (as long as you do it outdoors) by using ammonium nitrate (you get this from ice packs) and caustic soda (or was it acetone) if I remember correctly.

Sodium Nitrite
(MODERATELY OBTAINABLE): DDNP – you can order this at many drugstores as it is an essential substance for tanning/preserving meat. Hunters that needs to process hundreds of kilograms of meat before freezing it needs Sodium Nitrate (1 teaspoon for every 25kg of meat to prevent the growth of bacteria).

Sulfur powder
(EASILY OBTAINABLE): DDNP – you can easily acquire this from aquarium filters or by ordering online. It is an essential ingredient in Wiccan culture/religion so they can’t ban it for religious reasons.

Caustic Soda – powdered
(EASILY OBTAINABLE): DDNP – you can easily buy this over the desk in all countries.

Acetone – liquid
(EASILY OBTAINABLE): DDNP – you can easily buy this over the desk in all countries.

Ethanol (95%)
(EASILY OBTAINABLE): PA – you can easily buy this over the desk in all countries. Just buy concentrated sprinkler fluid (blue) used to clean windshields on cars. There are many names for the appropriate compound: isopropanol and butanol are other names. Go for ethanol or isopropanol if possible. I’m not sure about bio-ethanol sold at gas stations (from pumps) but that may work as well.

Detonator
(EASILY OBTAINABLE): there is no reason to make this more complicated than it has to be… by using mobile phone detonators etc. As DDNP is easily detonated by fuse; just order a few meters of regular visco fuse in December during the fireworks season. There are thousands of pyrotechnic enthusiasts doing this all over Europe and most of the shipments get through with little consequence if detected. Just order from a couple of suppliers so that you will get at least one of the shipments. You can also create your own fuses, in which case; just visit online pyrotechnic forums (every country has at least one) for instructions. When creating the detonator skeleton cylinder you can also add a couple of grams of gunpowder (the flaked gunpowder used in shotgun shells are good) layered above the DDNP in the detonator. For most fuses; 1 cm equals 1 second, so if you want 2 minutes delay just use 120 cm of fuse. Visco fuses are excellent for this purpose but there are even better ones at some sites.

General pyrowares:
much of the above can also be ordered online from pyro-chem sites. The best are located in Eastern Europe since regulations are less tight.

Conclusion:
there is absolutely NO GOOD REASON why anyone (unless flagged by the intelligence agency) shouldn’t be able to acquire the above materials and gear WITHOUT detection. The only thing that is holding you back is unfounded fear or laziness! Your fear for detection cannot be justified, unless you have an Islamic name <3 Ingredients needed for 1,5kg of Picric Acid secondary/booster

1. 10 liters of 90%+ sulfuric acid (requires 2 days of labour, cost: approx 200 euro)

2. 1.6 kg of Acetylsalicylic acid (requires 4 days + 2 days of labour, cost: approx 1500 euro)

3. 3 kg of Sodium Nitrate (pre-ordered at apothecary, 1 week delivery time, cost: approx 500 euro). This can also be synthesized relatively easily if you are having trouble buying it.

4. 80 liters of distilled water/distilled ice cubes (cost: approx 440 euro)

1.
10 liters of 90%+ sulfuric acid
Estimated time required: 1-3 days to purchase the product (28-37%) and it requires 2-3 days of labor to concentrate it to 90%+.

Boiling down 35 liters of un-concentrated sulfuric acid (28-37%) to 10 liters of 90%+ concentration

In order to concentrate sulfuric Acid bought from stores (containing 28-37%) you will have to boil down the liquid. In order to get 10 liters of 90%+ sulfuric acid you need approximately 30 liters containing 28-37%.

I bought a container of 25 liters (28%) from one supplier (supplies car shops etc) and I bought 5 bottles from 3 other retailers each containing 1 liter. I also bought 4 car batteries in case I needed more.

I was uncertain how I should approach the “boiling down process” at first. The guides I had reviewed suggested you use specialty hot-temperature porcelain plates, use of specialty lab beakers, use of cooking stones to prevent sprouting and to use all necessary protection gear. As such; I assumed you needed specialty cooking plates that could reach very high temperatures and that I would need boiling stones and specialty laboratory glassware that could sustain extreme temperatures. Needless to say; the guide was wrong on all accounts! You don’t need any of this to concentrate sulfuric acid! Not hot-temperature porcelain plates (any plates will do), not specialty lab beakers (any regular Duran lab beakers will do) and not boiling stones (I tried with boiling stones and it made it harder).

I initially bought 3 induction plates (flat porcelain) but they didn’t function as my 2L beakers didn’t cover the minimum diameter required for the induction plates to function. I used standard inexpensive lab beakers made from Duran glass btw. I also broke two other beakers made from Duran glass (crushed them to small pieces with a hammer under a towel) in order to use it as boiling stones (to prevent the liquid from sprouting).

As the induction plates didn’t work for me I purchased 2 regular single cooking plates; the more expensive ones with iron plates retailing for 140 euro a piece. I had a very cheap single plate from before. Using the boiling stones was a failure for me so I reduced the amount of stones until I decided to remove them all and try without. I was also unsure how to store the concentrated sulfuric acid once I was done boiling. Some sources said glass was required while other said you needed specialty plastic. This was incorrect, as I stored my 90-95% acid in regular plastic bottles, in both 1 liter bottles (the bottles which were intended for 28% sulfuric acid) and 4 liter bottles (bottles produced for distilled water). I encountered absolutely no problems doing this whatsoever ( I had them in these bottles for up to 6 weeks).

Boiling procedure
I did the boiling outside using a 10 meter electrical extension cord and I placed the cooking plate on a wooden TV rack I had carried outside. I wore a lab coat with apron with standard nitril washing-up gloves and a 3M half mask with 3M acid filter (nr. 60923 – multifilter). Skipping the stones made wonders and it quickly started boiling (set it on the highest temperature from the start). After 1,5 hours of boiling (concentration at about 70-80%) the more or less unnoticeable water damp developed into thick smoke (NOx gas). After around 2 hours of boiling the smoke was so thick I got really worried that my neighbors would notice it so I quickly cut the power. Even after turning it of it generated insane amounts of white smoke (NOx gas) for 20 more minutes. I then decided I had to do the rest during nighttime, not to attract any attention.

That night, I started the next boiling session with 3 boiling plates at around 21:30 since it got dark at 23:00 when the heavy smoke would begin to generate. I started with 1.8L of un-concentrated sulfuric acid in each of my 2 x 2L beakers and 600ml in my 1 x 1L beaker which was used on my “weaker” plate. I worked from 21:30 to 07:00 in the morning for three consecutive days before I finally was done. End note: I tried to extend the working day past 07:00 on day two which almost ended in disaster. At around 09:00 AM, I was about to put on my hazmat suit and 3M gas mask to start another boiling session when I noticed the neighbor just outside the house entrance. Had I not noticed this in time I would have to explain to him why I was wearing the protective gear, and that wouldn’t end well… So if possible, even when on an isolated farm; do the boiling between 23:00-07:00 if possible. No use taking unnecessary risks. I spent 5-6 days on this process considering the fact that I had to combat false information, misconceptions and work out efficient procedures . If I had access to this guide before I started I would have been able to shorten down this process to 2 days.

Additional boiling tips:

a. Consider buying 5 or even 6 single cooking plates to reduce the boiling time drastically. Cutting the boiling time in two will drastically reduce your vulnerability to detection considering the fact that you are forced to work outdoors.

b. You will quickly learn your “progress” (purity level of sulfuric acid) by evaluating the thickness of the smoke and how many ML has been boiled away. If you start at 1.8L of 28% purity just boil it until it reaches 550ml or so to be sure you have 90%+.

c. Unless you are using identical cooking plates you will want to adjust the amount of ML per cooking plate so that you have maximum uptime and so that the concentration reaches 90% on all plates at the exact same time. You will learn this after the first session.

d. Let the acid stand for 30-40 minutes after you cut power to the plates by unplugging the electrical cord extender.

e. You can store 90-95% sulfuric acid in plastic bottles.

f. Concentrated sulfuric acid does not fume or evaporate.

g. You don’t need to go overboard with protection. It will take 10-20 seconds for 90%+ sulfuric acid to burn through regular nitril gloves (medium thickness washing-up-gloves) and several seconds for it to burn through clothing. Just be rested and careful and you’ll be fine. I got several drops on my gloves on several occasions and I just wiped it off with a napkin (napkin quickly turns black) before it could burn through. Avoid the “one-time-use” super thin gloves, even if its nitril. The most important things to wear are regular nitril gloves, an apron and some kind of full face visor. 3M masks are excellent since they prevent fogging on the visor.

2.
1,6 kg of Acetylsalicylic acid
Purifying the aspirin to pure acetylsalicylic acid. All the guides I reviewed, around 8, had flawed or even dysfunctional methods. I had to locate an entirely different method from YouTube which proved to work excellently.

Estimated time required: 4 days to purchase the product in a secure manner (assuming each apothecary has a 2 box cap). You would need to set up an “apothecary route” visiting 20-30 apothecaries in one day, then wait 1-2 weeks for safety and repeat 3 more times the next 4-8 weeks. As soon as you have all the aspirin it will require 10 minutes to pulverize it with a regular stationary or handheld blender and approximately 2 days to synthesize.

Other reagents needed: distilled water, mineral and distilled ice cubes: around 40-50 liters

You will need purified aspirin equivalent to 2.5kg of aspirin tabs/270 boxes of 20 tabs (mostly containing 440mg (producer: Nycomed, brand name: Globoid) but about 1/6th was a different brand containing 500mg tabs (producer: Bayer, brand name: Aspirin). You will be synthesizing 1.6 kg or more of pure acetylsalicylic acid from 2.5 kg of impure aspirin tablets. The reason you need to purify the aspirin is to remove the 17% of so called “fillers”, stark etc. The maximum yield of pure acetylsalicylic acid you can extract from aspirin is 83%, if I remember correctly. I managed to extract aprox 67% (1.68kg out of 2.5kg) which is a good yield. It’s worth noting that all the guides I could locate online were either incorrect or significantly flawed. All the guides I read failed to inform me that if you heat the aspirin to more than 70ºC it will destroy the acetyl and convert it to salicylic acid which is worthless for our purpose.

Of course, I had to learn it the hard way and managed to create a lot of worthless goo… Fortunately, I eventually managed to locate a method that worked optimally and I only ruined the first batch.

a. Grinding the aspirin;
some retarded guides suggested I use a mortar and pestle… Needless to say, after a few hours, my wrists hurt like hell, and I realized this was an extremely poor method for the quantities I was working with. There must be a better way? I ended up experimenting and I found a very nice method. I put out a large plastic sheet on the floor and poured approx 1000 tabs on it, spreading it evenly. I then used a 20kg dumbbell (single hand weight used for weight training) and crushed the tabs with even strokes by using gravity. It took me less than 4 hours to crush all the tabs. In retrospect I realize that using a blender would be even better. Providing you use a blender (I prefer stationary, but I guess handheld works as well) which assures a good and even spread/circulation as you grind them (same principle as when grinding AN prills) it should only take you 10 minutes to grind up 2.5kg of aspirin tabs. It’s worth buying several brands of blenders to find out which offers the best circulation. Basically; only 1 out of 5 blenders offers appropriate circulation. Handheld blenders are probably the exception here since your motion determine the circulation, providing you grind it in an appropriately shaped container. With circulation I mean that as the lower part of the tabs get ground to fine dust, the heavy pieces of the tabs rise to the top until they are “sucked” down the “downward whirling current” – providing optimal grinding. I bought a total of 8 different blenders and only 2 of them worked efficiently for this purpose (at least for AN prill grinding). When completed; you now have 2.5kg of fine aspirin powder.

b. Manufacturing method

• 2.5kg of aspirin powder

• 5L of 95% ethanol (you can use the concentrated blue ethanol used for cleaning the windshield of cars for example, other types of alcohol works as well like isopropanol or butanol)

• Distilled water, distilled ice cubes: 40-50L
You will need 1ml of 95% ethanol for every tablet. This means that for 50g of aspirin (114 tabs x 440mg) you will need 114ml ethanol. Since you have larger quantities of materials you should use higher ratios as an effective way to save time:

I used the following ratios when manufacturing (these ratios are optimal!):

• 1040ml ethanol (I used primarily Isopropanol, 80-95% concentrated blue sprinkler fluid)

• 400g aspirin powder

• 6L distilled ice water

Alcohol note: I believe I used 95% concentrated sprinkler fluid: ethanol-Isopropanol (the liquid used for cleaning car windshields) but it might have been lower grade (80%?). I can’t know for sure since it wasn’t specified on the bottle. I performed a fire test and it burned, that’s all I know… 😛 I also made a batch with butanol (concentrated red spirits used as a fuel for some apparatuses). Since this batch was successful as well, I assume a large range of alcohols will do the job. However, I have read that methanol is not suitable.

1. In a 2L beaker, heat up 1040ml of 95% ethanol on a hot plate stirrer. Drop a spin bar in the beaker and start mixing in 400g of acetylsalicylic acid powder, under stirring, f example as the temperature reaches 50ºC. Very important; keep the heat between 60-70ºC. Do NOT let the heat surpass 70ºC as it will start to break down the acetyl and convert the compound into salicylic acid, which is useless for our purpose! The acetylsalicylic acid should be dissolved within 5-10 minutes if it is powdered, 10 more minutes if it is clumped, and up to 45 minutes if you are using whole tablets.

2. Filter hot, for regular gravity filtration you should use 4-6 funnels with 1-2 coffee filters in each (I used 1 but you should probably use 2) over f example 4-6 x 600ml beakers. Wash the 2L beaker with a small amount of ethanol and pour it through the filter to collect any residues. Then you may wash the filter 1-2 times with a small amount of ethanol to collect any residues. The compound left in the filter will be the aspirin fillers. Discard the filters and its content.

3. As you now have approximately 1.4L of ethanol-acetylsalicylic acid in your 2L beaker; pour 350ml into 4 x 2L beakers.

4. Place the first 2L beaker with hot 350ml of ethanol-acetylsalicylic acid mix into an ice bath. As an ice bath container; you may for example use a regular 10 liter plastic bucket (a 2L beaker fits this type of bucket perfectly with enough space for ice) filled with 0.5 liter of cold spring water and 3-4 plastic-pocket-sheets of distilled ice-cubes. You must use a weight of some sort to keep the 2L beaker submerged in the ice-water mix or it will float to the surface and fail to properly chill. You must now measure out approximately 5 times the volume of your ethanol-acid mix in ice cold distilled water that you cooled earlier. So for 350ml you will need 1750ml of distilled ice-water (very important; ensure that the distilled water is as cold as possible or you will not achieve maximum yield!). Add the ice cold water to the ice cold ethanol mix. This should more or less completely fill up your 2L beaker. The addition of the distilled ice-water will cause the acetylsalicylic acid to precipitate as it is insoluble in ice cold water.

5. Now filter the white slurry by gravity filtration using 6-10 funnels/filters/ 500ml beakers. You will obtain a white slurry-like compound in the filters. Remove the filters and its content, by wrapping them (so that the contents doesn’t fall out) and temporarily store them in a large plastic box. Empty the beakers (just pour the liquid in the sink) and get ready to repeat this process as soon as possible with your 3 other 2L beakers filled with 350ml of hot ethanol-acid mix. Try to complete the batch while the ethanol-acid mix is still hot as it might impact the yield if the hot ethanol-acid mix is allowed to chill to room temperature. I used more than an hour from start until I completed the last beaker and I didn’t notice any difference regarding the end result though.

Note:

• If you follow the above “aggressive” manufacturing method you should be able to complete all the batches (1.68kg total) within one single day of laboring.

• I managed to achieve a 67% yield (1.68 kg out of 2.5kg aspirin) because I was a bit sloppy when chilling the ethanol-acid mix (did not use weight to keep container submerged, and I could probably have chilled the ice water even more). If it hadn’t been for that I would have managed to increase my yield.

• The guide further suggest that you purify the acetylsalicylic acid a second time. I did not purify the acetylsalicylic acid. I do not know how this would impact PA production. Will the picric acid yield achieved be lower or even significantly lower if the acetylsalicylic acid isn’t purified a second time?

• Alternatively; you may use vacuum filtration for speed if you have the equipment.

Source:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xHg1hx7Rf64

This method – further discussed:

Q1: Can you use cheap 70% isopropanol or methanol?

A: The extra water in 70% IPA would reduce the solubility of ASA and increase the amount of water required to precipitate most of the ASA. As for methanol, you have a lower BP and higher vapor pressure to deal with. You have to prevent loss of solvent (round bottom flask + condenser) and deal with the fire hazard (methanol is significantly more flammable, vapors even more so; and the flames in a well lit lab aren’t visible).

A: I used the 70% IPA and it worked fine. Just used a little more distilled water…

A: You don’t want to use too much alcohol otherwise you will dissolve other impurities such as triacetin. The ratio mentioned is the best ratio that has worked for me.

Q2: Is there any way to check if what I got is ASA?

A: An absolute way to test would be using FTIR spectroscopy or NMR spec. which may tell you what else is in the precipitate. If you want to test *only* for the ASA/SA in the precipitate, you could add sodium carbonate (CO2 = positive for ASA or SA), test melting point, etc. The easiest way though would be to add some metal cation that would selectively precipitate the ASA such as Cu+2, Ni+2

c. Gathering and drying
I chose to store wrap up the coffee filters containing the wet acetylsalicylic acid in a large plastic container until I was ready to process it.

I placed the filled filter papers on a super absorbent rag 5 times to get out most of the water. Afterwards I gently squeezed another rag on top of the papers absorbing even more liquid. I then used a plastic board, opened the seaming on the coffee filters and flattened them out like a pancake scraping off the content using a rubber scraper (the item used to evenly distribute cream on cakes is optimal).

After I had scraped out all the acid from the filter papers I spread the substance out evenly on the plastic board and placed the board in a room with an oven set to max. The temperature rose to around 30 degrees in the room. The day after much of the water had evaporated. I then semi ground the acid clumps and again spread it out evenly. After three to four days the acid was completely dry. Note: I’m not sure whether this is optimal way of drying as it takes several days for the acid to dry this way.

It would probably be a better idea to dry the acid in a large glass Pyrex dish in the oven at around 50-70ºC. 1.6kg would be too much for one dish so you would in this case have to divide it into 400g batches. However; I do not know for sure how this will impact acid, which is why I chose the hard way. It is definitely worth testing though as you will save several days drying it in the oven versus my other method.

You now have 1.6kg of acetylsalicylic acid and you have just completed the second most tedious task of PA manufacturing.

3.
Sodium nitrate
Sodium nitrate can be purchased from specialty chem stores, online or at an apothecary. It is commonly used to prevent bacteria growth in meat so many hunters buy it to prepare meat before freezing. Half a teaspoon is mixed with salt and other herbs and rubbed into 25kg of moose meat for example.

Alternatively; you may synthesize sodium nitrate relatively easily. However, I will not add the guide for this manufacturing method here.

4.
Distilled water
Always use distilled water when preparing and manufacturing acetylsalicylic acid and picric acid. You may buy it in car-stores as it is used as battery water. I ended up buying a total of 170L for creating 1.5kg of picric acid.

Practical tips – preparing large quantities of ice cubes: acquire a big freezer where you can store a lot of distilled ice (you fill the plastic “pocket sheets” with distilled water and squeeze the frozen cubes out of the plastic as your need arises). I converted 40-50L of distilled water into ice cubes this way (took me about 10 hours) and I filled up a large freezer for this purpose. You can only prepare smaller batches of ice cubes at a time though as you can only stack 2 layers of plastic ice- cube sheets at a time. Then you will need to wait 30-60 mins for it to freeze or the weight of the water will cause leakage in the lower levels of ice cube sheets. I also prepared ice cubes made from spring water. Just mark the plastic sheets of mineralized water with a large black X, from a permanent marker, on each side, prior to filling, so you know which sheet contains distilled and which contains mineralized water.

Producing Picric Acid
Now that you have prepared 1.6kg of acetylsalicylic acid and 9-10L of 90%+ sulfuric acid you are halfway into manufacturing picric acid.

See guide
I used the following measurement for creating PA. I had a negatively disproportionate amount of sulfuric acid so I used a little more acetylsalicylic acid and sodium nitrate.

In a 1L conical flask I heated 600ml (700 is optimal) of 90%+ sulfuric acid in a 1L conical flask up to 60ºC. I then, over the next 2-4 minutes mixed in 112g of acetylsalicylic acid under stirring (using a hotplate magnetic stirrer). I then turned off the heat as the nitration would ensure enough heating.

I then started the nitration process (adding 190g of sodium nitrate slowly the next 140 minutes. I added 0.3g each 15 seconds for a total of 1.2g per second making sure to keep the temperature between 60-70ºC. I kept the temperature at around 66ºC to be precisely. Keeping the temperature stable at around this heat is essential. After about an hour I had to turn up the stirring power to max as the liquid thickened.

After 140 minutes the solution was fully saturated (even though I had 24g of sodium nitrate left) and it “bloomed”. Blooming is like a reversed melting process in which the solution solidifies and no amount of stirring can stop it. I do not know for sure if this is correct as I have never seen a guide describing it. Regardless, I kept on stirring every 5 minutes for the next 30 minutes, and then every 10 minutes for the next 30 minutes to prevent the increasingly “growing” substance from overflowing. This was one of my “successful” batches which contained approximately 40-50% pure PA crystals. 80% of my batches “bloomed” in this manner. It took around 4-5 hours for the container with the unpurified PA to reach room temperature. The 1L conical flask was 800ml full. At this point, I could continue the process by slowly scraping out 400 ml of semi-clumps of PA into a 2L beaker with 500ml of distilled water and the rest distilled ice cubes (filled up to 1400 ml). After proper precipitation I poured it into 6 x 500ml beakers with the same amount of funnels/filter papers, saving the filtrate and pouring out the liquid into a 100L plastic bucket (which was later to be dumped near a death-sentenced-bush, outside 🙂

Corrections to previous guide based on my own experiences and research while producing 10 batches of unpurified PA. When I first started this production process I assumed I would end up with a relatively pure end product, perhaps 70-80% pure after washing a couple of times. Needless to say; it was significantly more time consuming than I thought and I had to learn the hard way due to significantly lacking and even misleading guides. The positive surprise though, was that handling PA was significantly safer than I thought. I started out as overly careful as regards to PA and metal. Although you have to be careful, know that PA is perhaps the most safe booster you can work with. Unpurified PA isn’t, in most cases, even flammable. So you don’t need an exceptional fume hood and fan. An improvised version will work just as well for this purpose. After I had bought a fume hood I invested in two fans, one cheap version (it was actually just a dust collector suction fan) retailing for 140 euro. I also invested in a much more expensive fan (especially manufactured to prevent explosion) retailing for 950 euro. It would seem I was way too paranoid as the only dangerous gas you ever need to worry about when manufacturing PA or DDNP is the NOx gas during nitration and also H2S and SO2 during DDNP manufacture when acidifying the sodium picramate solution but these gasses aren’t explosive at all. I was somehow worried that the anti-metallic nature of PA would prevent me from using a metallic fan-tube. However, using one is not a problem at all as all the PA remains in the beakers. So don’t worry at all about explosive gasses cause there aren’t any. And you don’t need a hazmat suit either. Just use regular nitril washing-up-gloves and a good 3M face mask with visor and acid filter/vapor gas filter (nr. 60923 – multifilter) and you’re more than fine.

A few guides states: after you mix in the acetylsalicylic acid with the 90%+ pure sulfuric acid, slowly mix in the sodium nitrite. A few guides did not even specify in more detail than this.

1. What many guides failed to mention and which I had to learn the hard way after ruining several batches; it is ESSENTIAL that you do the nitration (mix in the sodium nitrite) between 60-70ºC. I found out that if you mix in the sodium nitrite below 60ºC some of it turns into a layer at the bottom of the conical flask which grows ever thicker. This layer can potentially sabotage and ruin your whole batch. If the temperature suddenly rises this layer may suddenly “melt/loosen” and cause a nitration “overdose” as it mixes with the rest of the content which may increase the temperature with up to 20ºC within minutes and severely deteriorate the yield of the batch. This layer may also affect the magnetic stir bar and cause it to not stir properly. So make sure you prevent this from happening by keeping the temperature around 65ºC and never let it drop below 60ºC.

2. What ALL the guides failed to mention was the fact that the addition of the sodium nitrate increases the temperature of the content. So basically; as you start the nitration just after you add the acetylsalicylic acid at around 50-60ºC, you don’t need any heat at all during the process as you can keep the heat between 60-70ºC by adding sodium nitrite (or potassium nitrate). Rapid heat fluctuations is the most severe threat to your batch and temperatures above 70ºC (not exactly sure about 70ºC perhaps 75ºC) will deteriorate your batch and cause a significantly lower yield. By deteriorating I mean lowering your yield of pure PA crystals from an optimal 50% down to 10% in a worst case scenario.

3. What all except one guide failed to mention was the importance of the glassware you are using. I used 2 x 1L beakers and 1 x 1L conical flask. All of my beaker batches ended up with a very low yield for the following reason; the magnetic stir bar works significantly better in a conical flask. I had problems in the beaker as the stirring was significantly reduces (even at max power) due to the shape of the container and the fact that I had a glass temperature rod which very presence significantly reduced the stirring output created by the stir bar. In any case; use a conical flask instead of a beaker if possible.

4. On my most successful batch I used a 1L conical flask with 600ml of sulfuric acid (90-95%). On average; I added 1.2g of sodium nitrate per minute (for my two most successful batches). Instead of dropping 1.2g in one go each 60 sec, I added aprox 0.3g every 15 sec (in other words 4 times x 0.3g per minute). I sat there for 2 hours and 15 minutes doing that on my most successful batch (with 2 x 5 minute breaks). You can imagine the agony of sitting there with a 3M gas mask on a rotten chair with your back hurting adding 0.3g every 15 sec. Its repetitive, extremely boring and frustrating. You will start to curse the fact that you didn’t set up a TV nearby, or the fact that you only bought one hot plate stirrer instead of three. The prospect of doing this 10 times can be psychologically challenging. So take all measures to make your time more efficient. I managed to barely survive with my sanity intact thanks to my iPod <3 5. Acquire 3 x hot plate stirrers if possible. The nitration process is an extremely tedious and frustrating process. With three hot plate stirrers you can add 0.3g in three separate conical flasks speeding up this bitch of a task 300%. A hot plate stirrer retails for 300-500 euro so its affordable. Also, it's less suspicious to buy 1 than 3 🙂 as three mostly indicates that you are going to resell them <3 6. Creating PA proved to be a very unforgiving manufacturing method. Several things can go wrong, and most of these things relate to impatience -> too much sodium added per minute -> temperature rising to fast f example; I took a break a couple of mins too long and came back to see the thermostat at 59ºC. I tried to compensate with a little extra sodium nitrite, which didn’t seem to have any effect on the temp. I added more and suddenly the temperature exploded and ended at 81ºC. A couple of other times I got too impatient and added too much per minute (although at the time I believed that a temperature above 70ºC wouldn’t make a difference – I eventually learned that it makes all the difference). You need to be rested and focused before you begin this process (I was exhausted on several occasions which made me lose focus a few times and thus ruin the batch). As long as you focus and add the sodium nitrite 2-4 times per minute x 0.2-0.4g you should be fine.

Prepare mentally for the nitration process. Don’t start if you are physically tired or if you need to eat any time soon. Just prepare and if possible have a radio, TV or iPod at your disposal.

7. Don’t assume that the precipitate you end up with will be above 60% purity. Consider the precipitate you end up with grapes, whereas the actual pure PA crystals are the seeds in the grapes. If you do the process flawlessly the seeds will be large, but if you make mistakes, they will be significantly smaller. This will save you the disappointment I encountered:-). Out of 1.2kg of unpurified PA substance I ended up with only 200-300g of pure PA crystals. Had I done everything optimally I would have ended up with 1.5kg of unpurified PA substance and perhaps 0.8-1kg of pure PA crystals.

8. You can mix in the acetylsalicylic acid quickly. I never spent more than 5 minutes mixing it in, in the beginning of the process. As soon as you have mixed it in and it has fully dissolved you can start the nitration process. I usually mixed it in at around 60ºC and started the nitration process at around 60-65ºC.

Washing
It says in most guides that you need to wash with ice cold water 2-10 times. Basically, if you want to do this; just pour water over the filter to clean away sulfates. However, as you need to purify your yellow PA substance anyway, it is pointless to wash it! As I didn’t know this at that time I washed the PA-substance 2 times, and the batch intended to create DDNP; 4 times.

How to find out whether your yellow unpurified PA substance is pure

Fire test:
Purified (<80%) PA burns, unpurified PA (>60%) does not! I would imagine it would burn faster and more consistent the purer it is. I tried the fire test on all my batches of un-purified PA substance and none ignited, not even my best batch, even though I heated it until completely dry in the oven. I would therefore assume that you need a certain % of pureness for the substance to ignite – perhaps 50-60%+

Eyesight:
I found this out myself by observation of substance and comparing to the yield achieved by the purification process. The more pure your PA substance is the more it will “sparkle”. It is the pure PA crystals that make it sparkle. Needless to say; the more crystals, the more sparkles. Usually, an optimal produced batch of unpurified PA substance is pale yellow that “sparkles”. It’s worth noting though that one of my pale yellow batches had a very low yield so color isn’t everything and 100g of pale yellow PA substance can in fact prove to yield less than 20% of pure PA crystals.

IMPORTANT: DO NOT assume that your unpurified PA substance is suitable as a high explosive booster! On my test blast I used 3g DDNP with 50g unpurified PA substance as a booster. At this point in time I believed it was potent but wanted to test for sure. Needless to say, the completely dry impure PA substance did not detonate and was just spread all over after the blast. I later (when I purified the rest of the same batch) found out the yield in that batch was a lousy 10%, so no wonder it didn’t detonate.

Purification
Time required: 3-4 days for 1.5kg of unpurified PA substance.

Purification of the yellow unpurified PA substance is required as you need to be sure that the substance is potent. You will need approximately 40-50 liter of distilled water to purify 1kg of unpurified PA substance. You also need a 2L beaker for boiling/mixing and 20-40 other glass containers for chilling the liquid after the boiling/mixing. The chilling process will take up to 1-2 days so unless you have enough time, you should get A LOT of glass containers, to do everything in 1-2 batches.

Boil up 1.3 L of distilled water (70-80ºC) in a 2 L beaker. You don’t need a hotplate-magnetic stirrer for this as a limited amount of stirring is needed. In fact a regular plate would go considerably faster since it heats up faster.

Start to dump in the unpurified yellow PA powder (powdered or clumps – around 50 g, exact weight isn’t important). If the amount doesn’t saturate the liquid you can put more in, until it is no longer soluble and bits of PA floats around. Just ensure everything dissolved before you go to the next step. Have a container of 500 ml additional water nearby and add it once you need to dissolve the insoluble PA. You can regulate the temperature somewhat with adding additional water to ensure the temp doesn’t exceed 80ºC. I don’t know for sure whether temps exceeding 80ºC will deteriorate the PA but I read from another source to keep temp between 70-80ºC so no harm following that advice. It said another place to remove the brown oil droplets. I tried this in the beginning with a plastic spoon but noticed that it impacted the yield of pure PA as I also removed some pure PA floating around with the droplets. I only noticed the brown droplets in my first batch which was very poorly made, but not in the other batches. There will hardly be any so just ignore this altogether.

1 L of liquid is saturated with 15 g of pure PA so this fact allows you to measure the yield of your yellow PA powder and the number of grams you can expect to purify. 50g of yellow PA powder in my case yielded from 10-50% of pure PA crystals. My poorest yield was my first batch. 300 g of PA powder was almost inert and yielded only 30g of pure PA crystals. The other batches of PA powder was a better yield ranging from 15-50%.

When the liquid is saturated (you should have 1.8L of PA liquid), filter hot into glass containers. Filtering hot is not very important unless your PA powder is very unclean, like my batches (it was everything from bugs to other small impurities like pieces of plastic). I filtered 1.8 L into 4 x 500 ml beakers but since I only had 10 of these beakers I eventually started using all types of glassware. Since the crystals (when cooling slowly) “grow” slowly like bacteria I assumed using items which they use to boost bacteria growth would work in these cases as well. I experimented with various glass containers, different shapes and sizes. I used flat, long (long drink glasses), small, with everything from glass rods and plastic sucking straws in.

My findings were not 100% conclusive, in fact I’m still very uncertain, but I got the impression that certain shapes and sizes will allow for a greater yield. Smaller containers seemed better than large containers and adding plastic sucking straws so the crystals got more “surfaces” to grow from was a slight bonus. Beakers larger than 600ml yielded a lower result. I ended up buying 18 long drink glasses (each 300ml) which yielded an ok result. I was surprised to learn that the best yield was from a large circular glass bowl (5 liters) which I placed 1 liter of liquid in. It was an unclean bowl I had previously used to store my bananas in (in a plastic bag). In any case; the yield of pure PA crystals was 100-200% better than in other containers. I do not exactly know why; perhaps it was the dust particles in the bowl or possibly bacteria that promoted the increased growth. In any case; it indicates that the described purification method is flawed and the issue is worth investigating further. For obvious reasons, I don’t have time for more research into this issue. Also keep in mind that larger glass containers uses considerably longer to cool (several extra hours).

Cool the two 600 ml beakers to room temp. For a 500 ml beaker this took 4.5 hours and a few hours extra for the 2L beakers. I notices, however, that when I let the beakers sit overnight (for a total of 12 hours) there was considerably more PA crystals generated. However, I do not know for sure if this will impact the total of crystals generated after you have further cooled it down in the fridge. When the beakers and other glassware you might have used are at room temp (don’t hesitate to let it stand for several extra hours, perhaps up to a day or two, after it has hit room temp) – then, put the beakers in the fridge. It said in another guide that I was to put it in the fridge for one hour but I’m pretty sure he meant that I chill the liquid down to 4ºC. Considering that I was purifying 1kg of unpurified PA powder and I had A LOT of beakers and other glass containers, it took 12 hours in the fridge for the beakers to reach 4ºC (since the room temped containers raised the refrigerator temperature from 4ºC to 12ºC within the first hour…:-) So, if you have a small fridge, like I did, consider chilling the containers in a “transit location”, if possible, in order to shorten the “fridge time”. I used the cellar floor which holds 8ºC. This saved me a total of 36 hours of “fridge time”. Filter once the liquid hits 4-5ºC (perhaps we can even increase generation rate if we let stand even longer. I am really not sure about this but it is worth investigating further.

The other guide said: scoop the crystals out of the filter. However, I like to save the crystals in the filter until I have a large enough batch to process as it maintains the moisture well and keeps it cool. I also like to process the filter papers all at once by using a 2m x 1m plastic board. I open the “seam” on the coffee filter papers and flatten it out like a pancake. Then I use a plastic/rubber spoon like object (the item used to smear cream on cakes) to get all of the content out.

Storage
When you have taken out all the crystals from the filters, put them in a plastic box and keep them with at least 20% water content (no problem if you take them out of the moist filters – newly moist filters = approx 100% water content).

These should be used within 2-3 weeks or they may start to deteriorate and/or may increase sensitivity and thus become more dangerous to transport (according to another guide). If you store them saturated with alcohol in a sealed glass container, you can basically store them safely for 100 years +.put in oven for an hour.

Drying before use
Dry in oven for 30 mins to 4 hours based on water content between 50-80ºC before use. I dried the unpurified PA substance in the oven (no problem) but haven’t yet confirmed with pure PA crystals. It should be safe because I dried DDNP in the oven the same way, which should be considerably more sensitive.

Preparing 1,800kg of AN prills (CAN 27-0-0)
There are large 300-600L diesel tanks in most farms (for fueling the tractor) so just call the supply company and order the required amount of diesel. My 300L tank was almost half full so I ordered an additional 150L this way. I also bought 5 x 20L gas tanks to transport the diesel from the equipment building (where the diesel tank was) to the barn cellar (where I was going to manufacture the ANFO). Since a 20L plastic tank is too heavy to handle efficiently I poured the content into 5 x 4L plastic bottles which I had leftover from all the distilled water used previously.

When you make the order at your local farming supplier (the supplier near the farm you are renting) you should order twice as many “dummy fertilizer). Obviously, before you can make an order in the first place you need to register a “farming company” and acquire a “producing number” from your government. In other words, you have to register as an “official farmer” or you will not be able to make an order from the farming supplier. You should also have enough farming land to justify the order you are placing. 50-90 decares (5-9 hectares) should allow you to easily justify the purchase of 4-5 tons of fertilizer whereas half being CAN 27-0-0. If you do not take these precautions there is a chance you may not pass the scrutiny of the farming supplier as red flags will arise. Also. f example when you order 3 x 600kg bags of CAN27 you should also order at least 3 x bags of the two other types of fertilizer. I ordered 5 x 600kg bags of CAN27 and 5 x of 600kg “dummy bags” which proved to be too much for one person to process.

I then told the office to place the CAN inside of the equipment building and the rest outside. The supply truck uses a “hook” that can place the bag in a 3m radius of the truck. The positive thing about this is that I could close the building sliding door (3 x 3m) and further process the AN without anyone outside noticing.

I then brought 14 x 50kg fertilizer bags (previously ordered from a Chinese company, the bag has two layers, a carry layer and an inner plastic bag that prevents moisture getting in or out) and filled up the bags, transporting them to the barn basement by car (the barn basement is 100m away from the equipment building). When I had emptied 3 x 600kg bags I had around 36 x 50kg bags which I had transferred to the barn basement. Don’t worry about water absorption at this point as the prills have a layer that prevents the prills from absorbing liquid.

I bought several different blenders (both stationary and handheld) and found a suitable machine, which I bought 8 of. This blender, a stationary Electrolux machine with an ice crushing function offered optimal circulation of ground material vs. prills which allowed me to grind 1kg every 30 seconds. I set up 4 of these blenders 5cm from each other on a work bench with an empty 50kg fertilizer bag next to a bag filled with 45kg of AN prills (placed just below the 4 blenders so you can empty the blender glass containers quickly and pour it into the empty bag). You fill up each blender and put it on the lowest strength grinding (you don’t really need more grinding power than this and higher power will most likely wear out the blenders considerably faster). I made a nice rotation ensuring that the uptime of the 4 blenders. I then prepared 12 x 4L containers of diesel close by. Although ANFO requires 7% diesel for optimal detonation you should add 10% or perhaps even 13% like I did to account for any evaporation etc.

As you crush the prills to fine powder it will immediately start to absorb water from the air, so as soon as you have ground a portion you must hurry to pour the content in the empty bag. Once I had filled up 1/4 of the bag I added 1.7L of diesel, before continuing. You add approximately 1.7L at as you fill up the bag with 1/4, 2/4, 3/4 and 4/4. When completed I wrapped the inner bag (like the way you make a pig tail on hair) and closed it with 10 cm of duct tape. Then continuing to wrap, I left 2 cm of empty space before doing the same again. I then bent the upper wrapping down on the lower wrapping and closed it with more duct tape. I then wrapped the outer bag with two portions of 20cm duct tape. I don’t know for sure if this is optimal, but I couldn’t think of a more efficient way to seal the bag properly. After I had grinding 600kg of prills the first blender broke down (the knife handle broke). The second machine broke down shortly after. I replaced these with the backup blenders and continued until I was done preparing 34 bags x 50kg ANFO. By that Time 3 blenders had completely broken down and one more was partly dysfunctional.

Time required to prepare 1 x 50kg bag of ANFO using the above method
It took around 30-40 minutes to prepare each 50kg bag of ANFO. So I spent around 3-4 nights (from 23.00 to 8.00) working this way until I was completely done. I chose to work at nighttime because I wanted to do everything I could to prevent detection. I covered the windows and closed the door on the inside (I had to install a closing mechanism on the door). Due to the loud noise made from the 4 blenders you can’t really hear anyone approaching so I wrote a note on the door of the main building which encouraged them to call my mobile if they needed my presence (add a smiley <3). This work is very tedious so I had my iPod on for most of the time at max volume. I took a 5 minute break for every 2 bags I completed (so basically every 120 minutes). Occasionally, I would have to drive to the equipment building and fill up my 20L diesel containers. I originally planned to process 2 more 600kg bags of AN prills but I was so exhausted that I decided 1800kg would have to do. Mixing in aluminium powder and micro balloons in the ANFO
Adding 10% (by weight) of aluminium powder and 2-3% (by weight) of micro balloons will increase the sensitivity and power of your ANFO substantially. Considering the fact that we do not have access to 34-0-0 (much purer AN) I assumed adding at least the micro balloons would be required to ensure detonation.

Considering the fact that AN powder will absorb water so quickly I concluded that it would be appropriate to add the AL and MB after I had saturated the AN powder with diesel.

You now have around 36 x 50kg bags packed with ANFO

Adding aluminium powder and micro balloons
Commercial ANFO contains approximately 2-3% of micro balloons according to a couple of sources, which makes the ANFO more sensitive and thus requires only a standard blasting cap to detonate. However, commercial ANFO is much purer than the 27-0-0 CAN available to farmers.

I’m now going to mix in the AL and MB using:

45kg of ANFO 5kg of AL (I’m using 400 mesh(62 microns) leafed AL 1,2kg of micro balloons

For a total of 51.2kg per bag

The 150kg of AL came in 4 hermetically sealed drums each containing around 37kg of AL. After reading the “security precautions”, however, I was completely freaked out. The drum openings where wielded with a soft metallic substance so it was not going to be easy to open them without extreme risk (I thought). According to the warnings; contact with oxygen will risk detonation of the AL, contact with metal, concrete and even plastic will significantly increase the chance of static electricity which can cause a detonation. Friction and shock can also cause detonation. Close proximity of oxidizers (gas, diesel) or close proximity to electrical outputs etc can cause detonation.

At first, I thought I would manage to create enough picric acid booster material (1.5kg in total) to disregard the addition of AL powder. But considering the fact that I only managed to produce 200- 300g of booster I had no choice than to continue the AL addition.

I first planned on creating an outdoor mechanism that allowed me to thrust a steel spear like object, by using gravity, creating a 3 cm hole in the top of the drum. However, I ended up taking a regular knife and starting to file down the wielded enclosure, even if it involved high risk. Eventually, I manage to file open the enclosure. I then considered putting the drum upside down in one of my empty fertilizer bags to prevent the presence of an abundance of oxygen.

This method proved to be too exhausting since I had to hold up the 37kg drum with my hands. I ended up with putting a large 3 x 4m plastic sheet on the concrete floor and carefully pouring the AL powder out of the opening. Small clouds of dust began to generate but nothing happened. I carefully continued until the drum was empty rolling the side of the drum in a circular pattern from the center of the AL powder already poured out, until the drum was empty. There were small clouds of AL powder generated but the biggest one was approx 20 cm in diameter, which settled down after a while. I continued after the small clouds had settled. It’s also worth noting that I had closed all the windows of the cellar basement so the humidity was relatively high, while oxygen level was below average.

In any case, this method worked well and I had gathered all the AL powder on the sheet, and thus preparing it for the addition to the ANFO.

I plan to mix up 1.2kg of micro balloons per 45kg ANFO. I have a total of 40kg of MB in 5 large bags. It is a powder-like substance and inert. But according to the sources; when mixed with ANFO or ANALFO it will generate hot spots and thus making the ANFO or ANALFO more sensitive. I just hope I have the correct type of micro balloons… I assumed that the micro balloons were 2 mm in diameter but these seems to be 0.2 mm or so.

The least of teargas effects are tears

Posted on June 28, 2011 by Eric Verlo

Teargas has become a misnomer of course.What’s being used so liberally to suppress demonstrations, to be graphically specific, is vomit-inducing PUKE-GAS. It’s a nausea agent, a respiratory inhibitor, and except when used by the paramilitary police-state, “teargas” is prohibited chemical warfare.

Cartographic traces of Lake, Colorado

Posted on May 10, 2011 by Eric Verlo

Maybe like me you’re wondering how a landmark falls off the face of the earth, in particular Google Earth, assuming as we do that web crowdsourcing is archival, not perishable. A stagecoach watering hole in Kansas Territory, formerly Arapaho, was Hedinger’s Lake, between present day Limon and Hugo. Like the history of Colorado’s water, Lake became Lake Station, later a railway siding, today a creek.

First some back-story: 1750. When gold looked to become the carrot to drive white man’s Manifest Destiny, the Indian Territories of what would become Colorado were labeled simply the Gold Region.

Back in 1815, the West was still La Louisiane, and place names were native, French and Spanish. Taos was one of the oldest Spanish settlements, site of the First American Revolution, against the Spaniards, and another revolt when the US invaded. Camp de Baroney sits on the Arkansas River, eventually resettled as El Pueblo. And there’s La Fourche Republicaine, a fork of la Rivoire Missouri, soon to lead a prominent migration trail west.

By 1848, St. Vrain’s Fort and Grante Ft., Bent’s Fort, were already protecting Anglo trading interests. (Note by the way, Old Park and New Park, eventually to be become the “North” to South Park.)

By 1864, the Cheyenne and Arapaho found themselves bordered on the west by the “Military Department of Utah” and ceding their lands to the Kansas Territory. (On this map we can see Montana City, the original Denver City. Denver eventually overtook Auroria and the metropolis. Mineral Springs became Manitou and Colorado Springs at the foot of Pikes Peak.)

Note the curiously singular representation of a “Kansas Lake” depicted at the tip of the south fork of the Republican River, whose waters will originate in the later to be named Lincoln County, at whose heart will lie Lake, Colorado.

The Rocky Mountain region lost many lakes by the mid 1800s when beaver were hunted to near extinction and with them the beaver dams. Note just West of “Kansas Lake” lies Beaver Creek.

With the gold rush, settler trails crisscrossed the West, for wagon trains, stagecoach and mail carriers. Lake was a stage at the convergence of the Butterfield Overland Dispatch and Republican Fork Trails, where they crossed the Big Sandy Creek to join the Smoky Hill South and North Roads (after similarly named rivers which were starting points in Kansas) or the spartan Starvation Trail to Denver. Today’s I-70 follows Smoky Hill North.

Was Hedinger’s Lake the water which travelers sought at the end of the South Republican Fork Trail?

This 1868 Union Pacific map predicted the stops heading eastward from Denver to be Parkhurst, Beaver, which later became Deer Trail, and Coon Creek, which became Kit Carson, opposite Sand Creek.

By 1870, Kansas was a state and the Kansas Union Pacific RR reached Denver. (Beyond the mountains: North Park, Middle Park and South Park.)

By 1873, leaving for Denver from Fort Wallace, there were stops at Kit Carson, Aroyo, Lake, Agate (pronounced “A-Gate”) and Deer Trail. (Note: still no Colorado Springs.)

A map circa 1880s, shows Hugo, Lake, River Bend, Godfrey, Agate, Deer Trail, and Byers, named for the founder of the Rocky Mountain News, formerly Bijou.

When the Chicago Kansas and Nebraska Railroad sought a direct route to Colorado Springs, it decided to intersect the Kansas Pacific at a new stop called Limon and that was the end of Lake. At Limon the westbound trains performed what was called the “Limon Shuffle” where passenger and freight cars were separated depending on which were going to Denver and which to Colorado Springs.

Lake Station remained a stop for the Union Pacific, and on this map which accompanied the 1910 census, it’s gone, in favor of a late addition, Bagdad.

As trains no longer needed to take on water, and could reach their destinations more quickly, many stops were eliminated. This 1925 train Union Pacific train schedule lists only Cheyenne Wells, Kit Carson, Hugo and Limon before reaching Denver.

Lake is still marked on railroad maps, though there’s not even an access road to reach it.

On other maps it’s just Lake Creek, spanned by an impassable decaying bridge. It’s now a wetlands area that provides a bird sanctuary.

For the USGS, Lake still serves as namesake for the topographical map of the Lake Quadrangle.

To be continued…

Local cyclists shred Garden of the Gods

Posted on April 25, 2011 by Eric Verlo

GARDEN OF THE GODS, COLORADO SPRINGS– Mountain bike X-tremists and thrillcraft eco-vandals Jason Memmelaar and Chris Heath weren’t apprehended by the El Paso County Sheriff or the CSPD, but interrupted by off-duty park ranger Stephanie Stover, who saw them cutting tree limbs to expand an illegal downhill run. When she scattered the limbs across the trail to ameliorate erosion, she later found a note which warned:
“Why would you do that? You will hurt my friends. If I see you do this I will hurt you and no one will hear you scream.”
Reached by the Gazette via Facebook, Heath denied he left the note, or that he’d built the mile-long trail across protected park land, though he did brag about using the trail “a bunch.” So there it is, CSPD, let the citations fly. Trail repairs won’t begin until May, so there’s still time if you want to make their downhill track a surprise obstacle course. Will screams go unheard? We can test that hypothesis.

I don’t really recommend leaving malicious booby traps like tire spikes, barbed-wire, or a chest high bailing wire strung with tensioners because that could injure others, for example children on bikes however errant, and then too, wildlife. Branches across the path are enough to interrupt the course and can be seen and avoided by hikers. Best of course to safeguard the vicinity by hiking nearby with a camera and cellphone and report the offenders directly to park authorities. Curious to see what the bikers would do if they came upon YOU scattering branches, if you’re not a woman alone on that stretch of the Garden of the Gods.

In the case of Messrs. Memmelaar and Heath, they’re not just asshole despoilers of nature, they’re pro-racers for some kind of circuit for environment-scarring sports. Probably the exposure in Barry Noreen’s column is the last thing their sponsors want. It will be interesting to see how much they care about a public outcry.

I should think they might want to orchestrate a public apology for their “rogue” bikers. Maybe the white Dodge Spirit van with New York plates mentioned in the Gazette is already ferrying friends to the site where they are volunteering to repair the damage before official efforts begin.

If not, keep a lookout for the two elsewhere around town. Perhaps with the heat on Rampart Range Road, they’ll now be looking to foul fresh topsoil of other open spaces, like that of Red Rock canyon.

Have a look at this photographic confession offered at Memmelaar‘s website:

I’m voting early, and I vote NO

Posted on October 29, 2010 by Eric Verlo

I’ll show you an absentee ballot. As the election looms, the Klieg lights intensify on the TP bogey-persons, TV talking heads harp about what a nail-biter this will be, pollsters dance with them that brought ’em, Michael Moore does his usual U-turn, to urge us to suck it up for the Dems, Medea Benjamin defends her eternal faith that activism “might” still move Obama, and ever multiple emails presume Obama’s options must be preserved at all costs, usually a donation. Again I anticipate hearing from a friend who monitors local precinct printouts and calls to whip his charges to the polls. I’ve lost count of how many Facebook prompts I’ve gotten to pledge to vote — but this time I’m going to make my ballot count. No amount of corporate-sponsored fear-based gap-closing civic-enthusiasm is going to coerce me to play this game. I will not support war, lack of health care, and class war unchallenged. The beasts unleashed by Citizens United will not buy my participation.

Neither the conservative assholes, nor the liberal bullshitters can have it.

They can have their tyranny, their obscene income disparity, their open war on nature and fellow-humankind. They can have their liberal pretense as the less bitter pill. It’s a dose of cancer either way. I would have a preference actually, if forced to choose between a quick execution and a slow death by hard labor, but I would rather resist than be compelled to voice it.

Silence is not consent, it’s none of the above.

What candidate have you got that’s going to make a difference? In Colorado we’ve got nothing but corporate energy, weapons systems cowboys. Our good-cop senate incumbent is a corporate, education-privatizing, warmongering Zionist who like Obama says he’s against all that. What you got?

Imagine if American election monitors insisted on dipping American fingers in purple dye to prevent vote fraud. The traditional media photo representing Iraqi or Afghan elections makes it obvious it’s really to provide graphic illustration of their buy-in to the election process.

We judge the democracy flag-planting in Iraq and Afghanistan based on election turnouts don’t we? Why shouldn’t that symbolic math apply here too? Would Americans vote if their purple fingers were paraded to demonstrate their faith in American Democracy? Fuck No.

Let the state media denounce it as voter apathy — they can call it what they want, I won’t be there.

Can a currency system be localized?

Posted on September 22, 2010 by Eric Verlo

A friend of mine is studying alternative money systems in Boulder, and has solicited input from her varied professional circles. Here are the questions she poses about localizing community transactions:

What is money? What does money do? What are certain properties of money (properties/qualities of money, of the realm of money)? What is the current money system now? How does it work? What are ‘problems’ with our current money system? Any thoughts about solutions to these perceived problems?

How do we ‘localize’ money to the community? Who/What are the communities we want to serve in developing a local currency infrastructure? Consumers/Citizens? Local business? Banks/Credit Unions?

Who would benefit from a local currency? Who would not benefit? What are the various ‘possible’ geographical boundaries of this local money system? One business? A block of business? City? Watershed?

Time Magazine spites its face

Posted on August 7, 2010 by Eric Verlo

This week’s cover of Time has to rank at their most scurrilous, a baldfaced attempt to evoke the iconic National Geographic cover, this time figuratively defaced. It’s Mona Lisa given a Howl; The Green Revolution’s “Neda” shot in the head, instead of the evocative-deficient not-in-your-face mortal wound elsewhere. If the Taliban cut off this young woman’s nose as a warning to others not to abandon their families, Time Magazine wants to broaden the extortion. Here’s “What Happens If We Leave Afghanistan.” But instead of counterspinning the Wikileaks’ Afghan War Logs, Time’s imagery reinforces the triumph of the leaked documents. This is the barbarity which will face the Afghans collaborators, those unmasked by the leaks, and those who might still be induced, in spite of the now certainty their confidence will be betrayed.

Time’s editors assure us that the young Afghan woman is safe from reprisal, held at an undisclosed location protected by armed guard. Do they take responsibility for her “If We Leave Afghanistan?” Time’s exploitation of this young Afghan is direct extortion.

	LL on Owl City writes lyrics most fo…
	lizzie on The ‘success maker…
	gary cummings on Common Dreams? Or is it censor…
	kennetha on The Stiles Unit of Beaumont
	Cristian on Shlomo Sand and shattering a n…
	Vic Currier on Why should you attend the Denv…
	Vic Currier on Sovereign constitutional oath…
	Robyn KenyaStar Prui… on White Native Americans
	Debra Gill on The Stiles Unit of Beaumont
	Xaldyn on The ‘success maker…

Not My Tribe

The Myth of Middle Ground

Tag Archives: Graphic