Friday, May 8, 2009

Painting the Lily: The Lundeby Case, In Perspective

[T]o be possess'd with double pomp,
To guard a title that was rich before,

To gild refined gold, to paint the lily,

To throw perfume on the violet,

To smooth the ice, or add another hue
unto the rainbow...
Is wasteful and ridiculous excess.

-- Shakespeare, King John

Purdue University in Lafayette, Indiana is not unaccustomed to bomb threats. University spokeswoman Jeanne Norberg recently told The Exponent, the campus newspaper, that such events, while not "frequent," are "not unusual in any given year." So the bomb threats that occurred the night of February 15, while obnoxious and disruptive, weren't all that uncommon.

At around 9:05 p.m. the University Police received a call claiming that there was a bomb on the second floor of the Mechanical Engineering building.
With no classes in session and the campus practically vacant, it wasn't difficult to evacuate and search the building.

Police searched the area until about 1:00 the following morning before concluding that they had responded to a malicious hoax. Fortunately, as Norberg pointed out, "we didn't need to send out an alert. Police had areas secured; there was no threat to public safety at that point."

While police in Indiana were responding to the threat, according to Annette Lundeby, she and her 16-year-old son were on their way home from church in North Carolina.

She insists that her son Ashton, who is being held now in Indiana on charges related to that and other incidents involving phony bomb threats (but apparently
not under the provisions of the USA PATRIOT act, as Annette initially claimed and I -- among many others -- originally reported), has a hermetically sealed alibi and did not have an opportunity to phone in a bomb threat to anyone.

Mrs. Lundeby now admits that Ashton has pulled telephone "pranks" before, and that he is the minor cyber-celebrity known by the screen name "Tyrone." As she relates the story, Ashton got involved in "pranking" people through his involvement in on-line gaming activities.

"Tyrone" was involved in a particularly disruptive and potentially tragic form of internet-facilitated mischief in which bomb threats or other emergency calls would be made to various public facilities, and the results would be observed in real time on-line. At some point "Tyrone" became a mercenary prankster, offering to phone in bomb threats against specific schools in exchange for payment from students who wanted to skip classes.

Self-portrait of a cyber-prankster: Ashton Lundeby.

Annette Lundeby admits that Ashton has been "Tyrone." However, she sticks by her story that his on-line identity was hijacked and used to carry out the prank bomb threats against Purdue. She likewise insists that it was the identity thief who made several other bomb threat calls on March 5 -- shortly before the FBI raid on the Lundeby home that resulted in Ashton's arrest and detention.

In a telephone interview with me this morning, Annette Lundeby insisted that the identity thief was Jason Bennett, the same 19-year-old resident of Australia who turned Ashton over to the authorities. She claims that Bennett was behind the bomb threats and that he co-opted Ashton's cyber-identity to make phony bomb threats and set him up for the crime.

"This kid harassed Ashton and our family," insisted Mrs. Lundeby. "We have copies of the text messages he sent to my son trying to force him to make bomb threats. And when Ashton didn't cooperate, that kid set him up and called the police."

This new explanation is in a similar vein to Annette's earlier account of her family situation, which sounds a bit like something from a Dean Koonz novel. She told me that her late husband, who worked for the federal prison system, was a victim of identity theft before he died. She said that her bank account was hacked, and that cyber-pests used her son's IP address to make phony 911 calls, including one to local police claiming that there were narcotics in the Lundeby home. She also claims that some of the calls she received were made by someone whose voice had been digitally altered to sound somewhat like Ashton.

Like the other elements of Ashton's alibi, investigators should be able to verify at least some of what Annette describes. If local law enforcement received a call about narcotics at the Lundeby home, a record should exist; it may not be accessible to the public, but the FBI could obtain it with little difficulty.

Mrs. Lundeby also claims that she has two key pieces of physical evidence that were not seized by the FBI when about a dozen agents raided the Lundeby home on the night of March 5: Her son's wireless computer router, and an answering machine recording of the individual who was actually responsible for the bomb threat. To that list can be added the text messages she claims to have received from Ashton's cyber-stalker.

As to the claim that Ashton was being held under provisions of the PATRIOT act -- a claim
disavowed by the US Attorney David Capp, whose office is conducting Ashton's prosecution -- Mrs. Lundeby insists that she raised that issue repeatedly, and never received a clear answer from her court-appointed attorney or anyone else connected to the case.

By Annette's account, she concluded, not unreasonably, that a non-denial amounted to a confirmation. She also describes the ongoing detention of her son, who had no previous trouble with the police, as a violation of due process standards for juveniles as defined by the Supreme Court's
Gault ruling of 1967.

Annette Lundeby, a widow with two children in the home, is understandably frantic to keep her son out of prison. Did she knowingly shade the truth about her son's case -- invoking the dread PATRIOT act in order to rally the public to his cause?
My perception, at present, is that she has not engaged in deliberate misrepresentation.

In the ardor of her maternal concern, she may have been guilty of "painting the lily," just as I (among others) was eager to pick up a rhetorical paintbrush and lay it on thick.
Annette remains convinced that Ashton is innocent of the charges against him, that his detention is excessive and presumptively punitive, and that the PATRIOT act is involved in this affair somehow.

My view is that Ashton -- although demonstrably involved in hijinks that are hardly innocent Tom Sawyeresque stunts updated for the cyber age -- is
legally innocent; that there remain grounds for due process concerns in this case; and that we should never underestimate the troublesome creativity of federal prosecutors.

One reason I found Annette's PATRIOT act claims plausible, as I noted in previous coverage of this affair, is the fact that provisions of that federal act, and state statutes derived from and inspired by it,
have been used to re-frame juvenile offenses as terrorist acts.

my earlier essay on this case I referred to the matter of Brent Clark, a 14-year-old Arizona 8th grade student who was charged with "terrorism" for threatening a classmate with a pocketknife. Threatening another with a potentially lethal weapon is assault with a deadly weapon, a serious offense with severe penalties. But this wasn't enough for the local prosecutor, who decided to file terrorism charges under a state law derived from section 802 of the PATRIOT act.

It wouldn't be necessary to apply the so-called PATRIOT act to a phony bomb threat made across state lines. Title 18, section 844 (e) of the U.S. Code makes it a felony to issue a bomb threat, either genuine or phony, using the "mail, telephone, telegraph, or other instrument of interstate commerce...." This would apply to a threat made from North Carolina to Indiana.

Interestingly, Indiana state law -- which should have precedence in the Purdue case -- treats a a bogus bomb threat with greater lenity, categorizing it as a Class B misdemeanor. It can be upgraded to a Class A misdemeanor if the phony threat "substantially hinders any law enforcement process or if it results in harm to an innocent person." No harm of that kind ensued as a result of the February 15 prank, and holding a first-time offender for months on a Class B misdemeanor would be a bit excessive.

An enterprising Indiana prosecutor
could ramp up the charge to a Class D felony under Sec. 2 (a)(3) of IC 35-44-2-2, which deals with a false report that "there has been or will be placed or introduced a weapon of mass destruction in a building or place of assembly ... knowing the report to be false." This would require, of course, that a common bomb or "infernal device" be considered a "weapon of mass destruction."

As it happens, that is exactly what the US Code specifies: Essentially any explosive or incendiary device -- even fireworks, under some conditions -- and many kinds of firearms can be treated as the equivalent of a nuclear weapon if this serves the interests of a federal prosecutor.

The relevant section of Title 18 of the US Code specifies that the term "weapon of mass destruction" applies to the following "destructive devices": "[A]ny incendiary, explosive, or poison gas -- bomb, grenade, rocket having a propellant charge of more than four ounces, missile having an explosive or incendiary charge of more than one-quarter ounce, mine, or ... any type of weapon (other than a shotgun or a shotgun shell which the Attorney General finds is generally recognized as particularly suitable for sporting purposes) by whatever name known which will, or which may be readily converted to, expel a projectile by the action of an explosive or other propellant, and which has any barrel with a bore of more than one-half inch in diameter...."

It was under these definitions that, a year ago, a federal prosecutor in South Carolina charged 18-year-old Ryan Schallenberger with attempting to use a weapon of mass destruction in a bomb plot against his high school.

Schallenberger, who appears to be a troubled young man deeply imbrued with nihilistic ideas, was arrested after his parents signed for a shipment of ammonium nitrate to their address.

It's not illegal to possess ammonium nitrate, of course. But Ryan wasn't in the FFA and didn't have any use for that quantity of fertilizer. Unnerved by the discovery, Ryan's parents went through his journal and personal belongings and found evidence of
intent to carry out a Columbine-style murder-suicide rampage at his school. They took what they found to the local Sheriff. Following his April 19 arrest, Ryan was arraigned for offenses against state law before the Feds shouldered the local authorities aside and filed terrorism-related charges that could result in a life sentence.

According to John Mueller, who holds the Woody Hayes Chair on National Security Studies at Ohio State University, has spent much of his time during the past several years striving to put the peripheral risk of terrorism in proper perspective.

As he pointed out in
a letter to another national security analyst, under federal statutes dealing with WMDs "not only is a hand grenade a weapon of mass destruction ... so is a maliciously designed child's rocket even if it doesn't have a warhead. On the other hand, although a missile-propelled firecracker would be considered a weapon of mass destruction if its designers had wanted to think of it as a weapon, it would not be so considered if it had previously been designed for use as a weapon and then redesigned for pyrotechnic use or if it was surplus and had been sold, loaned, or given to you (under certain circumstances) by the Secretary of the Army."

The WMD designation would likewise apply to "all artillery, and virtually every muzzle-loading military long arm for that matter," continues Schneider. "It does make the bombardment of Ft. Sumter all the more sinister, to say nothing of the revelation that
The Star Spangled Banner is in fact an account of a WMD attack on American shores."

The widespread availability of reasonably sophisticated cyber-technology has provided intelligent but devious adolescents with vastly expanded powers to commit criminal mischief, if they're so inclined (and few people that age harbor such inclinations). More dangerous still, however, are the broadly written federal statutes dealing with terrorism and WMDs, which give maliciously inventive prosecutors practically unlimited power to do much graver damage to the innocent, and inflict permanent harm on what remains of due process protections.

When it comes to "painting the lily" -- meaning, in this instance, exaggerating a threat -- the greatest offenders by far are those who created, and exploit, the legal mechanisms under which a pubescent child's desultory threat with a pocketknife becomes an act of "terrorism," and a troubled High School senior's attempt to fashion a crude bomb from distilled manure becomes a plot to unleash a "Weapon of Mass Destruction."

This is why, no matter what else we learn about the increasingly curious case of Ashton Lundeby, we must never give the Homeland Security State the benefit of the doubt.

On sale now.

Dum spiro, pugno!


Doc Ellis said...


I have linked this column to my FaceBook page.

Thank you for writing this.

mongol Doc Ellis 124

no need to post

Doug said...

When I was in high school in the early 70's you could go to the hall pay phone and call the number scratched on the wall. In 10 min. the fire alarm would ring and the classes would exit to the sunny late spring afternoon day. If you called after 2 they would just dismiss class for the day.

I believe in 1973 we had 20-30 of these. Boy was he good!

The DHS needs to get a grip.

William N. Grigg said...

Doug, ironically enough my first reaction to the cyber-prank bomb threats was to describe them as the Twitter-age equivalent of pulling a fire alarm in school.

The chief difference is that this would be like pulling one alarm for several schools scattered across the country.

The analogy isn't perfect, of course, and neither version of this prank is a good idea.

Anonymous said...

This article is well done considering the twists.

I agree completely that it's wise to doubt the state's version (and an 'informants').

There are a multitude of paid online creeps intent on creating circumstantial evidence.

Allow all the information to trickle in on this case.

Anonymous said...

I lost interest in this case when I read your first article and saw that daddy was a Fed. Live by the sword, die by the sword. Live at the expense of others as a tax parasite, then I will shed no tears when fellow tax parasites come calling. I'm sure the number of people who daddy incarcerated in the Federal prison system were legion and I'm sure that none of the Lundeby's gave one twit about the rights of those people, who statistically speaking, were probably in prison for Drug War offenses or other nonoffenses when daddy cashed his check at the expense of people who work for a living.

Broken said...

If you will indulge me, Sir, my two cents. Until Google adds the trackback function, we have to take what we can get.

Anonymous said...

'Ryan was arraigned for offenses against state law before the Feds shouldered the local authorities aside and filed terrorism-related charges that could result in a life sentence.'

Despite the constitutional prohibition against it, double jeopardy has become an entrenched feature of U.S. criminal law, in two different ways.

One is overlapping state and federal laws. State and federal prosecutors now hold coordination meetings to decide who's going to 'process' defendants. The availability of federal sentence enhancements -- such as five extra years for the status offense of a felon possessing a firearm -- means that it often pays (from the standpoint of the prison-industrial complex) to feed a select portion of state defendants into the federal conviction machine.

A classic example of overlapping jurisdiction would be Timothy McVeigh. Under Oklahoma state law, he could have been charged with murdering 168 people. Instead, he was charged and tried under federal law with murdering eight federal employees (so much for 'equal protection' -- seems that fedgow drones are primus inter pares). If we lived under a federal system of sovereign states, Oklahoma would have gotten the first and only crack at trying McVeigh.

Then there's double jeopardy at trial. Now when state trials don't produce the desired conviction, defendants can be retried on federal civil rights charges. For instance, Lemrick Nelson, after being acquitted of the murder of Yankel Rosenbaum by a New York state court, was tried again in fedgov 'court' and convicted of violating Rosenbaum's civil rights. Fedgov appellate 'courts,' under the silly pretense that state and federal laws treat different offenses, don't see this as double jeopardy.

The horrendous result is that Americans who fall afoul of the law now face a conviction machine almost as efficient as Stalin's or Mao's.

I'm old enough to remember when 'dirigiste' countries -- those ruled from London, or Paris, or Tokyo -- were mocked for their lack of regional devolution compared to our U.S. federal system. But criminal defendants in those countries face only one criminal code, the national one. Here -- and probably uniquely in the world -- Americans live under two overlapping criminal codes, federal and state, both of which have the power to imprison them for life and even to execute them.

Recognizing the might of the State, the Founders intentionally tilted the legal playing field toward defendants in the Bill of Rights, giving the government only one shot at convincing a jury to convict. They specified only two federal crimes, treason and piracy. But thanks to the proliferation of new federal crimes since the 1964 civil rights act and the 1970 'war on drugs' opened the floodgates, the constitutional scheme has been overturned to give overwhelming advantage to the government, such that most charges are now plea-bargained.

Freedom? Do the math. With conviction rates north of 95 percent in some fedgov district 'courts,' tell me how that materially differs from Stalin or Mao, who routinely batted 99 percent? And as in those totalitarian systems, prosecution of our rulers' crimes is routinely waived under the culture of impunity which protects the Washington elite.

In conclusion, the politicized federal justice palaces which loom over this land symbolize the overthrow of the late constitutional republic by our sneering, venal Depublicrat oppressors.

I Hate Bobby Flay said...

People have different opinions about what is double jeopardy; I always thought the two trials of O.J. Simpson constituted double jeopardy and that's the problem. It shouldn't matter what my opinion is, it should be a clear-cut law that you can point to (and there is, see Anon @8:12.)

Looking through the list compiled by Radley Balko of people who killed cops after the cops first kicked in a homeowner's door, not only is the homeowner charged with first degree murder, he is tried twice, sometimes three times. One of them was not only tried three times, but in one of his trials, his sentence was enhanced because he used a firearm and his home was located in a school zone.

William N. Grigg said...

The proposed "Federal Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Act" would effectively institutionalize double jeopardy for those accused of crimes against people belonging to what amounts to specially protected classes of people.

Its supporters insist that under the principle of "dual sovereignty," the Feds have the authority to step in and prosecute offenders when local/state officials or juries don't obtain the desired convictions. That's what happened to the cops who were initially acquitted in the Rodney King incident, for example.

Note well that people who support that measure generally refuse to recognize that we're supposed to have a federated, rather than unitary, system of government(s). They still don't acknowledge that the federal government's constitutional law enforcement role was supposed to be negligible, and that the arrangement they propose would require nothing less than a constitutional amendment.

But, as Joseph Sobran likes to say, the Constitution poses no threat to our current system of government.

I'm probably going to be writing about this subject pretty soon....

I Hate Bobby Flay said...

I had forgotten about Rodney King. That's when I first became aware of double jeopardy, not the O.J. Simpson trials.

The guy I mentioned from Radley Balko's drug map list was Brian Eggleston. After doing a search on "brian eggleston double jeopardy" and "brian eggleston school zone," I may have been mistaken about an enhancement for where he lived -- I can't really tell, it's impossible for me to make sense of this case with all the trials and enhancements.

He was charged (at one time?) with 6 counts, including "murder in the first degree with aggravating circumstances, assault in the first degree, unlawful delivery of a controlled substance, and unlawful possession of a controlled substance with intent to deliver… The amended information alleged that the defendant committed the murder knowing, or reasonably should have known, that the victim, John Bananola, was a law enforcement officer…The amended information also alleged that the assault in the first degree was committed against Warren Dogeagle, that the delivery of the controlled substance was within 1000 feet of a school, and that the unlawful possession of the controlled substance was committed while defendant was armed with a firearm."

There was quite a shoot-out. The assault charge resulted from shooting at Dogeagle and missing. Dogeagle insisted that he heard other sheriffs announce (twice) that they were the police. The pattern that emerges from reading these cases one after the other is that no one, including all neighbors, ever hears these announcements except other undercops.

Lemuel Gulliver said...

Mr. Grigg,

When you write your piece about "justice," please do not omit to point out that the State forces We The People to pay for our OWN prosecution via taxes, which pay for police, courthouses and the salaries of prosecuting attorneys and judges. After paying for our own prosecution, we ALSO have to pay for our own defense, out of our own pockets.

This is an egregious perversion. The State, which has awarded itself unlimited power to tax its enslaved subjects, via armed theft, thereby has unlimited money to pay for so-called "legal" persecution of those same enslaved subjects.

We The People ALSO pay the costs of our own incarceration, if the State finds us guilty of offending against its delicate and ever-expanding sensibilities.

NOBODY EVER seems to realize this - that WE ourselves fund, with our forcibly extorted taxes, the State's oppression of us. Enough already!!

I would like to see prosecutors, judges and police forced to fund their "law enforcement" activities out of salaries earned in productive jobs elsewhere in the workplace, just like We The Defendants have to do. I GUARANTEE the righteous indignation of our police and prosecutors would evaporate like magic, and the number of frivolous prosecutions would decline dramatically.

(In fact, I would like also to see our Congressional Representatives have their entire salaries and emoluments reduced to zero, and have them work on their farms or in their businesses to fund their part-time law-making activities. This is how the system began 230 years ago, and that is how it should be restructured today. If Congress sat only for 3 months a year between the sowing and reaping seasons, they would have far less time to get up to mischief.)

Yours in hope,
Lemuel Gulliver.

I Hate Bobby Flay said...

Right, Lemuel, and don't forget that even though we have the Constitutional right to have counsel for our defense, if they take our stuff under a forfeiture law that they made up, they mockingly remind us that we have the right to counsel, but not the right to EXPENSIVE counsel, hahaha!

I Hate Bobby Flay said...

Off topic: I guess passing retroactive laws is the latest fad:

"The Alabama state legislature this week sent a bill authorizing Montgomery's use of red light cameras to Governor Bob Riley(R) for his signature. The city has been using automated ticketing machines since May 2008, but the local measure… is designed to retroactively protect the city from any lawsuit challenging the legality of the first $1 million worth of tickets already issued without authorization."

Anonymous said...

Perhaps no one exploring the current frantic response to a 16 year old's alleged 'terrorist' threat is aware of the 2006 biological wmd threat to New England beginning with Vermont.

The 'threat' was posted on a Vermont pig farmer's website after that state's legislature decided Vermont farmers would not be compelled to Premise Register their private property with USDA based on ownership of milk cows, emus, llamas, hens, goats, horses, or sheep. Somehow rabbits were overlooked.

Here's the amusing part of the story..the 'threat' originated:

Search results for:

OrgName: USDA Office of Operations
OrgID: UOO-2
Address: Suite 133, Building A
Address: 2150 Centre Ave
City: Fort Collins
StateProv: CO
PostalCode: 80526
Country: US

biothreatOur Vermont pig farmer is no rube; he can handle himself admirably in cyberspace. Nonetheless, with all our concerted efforts as concerned farmers and livestock growers we failed to capture the attention of any of the federal agencies charged with a duty to protect and defend. Various national and local media outlets were also summoned to cover the 'threat' to National Security. Again, failure!

Follows the text of the threat:

"Thanks Vermont, for opening an avenue for those that wish to use animal diseases as a bio-eco-terrorism tool. We would have tried to start along the SW border but that’s now just to obvious. Thanks! We’ll take the NE corner and work our way in that way.

As livestock producers we took the threat with the utmost seriousness. We were told the USDA personage responsible for the threat to National Security was reprimanded by someone within the apparatus.


I Hate Bobby Flay said...

Wow, reading all that stuff on the website was downright creepy. The fedgovs are not going to compromise a centimeter on anything ever; not a jot or tittle will ever be changed in their Plan to Enslave America Playbook. They probably wanted copies of the correspondence sent by the USDA terrist so they can figure out how to disguise their address for future threats.

Vermont is totally cool. I lift my glass in a toast to you.

Bob S said...

If Congress sat only for 3 months a year between the sowing and reaping seasons, they would have far less time to get up to mischief.) Somewhere, somebody was supposed to have said, no? "The women weep quietly in the kitchen, the men work grimly in the fields. The legislature is in session and no man's property is safe."

John Lee, Hollywood winner said...

Ironic that police state death squads prosecute their own police state death squads using the U.S.A.P.A.T.R.I.O.T. Act in this case.

The U.S.A.P.A.T.R.I.O.T. Act was used against an airline passenger for spanking her brat. Tamera Jo Freeman was jailed for months without a lawyer nor bail, then pedophiles stole her kids using the U.S.A.P.A.T.R.I.O.T. Act. Those charges later morphed into "interfering with an airline crew", for "setting a beverage on the carpet". That don't change the fact the original charge was under the U.S.A.P.A.T.R.I.O.T. Act.

My sister was a "public defender" and Yale-graduate, who only won 1 case, after her "guilty" client told her what to do. She lost 1,000s of trials as condition of employment, and had zero interest in learning constitutional law, and refused to read law books on winning in court. She's a Communist who lived in Bejing China and Czechoslavakia, and a gun-grabber who was in a communist Universalist Unitarian church when a church member opened fire in Knoxville TN last year. She gave me a book glorifying Che Guevara, the mass-murdering medical doctor who worked for CIA to put Fidel Castro in power in Commie Cuba. I think she's been brainwashed by her elite school cult.

Knox County Public Defender Lawfirm Corporation refuses all new misdemeanor cases and quits current cases in attempt to shakedown more taxdollars in Knoxville Tennessee, while already refusing to defend 200,000 annual misdemeanor cases in city court, in a town with only 160,000 residents.

VIDEO: Full Metal Park Ranger searches parked cars for drugs

John Lee, Hollywood winner said...

How to Win in Federal Traffic Court: 2-year appeal seeks to reverse all misdemeanor convictions since 1997 for failing to get signed waiver of trial by district judge

Anonymous said...

To 'Hate Bobby Flay' ~

The whole deal about NAIS is that ONLY corporations will be allowed to produce food.

Control food and water and the entire population of the planet is on its knees.

Here's an excellent article - written by another farmer - linking depopulation of England's family owned livestock with Stalin's engineered famine and the future of farming in America:


Anonymous said...

Hey Will, did you do this back in the day? - you look different now. Just wondering, it's a great program btw.

Jim O'Connor said...

Once you have terrorism laws, and terrorism bureaucracies you have to have actual terrorism or all of these people look silly.

Clayton said...


MoT said...

"Once you have terrorism laws, and terrorism bureaucracies you have to have actual terrorism or all of these people look silly."....

Well said. Just like those past comments about whats the point of having an expensive military if you aren't going to use it.

Anonymous said...

Anon's 8:12 AM comment was outstanding, and so was Grigg's reply. I'm constantly amazed by the quality of comments I read on this blog site. Will Grigg's highly informative essays in defense of individual liberty and vastly limited government republicanism attracts the best and the brightest, so it appears. Quality begets quality. I'm going to start hanging out here with all of the smart, liberty-loving people more often. Kudos to all!

(MOT, It's good to hear from you again as well. Don't be such a stranger. Your comments are insightful. Hat tips to Doc Ellis, Liberranter, Broken, Sans Authoritas, Sic Semper Tyrannis and all you liberty lovers out there! If worse comes to worst, at least I'll have great company around me in the KBR's newly built FEMA detention camps.)

MoT said...

"MOT, It's good to hear from you again as well. Don't be such a stranger"....

Been running on the unemployment treadmill for quite some time and even spent four months out of state doing work only to be laid off once more. But it won't stay that way forever. So here I be.

Integrated Combative Concepts said...

Dear Mr Griggs,
I wonder what has come of this case. I was in contact with Annette and tried to get as much help for Ashton's case through others, including article writers. I try to call her and she doesn't seem to what gave? Is Ashton out now or still wrongfully held without conclusive evidence against him...especially the part that the former DA collaborated in secret and was caught by Annette and a friend with the state appointed defender of Ashton! The FBI testified before a judge that Skype Hacking wasn't possible- IT IS AND THEY KNEW IT! This goes further than we can delve today, but why would the FBI believe a punk from Australia that is a known financier for a child porn advocate over the words of a good, Christian, patriotic family?

See Philip Paynes articles on Examiner for further details.

Best Holiday Wishes,
Jonathan E. Kiser
Former US ARMY Disabled Veteran
101st Airborne/Air Assault
2/320th FA and 4/133rd FIST
& 528th USAAG 21st USAFAD
American Patriot-Texas Proud- Born and Bred.