Major Breakthrough on Sandy Hook and Marathon Cases

by Mary W Maxwell,PhD, LLB

Something wonderful has happened that has given me great hope and I hope you will share that hope.

As you may know, Sacha Stone in the UK founded a private group called the ITNJ -- the International Tribunal for Natural Justice. It did a lot of work taking testimony from persons who have lived through amazing injustice. I can personally vouch for the honesty of one of them, my friend in Australia, Rachel Vaughan. The leading spokesman of the ITNJ seems to have been Robert David Steele.

I had some doubts about him, but that may have been because he struck me as being oddly boastful about his career. Now that he is deceased, I have read more of his writings and feel that his boasts were justified. I have also found out that in the first two years of the Trump presidency, Steele did a lot to prepare for the overthrow of the pedophile child-trafficking racket. (But it fizzled out.)

This week I read the following statement by Robert Steele:

"I managed a false flag event for the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) in my capacity as a Clandestine Operations Officer stationed overseas. I have personal experience with 'legalized lying' whereby ostensible orders 'from the highest authorities' mandate lying to the Court and lying to the media and the public, in support of national security objectives. Individuals ordered to lie are offered both full immunity and severe penalties if they fail to lie as ordered."

There is a lot in that paragraph. Let's take it apart. It is about "legalized lying," and, for me, it is about the Tsarnaev case and the Sandy Hook hoax, and it raises a very exciting chance for seeking relief under a judicial concept known as extrinsic fraud.

Legalized Lying

Trust me, there is no such thing as legalized lying. The word "legalized" refers to a law passed by a legislature, doesn't it? That means by Congress or by a state legislature. Since Steele refers to "national security objectives" (whatever the hell those are), it would have to be Congress that passed such a law. There is no other way for something to be federally legalized. It can't be done by the president, and it can't be done by the courts.

How do we know? Easy peasy. The Framers of the US Constitution in 1787 knew what they were doing, and yes, they did put power in the hands of the people. The legislature is the first branch of government. You send your representative to it and he or she is answerable to you every two years (or every six years for senators). The other two branches of government -- the Executive and the Judiciary -- are answerable to the first, as can be seen from the fact that Congress can impeach any member of the Executive or Judiciary.

Article I of the Constitution is all about the powers of Congress. In its section 8, Clause 18, we see that if the courts or the president need something legalized, they have to ask Congress to do that for them. No amount of Executive Order writing, or rulings handed down by the US Supreme Court, will suffice to make something a law. (Ah, but didn't Roe v Wade in 1973 say that it is now a law that a woman can choose to have an abortion? No. It said that a Texas law forbidding that choice was unconstitutional. I presume that the legislature of Texas proceeded to repeal that law. Courts cannot legislate. Period.)

The wording of Article I, section 8, Clause 18 is as follows:

"[Congress shall have the power to] ... make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."

Trust me, Clause 18 is not in dispute. Executive Orders by the president have no force of law if they deviate from laws enacted by Congress. As for the judiciary, it has the inherent power to set court policy, but of course it does not have a power to legalize lying by, say, allowing a "special" witness to lie under oath.

Bottom line, only Congress, not the White House or the CIA or the judiciary, makes law. So if there is a law that legalizes lying we must be able to find it in the Congressional Record. THERE ARE NO SECRET LAWS IN THE UNITED STATES.

Article I, section 5 says "Each House shall keep a Journal of its Proceedings, and from time to time publish the same, excepting such Parts as may in their Judgment require Secrecy."

Oh, so a law can be secret? Are you kidding? Of course not. All laws have to be publicly known.

The Smith-Mundt Thing

In 1948, after World War II ended, Congressmen Smith and Mundt thought it would be wise to clarify that although the US had broadcast untruths to the enemy abroad, that material should not come flying back into the domestic public's radios. Hence they drafted as Act which forbids the propagandizing of Americans.

In 2012, when the bi-annual budgeting of money for the Pentagon was being approved by the legislature (the NDAA), someone added a few words that removed the strong proscriptions of the Smith-Mundt Act. There was no longer a law against domestic citizens listening to, say the Voice of America. But does that mean lying is legalized? Oh please.

As for "National Security warrants," these come under proper law -- passed by Congress, of course. Maybe such warrants are unconstitutional. Note: Congress is not above passing unconstitutional laws -- such as the Patriot Act, God help us. When this happens, a citizen who is badly affected by the law can go to court hoping for a ruling that it's unconstitutional in whole or part. I am presently before the court, claiming that mandatory vax is unconstitutional per the Fourth Amendment, which says:

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

So what is a National Security warrant? the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act does allow the FBI or NSA to go to a judge (in a special, secret FISA court!) and get permission to search, say, the computer of a suspect. Let's not bother discussing this, as it does not affect the claim made by Robert Steele, above, that there is legalized lying. I'm a-tellin' you, there is no such thing as lying legally in a court. Courts are there to get at the truth.

The Boston Marathon Bombing Case

Steele claimed that he had managed a false flag event, and that "ostensible orders 'from the highest authorities' mandate lying to the Court and lying to the media and the public, in support of national security objectives." That's rubbish, unless you interpret his word "ostensible" to mean that such orders do not actually exist. Steele goes on to say that "Individuals ordered to lie are offered both full immunity and severe penalties if they fail to lie as ordered."

Aha! Eureka! That must be what happened in the Boston case. "Ostensibility" ran rampant. People must have been told that they should do such-and-such, even though ordinary folks would recognize such-and-such as illegal (not to mention immoral and outrageous). To me this explains their blatant breaches of law and of common sense.

The new knowledge, from Mr Steele, about false-flag management is very important. As I have recorded in my 2021 book, "Boston Marathon's Bombing," and as Maret Tsarnaeva, aunt of the convicted patsy Jahar (Dzhokhar) Tsarnaev, wrote in an affidavit for the US District Court in April 2015, her relatives were explicitly told to lie.

They may have been given rewards for doing so. It is plausible that they -- and even the convicted Jahar himself -- were "threatened with severe penalties" if they did not cooperate. I will furnish quotes at the end of this article.

The Boston Marathon bombing was definitely a false flag. The planting and detonating of the two bombs were done by the authorities, not by the Tsarnaev brothers. I am now of the mind that the prosecutor, US Attorney Carmen Ortiz, was one of the many people offered rewards for lying in court. She was probably told that it was an offer she couldn't refuse.

It's likely that the cops and the FBI, and even the doctors at the Beth Israel Deaconess Hospital, participated on the same basis. Judge George A O'Toole, Jr must have been aware of the details of this false flag, in order to handle the trial of Jahar with an eye to conviction. The mind boggles, does it not? Of course both he and Ms Ortiz are deeply trained in the Constitution and would know that "legalized lying" is a mirage.

The 2012 Massacre at "Sandy Hook Elementary School"

Although Yours Truly is happy to be labeled a conspiracy theorist, the Sandy Hook conspiracy theory (that the kids did not die, as advertised) went right past me. I felt sure it was a genuine shooting, as opposed to some which are fictional. I figured James Fetzer got what he deserved (a judgment of $450,000 for defaming the father of a Sandy Hook victim, Noah Pozner).

In recent weeks, while studying the case, I began to think it was a false flag, and as of today I can say I am certain of it. (Below is a link to my articles on this subject at GumshoeNews.com.) The main thing that changed my mind was the evidence, laid out in a 128-page book by Robert Steele, arguing that there was no Sandy Hook School in operation at the time. Fancy that.

Steele's book "Sandy Hook Truth: Memo to POTUS" is online as a pdf. You can also find James Tracy's exhaustive Timeline of the event, at memoryholeblog.org. Fetzer has a book called "Nobody Died at Sandy Hook: It Was a FEMA Drill in Support of Gun Control," but Amazon has banned it.

The really astonishing thing is that a whole town may have been persuaded to uphold the false story of the massacre of 20 children and 6 adults (and the alleged suicide of the alleged gunman Adam Lanza). If Steele is correct (God bless you, Mr Steele), the folks would have been told that their participation is mandatory under some sort of -- garbagy -- National Security Law. I wonder if any of them phoned up the nearby Yale Law School to query this!

Extrinsic Fraud

There is a concept in law that a case can be reopened if there was "extrinsic fraud." This does not cover instances where the parties were deceitful (that is expected!) or the officers of the court cheated (a Writ of Error Coram Nobis may be the basis for reopening the latter type of case).

The US Supreme Court has agreed, since 1878, that a ruling doesn't have to stand final, under res judicata, if there was extrinsic fraud. This covers instances where a person was prevented from knowing that he could sue, or where evidence was destroyed after a subpoena was issued. The extrinsic-ness means that the fraud occurred before the facts in the case were presented for adjudication. Such a case therefore never really got contested, did it? See the 1950 Texas case, Alexander v Hagedorn.

SCOTUS To Hear the Tsarnaev Appeal

Extrinsic fraud doctrine allows a court of equity to grant relief. This should be happening right now in the case of Jahar Tsarnaev. On October 13, 2021, the US Supreme Court will hear oral argument concerning his death penalty. I think the merits of the case, ought to be discussed, not just the penalty.

Myself and two other persons were accepted as amici curiae in November 2017. We informed the court that, as a point of law, the lower court failed to note that the evidence of Jahar's guilt tendered by the FBI in the form of an exploded black backpack did not accord with the other evidence tendered by the FBI, namely the photo of Jahar wearing a whitish color backpack, shortly before the explosion.

Our information was ignored by the First Circuit Court of Appeals. We submitted a further brief on this subject for the upcoming SCOTUS appeal. Also in the file is the stunning affidavit by Aunt Maret which did not make sense until Robert Steele came out with his statement about legalized lying being "mandated." I now quote the aunt, and an elderly cousin, of Jahar.

Maret Tsarnaeva says in her April 2015 affidavit that the Public Defenders Judy Clarke and William Fick had made 13 trips to talk to Jahar's parents in part of the Russian Federation. They wanted to persuade the parents to write to Jahar encouraging him to cooperate. Maret (who is a lawyer) could see that they were not acting in the best interests of their client.

"Dzhokhar's parents expressed willingness to engage independent counsel.... Mr Fick replied that government agents would obstruct independent counsel." [Hello???] And shockingly warned "that, if their advice were not followed, Dzhokhar’s life in custody near Boston would be more difficult." (That's a line right out of The Godfather, isn't it?)

Note: Jahar has been imprisoned for eight years, incommunicado, currently at Supermax in Colorado.

Cousin Dzhamaly

Separately, in Dagestan, cousin Tsarnaev Dzhamaly Maazovich told of chats he had with junior personnel from Boston. He signed an affidavit but never presented it. It says:

Representatives of the defense team were confident in the innocence of the brothers, Tamerlan and Dzhokhar; in particular the lead dfense lawyer Judy Clarke agreed, adding in the conversation, "we know it -- they are innocent." From the words of my brother, Said-Khussein Tsarnaev, I learned that on August 7, 2014 the meeting with representatives of the defense team, which took place at the hotel “Grozny City.”

Charlene, who presented herself as an independent investigator involved in the case by Dzhokhar’s lawyers; Jane, presented as a social worker and psychologist; and Olga (a translator from New Jersey, who arrived with the team), translating the conversation, openly admitted to my brother that they knew that Dzhokhar and Tamerlan were not guilty of the bombings, and with this they were apologizing that the Tsarnaevs have had to endure the tragedy involving criminal allegations.

My last personal conversation with the representative of Dzhokhar’s lawyers team, Alicia, introduced to me as assistant to the state-appointed defense attorney, during which I had to speak through an interpreter named Elena. I had met with Alicia and Elena on April 14, 2015 at noon in the hall of the “ Ararat – Hyatt” hotel. Later we moved to a cafe on the second floor. Our conversation lasted around 40 minutes. And suddenly Alicia said to me, “Dzhokhar’s guilt has been proven by the prosecution in court, please convince Dzhokhar to take the blame for the bombings in the marathon so that he is not given the death penalty.”

I was shocked by her revelation and request and said, “what are you talking about, we and you both know that the boys are innocent and there is a lot of conclusive evidence of it, and representatives of the defense, who visited earlier in Dagestan and Chechnya, admitted to us that they had known themselves that Tamerlan and Dzhokhar were not involved in the Boston bombings.”

To this Alicia had stated, “If Dzhokhar does not accept the guilt and does not express remorse, then the court will issue him a death sentence, however Dzhokhar is insisting upon his own, that he is ready to die rather than allow for Tamerlan to be blamed for the bombings and to plead guilty for himself and his brother.” -- end of Dzhamaly's affidavit. He was refused a visa to attend the trial.

Equitable Relief

I graduated from Law School in Australia where the court of equity has merged with the regular court. In the US, I don't know if SCOTUS would change its focus from the current appeal and look at equitable relief for Jahar based on extrinsic fraud, but undoubtedly they have the authority to remand the case.

Note: If we had a president who was interested in re-establishing justice in America, he could right now offer contingent pardons to the many people who seem to have taken part knowingly in a false flag, on the basis of believing it was legally mandated. By "contingent pardon" I mean the person would have to do something to help us out, by explaining all the particulars.

There is a lot more to the Tsarnaev case. See videos on my website ConstitutionAndTruth.com. Please don't give up and say there is nothing we can do. The law is our weapon. Use it or lose it!

You may be wondering if I am scared, about writing this article. Of course not. I went to sister school in Dorchester, Mass. I am thrilled to uncover a bit of truth. Allelulia!

Here is Aunt Maret Tsarnaeva, eight years ago on Youtube. By the way, tomorrow October 11, 2021, the Marathon race will be run in Boston. It was postponed last April due to Covid.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r9n7fbVVkg0