*************************************************
 
Major and Minor Incidents Throughout Three Decades
 
****************************************************************************

Yesterday You Said
There Are Different Kinds Of Evidence.
You Mentioned Concrete and Absolute
And Supplemental And Tangential.
Yes. That's right.
The Conspiracy can be proven
by exposing a few incidents,
but it can be very hard to accept
because it's so wrong that it seems to be
almost unbelievable.
It's an unpleasant Truth to have to accept.
It's more comfortable to believe that it's untrue.
So, we're filling out the story
by telling everything.

Some incidents can be called "Major"
and some can be called "Minor."
But even that is misleading
because they can be major and minor in different ways.
It is significant that people in major positions
are getting involved in Our Graduate Student's saga.
Simply the fact that they even do so at all
is proof that Our Graduate Student
was on the radar screen of these national leaders
and that they were taking action against him.
So, in that sense, all those incidents are major.
However, there's a big difference between what
bella abzug did and what barbara boxer did.
If bella abzug flew across the country
from New York or D.C. to sacramento
to make an appearance at sac state
in response to a comment
Our Graduate Student made in His Newsletter,
that's significant.
But there's also nothing wrong with it.
She enjoys Free Speech too, you know.
But when barbara boxer tries to frame Our Graduate Student
with bankruptcy fraud,
that's major for two reasons.
First, as in the case with abzug,
it shows that these national feminist leaders
were responding to him.
But, in the boxer case, it's major
because she was committing a crime.
And, it was a CONSPIRACY involving others -
the special temporary judge and the attorney, at minimum.

OK, I See Your Point.
You're Telling Us That Not All Evidence Is Equal,
Not All Incidents Are Of Equal Significance.
You're Telling Us That,
And It's OUR Responsibility To Remember That.
In Other Words, We Can't Take
Less Significant Evidence
Or Incidents Which We Think MAY Be Related
To The Conspiracy, But We're Not SURE,
Or Incidents which we KNOW Are Related
To The Conspiracy But Aren't Very Significant When Taken Alone,
And Then Say That The Case Is Based On Weak Evidence.
Some Evidence Definitely IS Weaker,
Either In Importance Or In Certainty Of Connection.

BUT THERE IS ENOUGH VERY POWERFUL EVIDENCE,
BOTH IN IMPORTANCE AND IN CERTAINTY OF CONNECTIVITY
TO PROVE THE CASE BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT.

The Rest Of The Evidence Is Supplementary,
Additional, A Bonus.
However, When Taken IN ITS ENTIRETY,
The Supplementary Also Is Powerful
Both In Significance And In Connectivity.

Let Me Give A Good Analogy.
On The One Hand, We Might Have
A Respected And Trusted Judge
Say That He Knows Something Is True
Because He Saw It With His Own Eyes.
That's Strong Testimony.
If A Little Child Says The Same Thing,
That Child's Testimony Is Weaker,
But It Only ADDS To The Judges Testimony.
It Does NOT Make It Weaker.
And, If 100 Children Testify The Same Way,
The Children's Testimony Taken Together
Is Very Strong.
That's It Exactly.
Let's Discuss A Couple Of Examples Today,
Because This Is Important.

I'm going to present two examples
in Our Graduate Student's case.

In the first example,
the connectivity it weak
but the significance is immense if there is a connection.

In the second case, the connectivity is very strong.
But, the incident itself is not very significant
EXCEPT for the fact
that it adds evidence to the existence of a conspiracy.

All Right.
Let's Hear The First Example.
All Right.
Let's first talk about the DiCapocante
crime family of New Jersey.
CNBC runs a series called "American Greed"
and one of their episodes was about that crime family.
The FBI had an informant
who was a trusted member of the crime family,
and who handed out a bunch of cell phones
throughout the family as a "gift."
The FBI heard EVERYTHING for a few years.
Meanwhile, "The Sopranos" airs.
The CNBC show reported that their was
a remarkable, uncanny resemblance
between "The Sopranos,"
a fictitious crime family based in New Jersey,
and the DiCapocante family,
a real crime family based in New Jersey.
The DiCapocante family members would often
talk on their phones about various Soprano characters,
saying things like, "That's ME, and that one's you,
and that other one is Vinny, and that one is mom...", etc.

The resemblance was remarkable, unbelievable.
It seemed as if "The Sopranos", the fictitious family,
was based on the DiCapocantes, the real crime family.
The resemblances, as presented on the CNBC show,
were just too similar to be coincidental.
Some of the characters were unique,
like cripples or something,
and the characters on "The Sopranos"
even had the same disabilities.
That's my opinion, based on what I heard on the CNBC show.
Based on what I heard on the CNBC show, "American Greed,"
I believe that "The Sopranos"
was based on the DiCapocante family.
I could be wrong, but it seems like a helluva coincidence
the way CNBC described the coincidence.
I have no vested interest in this opinion.
I have no skin in the game.
It doesn't matter to me if "The Sopranos"
was based on the DiCapocante family,
but if it was, it makes one wonder.
It means that there had to be cooperation
between the FBI and the producer.
That's possible I guess.
I mean, I know for a fact that national security
works with large trucking companies,
even to the point of bugging over-the-road trucks, probably.
After all, it is a question of national security.
Those semi-trailers could become truck bombs
or could be hauling drugs or illegals.
But, the notion of the FBI working with movie producers
is a much weaker connection in my mind.
The most glaring question is, "WHY ?"
What would their motive be?
To tease and mock the real crime family?
Don't they think the crime family
might start wondering about the incredible coincidence
and start thinking along the lines I'm thinking?
So, in this case, we're talking about a weak connection.
In other words, we don't know for sure there is a connection.
Is it just an incredible coincidence,
Is the FBI working with the movie producers
and, if so, why?
There doesn't seem to be a good reason for it.
The connection is weak, but the SIGNIFICANCE is great.

Similarly, in the case of Our Graduate Student,
when that older female in davis, ca
took him to see that Robin Williams movie
about the teacher/writer murdering the girl in Alaska,
it seems to be a remarkable coincidence,
especially after he found out (in 2008)
that there was a "false positive" for him
on a dna test for the murder of an Alaskan girl.
But the connection is weak.
It's just a remarkably similar movie.
If, however, the connection is real,
then that is very significant.
It is very significant that Our Graduate Student
was considered important enough, significant enough,
high profile enough, to base that movie on him.
It's a head-scratcher. If so, "Why ?"
It's a great example where the connection is weak,
but it's very significant if there is a connection.

That's A Good Example Of That.
Now, I'll Give You The Flip Side Of That.
I'll give you an example,
in the conspiracy against Our Graduate Student,
where the connection is very strong,
but the significance of the incident isn't,
except for the fact that it is further evidence
for the existence of the conspiracy.

Our Graduate Student had a chest virus or bacteria
while living in Alaska
because he was sleeping in the back of his pickup truck.
So, he went to the Anchorage hospital
and they took a stool specimen.
A few days later he gets a very urgent call.
A nurse at the hospital
wants him to come down IMMEDIATELY
because it's VERY IMPORTANT !
"What is it ?" he asks.
She tells him, in a very concerned and urgent manner,
that he "has E. Coli. in his stool."

Well, he hurried down and duly reported
and told the nurses at the receiving station
why he was there.
"The nurse called me up and told me it was urgent
and that I had to get down here right away.
She said I have E. Coli in my stool."

Well, I'm sure those of you in the medical field
are chuckling, and that's what I mean.
It wasn't THAT big of a prank.
I mean, Our Graduate Student DID have to
drop everything he was doing
and IMMEDIATELY rush to the hospital
with a great sense of urgency and worry,
but it Wasn't THAT serious of a harassment.
For those of you not in the medical field,
the answer is that almost all of our stool is E. Coli.
That's what stool is.  It's E. Coli.
The little brat who called me up was fuckin' with me,
harassin' me,
just like the girl who stapled My Newsletters backward
in 1982,
just like the feminist in the D.C. Copyright Office
who returned my collection of Newsletters,
saying they weren't a book and couldn't be copyrighted.
In this case, the connection is strong.
There was no head-scratching coincidence here.
She was just fucking with me, plain and simple.
And, there's been a lot of that
through Our Graduate Student's life
over the past 30 years.
The feminist and liberal educators and politicians
based out of sacramento,
and their allies and helpers,
have been harassing Our Graduate Student for 30 years.
The guilty parties weren't ALL
Senators and Governors and Congresswomen and mayors.
Lots of times is was a nurse, a principal, a vice principal,
a bus driver, or people of no known occupation in particular.

Lots of times, the connection was solid,
but the incident was just harassment and obstructionism.
Like one time in Alaska
Our Graduate Student was working on a math problem
for the Civil Engineering Dept of the Alaska Air National Guard.
He had recently taken calculus,
and he went to the math dept at the Univ of Alaska
for help with the problem.
(His captain asked him to come up with a simple formula
for determining with a dipstick the amount of fuel
in a cylindrical tank that was lying horizontal.
So far, he could only solve it by using TWO formulas,
one for when the tank was MORE than half full,
and one for when the tank was LESS than half full)
He was directed to the math dept chair,
who was female, and her assistant said to Our Graduate Student,
"She knows who you are."
She said that several times, and she refused to help.

Now that's a solid connection to the conspiracy.
Even though it's not a big deal
that someone's not collegial enough to give help on a math problem,
the statement itself is very strong evidence of a conspiracy.
"She knows who you are."
Why the hell would she know Our Graduate Student.
He was new to Alaska and wasn't enrolled at UAA.
She had no reason to know him,
unless there was a conspiracy and they talked about him.
Clearly, she was ill-willed.
It wasn't like, "she knows who you are
and she'll be glad to help you."
It was like, "she know who you are. Fuck you."
It was unusual.
Math people love to do math problems
and help each other out with problems and show off.
It's like playing chess. Math people do it for the fun of it.
For a math chair to refuse to help someone with a math problem
is like a bear not shitting in the woods.

What Else Happened In Alaska?
We'll get to that chronologically.
We've been jumping ahead to cover some important points.
The main point is that it's an air tight case
for a conspiracy at the highest levels
(U.S. senator, governor, congresswoman, mayor,
university president, dean of students,
principals, vice principals, superintendents,
professors of education, district attorneys...).

We are also going to be discussing
ADDITIONAL, SUPPLEMENTARY evidence
with people of lower position,
and sometimes less certain connectivity.

Like The Little Children
Compared To The Judge?
That's Right.

Enough for today.
Tomorrow, we'll talk about how
Our Graduate Student was attacked
at edison high school in stockton
and see if there was connectivity there.
It certainly was serious.

OK
Very Easily.