-Caveat Lector-
Begin forwarded message:
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: June 18, 2007 3:14:58 PM PDT
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Who is Jon(athon) Moseley?
Who is Jonathon Moseley?
by Deborah Stevens
http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/WhoisJonathonMoseley.html
On Wednesday August 16, 2006 a person named Jonathon Moseley posted
an outrageously false and libelous hit piece against Professor
Steve Jones, Professor Emeritus Jim Fetzer, and the society
Scholars For 911 Truth on WorldNetDaily, which was thoroughly
refuted by Dr. Fetzer on WorldNetDaily on August 18. Moseley bore
false witness against Professor Jones by alleging that he was
"calling for the violent overthrow of the government " during the
televised panel discussion of the L.A. Scholars Symposium which
aired on CSPAN multiple times. Moseley even had the audacity to
repeat this deliberate falsehood by adding that "millions of people
heard him [Jones] say it" during a debate with Dr. Fetzer and Alex
Jones on the Alex Jones show earlier this week.
Jonathon Moseley stated at the beginning of the interview that he
is an attorney and that his brother-in-law owns the publishing
company associated with the Swift Boat book that attacked the war
record of John Kerry, the Democrat's candidate for President in
2004. An internet search revealed that Moseley is also the
Executive Director of the U.S. Seaport Commission, a public policy
organization that warns against foreign control and ownership of
the U.S. ports. This organization is also part of another policy-
forming group, the U.S. Intelligence Council, which disseminates
publications regarding threats of China and concern of our ports.
It would be interesting to know if these entities are CIA assets.
Perhaps Moseley would like to tell us.
More searching led to what looks like a press release disguised as
a news article in July of 2005 which suggests that he had served as
the Executive Director of yet another entity, the Legal Affairs
Council, in 2005 and had endorsed and promoted the nomination of
John Roberts to the Supreme Court. More search shows that The Legal
Affairs Council is another organization that develops policy whose
mission statement includes "sharing intelligence about legal and
government relations issues that impact advertising and marketing."
Their stated purpose is to "Develop and respond to identified
Government Issues" and "Educate Government officials about the
value of interactive advertising." Even though Moseley's hit piece
against Dr. Jones wasn't endorsed or represented by the LAC, this
still leaves one wondering if Dr. Jones, Dr. Fetzer, and the
Scholars For 911 Truth society are considered "identified
Government issues" that Mr. Moseley needed to "respond" to.
The LAC is but one of an assortment of councils that are all part
of the larger Interactive Advertising Bureau, where these councils
of the IAB apparently advise the government on all different
aspects of advertising & marketing. The LAC appears to be the
government's legal advice team in this regard. In other words, it
looks as though the LAC works out the legal details for what may be
one of the goverment's more substantial propaganda machines, the
IAB. Thus Moseley was in charge of the LAC last year and heavily
propagandized the John Roberts nomination.
Moseley's unbelievably juvenile tactics during the debate as well
as his complete lack of preparation was obvious. But one thing just
stuck out so much - it was the tone and frequency of his voice that
led me to question whether the person who was debating with Jones
and Fetzer could actually even be old enough to be the person in
the photograph posted on the U.S. Seaport Commission's website.
I discovered the webpage of his private lawfirm which is posted on
lawguru. I did some simple addition of some numbers provided on his
own site to determine his approximate age. Moseley stated that he
had been an attorney for eight years when he started his own firm.
His earliest message post to this site was around April of 2004. To
go through the normal process of becoming a lawyer, presumable one
would need 4 years of college and three years of law school. Once
you add in the eight years of experience he claims he had under his
belt as of 2004, his age would have been approximately 33 years old
at minimum in 2004, which would make him 35 years old this year at
minimum. A photo of Moseley on his U.S. Seaport Commission site
confirms this deduction.
The person who debated with Jones and Fetzer sounded and acted like
a much younger person. I found it difficult to believe that this
strikingly immature sounding person could be the man in that photo
at least 35 years of age, an attorney with the presumptive
maturity, experience, intelligence, and critical thinking skills
that (one would have thought) ought be required to qualify him for
the positions such as the current Executive director of the U.S.
Seaport Commission and the past Executive Director of the Legal
Affairs Council. It was not easy to imagine that the person I heard
on the radio and communicated with in emails could qualify for such
positions, much less possessing the clout to endorse a U.S. Supreme
Court Nominee and to have it taken seriously.
Jonathon Moseley came to the radio debate fortified with faulty
reasoning, smoke-and-mirrors, and juvenile tricks. He had not even
researched the issue of the Northwoods documents, and he was warned
a day ahead of time that point would be debated. Instead of
preparing to either refute the point or agree that it's true, he
just simply stated that he didn't believe it exists I would never
hire this man to be my lawyer.
I continued searching on the Internet for information. A Whois
search for the domain registration of the websites
usseaportcommission.org and usintelligencecouncil.Com listed as the
administrative contact a company called Cenotaph Media which could
not be found on the Internet after extensive searches. According to
wikipedia a cenotaph is a "tomb, or a monument in honor of a person
or group of persons whose remains are elsewhere." Does this mean
that the media dissemination that Mr. Moseley participates in could
be considered "death media"?
After more searches online I found an email written by Moseley in
June 1995 to Senator Connie Mack under whom Moseley interned. In
this email Moseley asks for certain limited government regulations
to protect consumers and businesses. He specifically encourages an
increase in C.O.D. Postal Service transactions. He claims these
transactions do a lot to protect the buyer as well as the seller
because neither pays ahead of time, so risk is reduced on both
sides. It doesn't sound too bad until it gets to the part where he
says that, "However, there is still a hole: A dishonest con-artist
can send a BOX that contains junk rather than the product being
offered. The U.S. Postal Service should allow recipients to OPEN
the box and VERIFY that it contains the product ordered BEFORE
paying for it (but in the presence of the post office staff, so
that the recipient MUST pay before getting the product)."
This was shocking. He actually seemed to be asking the government
to be the insurance company for C.O.D. Postal shipping. The
ramifications of this type activity could eventually lead to
government having authority to open any mail it wished and perhaps
much worse.
But then that letter made sense to me when I discovered that he is
the Vice President for a company called Transguard, which "develops
and delivers acutely needed and customized solutions for the gem
and jewelry industry". Jonathon Moseley advocates the open box
C.O.D. Postal shipping policy that would sandwich the federal
government between buyers and sellers causing the government to
function as a sort of insurance company, which would be to the
advantage of someone trading in very valuable items like gems, but
which policy would be at the expense of Americans possibly becoming
even more subject to government surveilance in the postal system
and could lead to an increase in the power of centralized federal
government in general. I also find it quite striking to realize
that he holds the position as executive director of a policy
advisory council to our federal government regarding the security
and ownership of our ports, which could directly affect the
business he is involved in.
I still cannot understand why Jonathan Moseley is so viciously
attacking the 9/11 truth movement and the Scholars for 9/11 Truth.
He has been sending me threatening emails with extremely flawed
logical arguments trying to convince me repeatedly that we are
asserting such things as, "Everything you are saying is that the
foreign threat is NOT Real, we do NOT need the Patriot Act, we do
NOT need to give The Presidency powers to catch terrorists, etc.,
etc." and, "As to leaving the country undefended, CLEARLY that IS
the Goal of the movement. " He has referred multiple times to the
American Scholars Symposium as a "Hate Fest" and wrote, "The Hate
Fest was all about George Bush 'grabbing' more Legal powers by
9/11. In other words, if there is no foreign threat, you say, Bush
Does not need these powers to fight an ENEMY THAT ISN'T THERE." We
obviously have never said any of those things. I have tried to
debate and reason with him to a certain extent, but debate and
reason with this man is in vain. Frustrated, I wrote that his logic
was insane. He wrote, "The insane logic, dear friend, is yours.
What else did you think you were doing when you started playing
with the safety of your nation?" At the end of the email he gave
what seemed to be a death threat, in all capital letters. "PERHAPS
YOU DON'T THINK THROUGH WHAT YOU ARE DOING BEFORE YOU AFFECT THE
SAFETY OF YOUR FAMILY AND YOUR NATION. But what else do you think
is the consequence of what you are doing?"
Moseley takes the Constitutional principles that we support but
twists our language with false logic in an effort to tie our
position to foreign policy. Perhaps I could explain it to Mr.
Moseley like this. We are not saying that we don't need the Patriot
Act and that Bush doesn't need all those anti-terror powers because
there does not exist a foreign enemy. We are saying that the
Patriot Act is unconstitutional on its face. We are saying that
certain powers that the president asserts in the so-called war on
terrorism are unconstitutional on their face. Our Constitution,
which establishes us as a sovereign and independent nation grants
every citizen individual rights and liberties and freedoms and our
rights stand and cannot be infringed upon no matter what is going
on in the rest of the world and no matter who or where our enemies
are.
The specific powers that are allocated to the President and
Congress and the Judiciary branches are defined and limited by the
Constitution. The allocation and limitations of those powers stand
no matter what is going on in the rest of the world or who or where
our enemies are. The founders of our constitution even warned about
getting into foreign entanglements because that would threaten our
sovereignty. I am saying that the Constitution is not dependent
upon foreign policy. Foreign policy must comply with the
Constitution, not the other way around! Jonathon Moseley seems to
have all this backwards. Now either he does not understand the
Constitution, or he does not know how to use proper logic, and he
places foreign policy ahead of our Constitution and our sovereignty.
Insofar as Jonathon Moseley places foreign policy ahead of the
Constitution, this is a scary thing because he is into so much
media dissemination as well as holding the executive director
position in a policy-forming group that advises the government.
Since foregin policy is determined by the President, the Vice
President, the Secretary of State, and other administrative
figures, who by and large ignore the Congress, Moseley thereby
abdicated the meaning and the implementation of the Constitution to
the administration. Perhaps this could be the reason that he wrote
such terrible and completely false things about Dr. Jones, Dr.
Fetzer, Alex Jones and Scholars for 9/11 Truth. It is because we
are standing up for the Constitution and our sovereignty and
believe that the American people deserve to know the truth about
their own government.
It would seem that Mr. Moseley's blizzard techniques are not
limited to his Internet posting attacks on Scholars for 9/11 Truth.
I discovered that there have been numerous complaints about some of
the organizations with which he is associated regarding relentless
requests for donations directed at elderly people. Even after these
people and their families notify these groups in writing to stop
asking for donations, the requests continue to come in the mail.
Bill Gephart of KUTV Channel 2 in Salt Lake City did a televised
news piece about it on June 26, 2006. Bill Gephart held up a huge
handful of what he called "scare political mail preying on some
nationalistic theme" all sent to one 86-year old woman in Utah, and
saying she was not alone in receiving this barrage of mail and
donation requests from these organizations concerned about the
threat of China taking over our ports.
Bill Gephart reports that the mail was traced back to a charity
called the U.S. Public Policy Council (no website found) out of
Frederick, Maryland, of which the U.S. Seaport Commission is a
project. Gephart also reports only 33% of contributions actually go
to any program. The National Council on Aging lists several
complaints, one concerning someone's mother with Alzheimers'
disease being inundated with requests for contributions by the U.S.
Seaport Commission even after the family notified the U.S. Seaport
Commission in writing several times for the requests to cease. One
concerned family even went so far as to petition the Mayor of
Frederick, MD in September 2005, to shut down the U.S. Seaport
Commission because it appeared to be a scam, and this family named
Jonathon Moseley specifically.
Jonathon Moseley apparently takes his blizzard techniques to the
courtroom as well. In 2003 Tracy Ammons, a former lobbyist for the
Christian Coalition hired Mr. Moseley to represent him in a lawsuit
in which Mr. Ammons sued the Coalition for $123,500 in unpaid
compensation. "His lawyer Jonathon Moseley filed more than 80
pleadings and motions in Arlington Circuit Court, for which Circuit
Judge Joanne Alper slapped Mr. Ammons with $83,000 in sanctions for
frivolous pleadings," as reported by the Washington Times on
October 13, 2005. The article reported that at the time the matter
was under arbitration.
I find it very interesting to notice that in his emails, Moseley
refers to the Patriot Act and claims how we in the 9/11 truth
movement are saying that "we do NOT need the Patriot Act." One of
the main services his company Transguard offers is to help
companies in the gem and jewelry industry be compliant with the
Patriot Act so those companies can keep themselves safe from being
accused of money laundering or terrorism under the Patriot Act.
Perhaps his company needs the Patriot Act more than our nation
does. I also find it quite striking to realize that he holds the
position as executive director of a policy advisory council to our
federal government regarding the security and ownership of our
ports which could directly affect the business he is involved in.
The Transguard company website is also the only site I could find
which listed his professional credentials.
See what's free at AOL.com.
www.ctrl.org
DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER
==========
CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic
screeds are unwelcomed. Substanceânot soap-boxingâplease! These are
sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'âwith its many half-truths, mis-
directions and outright fraudsâis used politically by different groups with
major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought.
That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and
always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no
credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply.
Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector.
========================================================================
Archives Available at:
http://www.mail-archive.com/ctrl@listserv.aol.com/
<A HREF="http://www.mail-archive.com/ctrl@listserv.aol.com/";>ctrl</A>
========================================================================
To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Om
