Guest Post: Indiana Supreme Court Dispenses With Magna Carta, Constitution

Tyler Durden's picture

Submitted by Simon Black of Sovereign Man

Indiana Supreme Court dispenses with Magna Carta, Constitution

May 16, 2011
Santiago, Chile

Constitution toilet paper Indiana Supreme Court dispenses with Magna Carta, ConstitutionOn
June 10, 1215 AD, after prolonged rebellion and frustrating
negotiation, a group of England’s most influential barons entered London
to force the disastrous King John Softsword into accepting a
revolutionary charter of individual freedoms.

Five days later in the Runnymede meadow of Surrey County, John
affixed his royal seal onto what became known as the Magna Carta. It
still exists on the books today in England and Wales.

This document was one of the more important antecedents to the US
Constitution; its proclamations ended the absolutism of England’s
monarchy and spelled out very clear rights and freedoms, including,
among others, the right of a man to enjoy his private property without
trespass from government officials.

Over 550 years later, the framers of the Constitution codified this
right in the 4th Amendment to be secure in one’s private property.  Last
week, the Indiana Supreme Court effectively rejected both documents in
two separate cases.

In the first case of Lacey v. State of Indiana, the Court ruled that
police officers serving a warrant on a private home may simply walk
right in without knocking.

The second case of Barnes v. State of Indiana is far more startling.
The case deals with one Richard Barnes, a regular Joe citizen of
Indiana, who was in the midst of marital problems with his wife one
evening in 2007. The couple was arguing when police arrived to the scene
and attempted to enter the home.

Barnes made it very clear to the officers that they were not to enter
his home. The officers did not have a warrant, and they did not have
probably cause to believe that anything illegal was happening. But they
entered regardless.

Barnes tried to block the door, and as the police officers muscled
their way past him, he shoved one of them against the wall in defense of
his property.  Barnes was choked and tasered in his own home,
subsequently hospitalized, then charged with misdemeanor battery on a
police officer.

The case went to court, and the Barnes defense team cited a private
citizen’s right to resist unlawful entry into one’s home. They lost. The
case was appealed, all the way up to the Indiana Supreme Court. Here’s
where it gets interesting.

The Court agreed that the police officers entered the Barnes home
illegally. The Court further agreed that one’s right to resist illegal
entry has existed since the Magna Carta. The Court further agreed that
the US Supreme Court has reaffirmed this right to resist unlawful entry
in numerous court cases.

Seems pretty cut and dry, no?

Yet, in summarizing the court’s opinion, Justice Steven David writes,
“We hold that there is -no right- to reasonably resist unlawful entry
by police officers.”

Wait. Full stop. A citizen has no right to resist unlawful entry by
police officers on his private property? Apparently we’re all supposed
to lay down like two-toed tree sloths while these jackbooted monkeys
turn private property into yet another ‘rights free’ zone.

Americans already have to put up with dispensation of the
Constitution at airports, border checkpoints, political events, many
train station, and soon to be bus terminals and shopping malls. We’d
better add ‘private residence’ to that list as well.

The right to protect oneself and one’s property against unlawful
entry is the hallmark of any free civilization.  Conversely, it is the
hallmark of a totalitarian police state when government goons have the
authority to go stomping around on private property without oversight of
a judicious, impartial court.

There is no middle ground here… and a government that is on the way
to denying this right is not far down the road from denying other basic,
seemingly no-brainer rights– like assembly, criticizing the government,
and possession of firearms.

One of the reasons I travel so much is so I don’t have to deal with
this kind of nonsense. I enjoy spending time in countries where I have
no fear of some government agent forcing his way into my home.

There are a number of such places in the world– Chile is definitely one of them.


Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
anynonmous's picture

it seems JPM has been doing it for years


via 4closurefraud

The They's picture

I live in indiana and can say that they have had this policy of warentless police searches of homes for at least a couple years (i know a few people that suffered from it).


By the way, do any cops read zerohedge?

Dejean Splicer's picture

Time for a woopsie in Indiana.

"I thought it was fake police attempting home invasion so I started shooting".


JW n FL's picture

Michigan, Police have been downloading info from cell phones during stops since 2006!


electronic search.. physical search.. whatever.. it will never happen to you.. so why worry about it!


nothing bad happens to good people! LMFAO!!!

Ahmeexnal's picture

SEAL team number 6 has the right to enter any home anywhere in the world, shoot the occupants and bury them at sea.

Get over it.

old naughty's picture

It does not matter if you have a Constitution, or not.

We The People... are f-US-ked.



Michael's picture

Thank God the American people have 200 million+ firearms in their possession.

Shoot the intruders into your home first and ask questions later.

Aim for the skull, don't waste your expensive ammo on body armor.

Urban Redneck's picture

SEAL team number 6 has the right to enter any home anywhere in the world, shoot US CITIZENS and bury them at sea.

Get over it.

(fixed it)

Widowmaker's picture

You are absolutely fucking right -- except you will go to prison for it (unless cornered and you or a family member has apprehension of deadly harm).

Shit why not, at least you could earn your way to the clink, instead of all the victimless criminals and butt fucks eating three free meals and cable TV for drugs and a bad attitude.

Aristophanes's picture

Though your way may be justified, I think a little creativity might be more fun:

1. Get the home address of the judge.

2. Wait until a big holiday when you are likely to get a rookie cop and dispatch team who are gung-ho and don't know who the untouchables like the judge are.  (The 4th of July would be especially poignant).

3. Call in some sort of domestic dispute with enough detail to get the cops all fired up and tazer happy.

4. Film and Utube the judge getting the same "legal" reception he legislated.


tsx500's picture

i like the way u think ...........

Arius's picture

are you joking ? seen police academy lately? you really expect cops to read all of these nonsense about Soros, swaps, derivatives etc...

they are cops....dont give them too much credit

JW n FL's picture

Literacy Standards for the Entry Level Criminal Justice Practitioner

File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat - Quick View
functional literacy level of high school graduates in Florida?" There is no answer. The ... A Florida Department of Law Enforcement legal update ... Community College, which includes the Michigan Police Academy, said, "There is no ...
JW n FL's picture

you will notice the test scores since 9-11 have fallen off...



they flooded the departments with morons to meet numbers for the Federal Matching Funds!!!


these scumbag monkeys can not even fucking read! public school scores a big hit with lil dicked ego maniacs with badges! LMFAO!!!


Debt is Slavery's picture

+CMFAO....crying, not laughing

trav7777's picture

they've also had a diversity mandate on those hires

InconvenientCounterParty's picture

yea, it's the only practical way to balance out the Klan presence in the police. By the way, the klan was unhappy with that development.

Tribalism is platonic and childlike. True evil is mature and very messy.

Incubus's picture

I had the pleasure of having an over-night stay in jail one time.  Kind of funny how you're just a piece of shit goin' in.  As soon as you post bail, you're addressed as "Sir." 

The justice system is a joke, as is everything else in this pseudocapitalistic system. As long as you've got the fiat to play, you can buy respect. 

I lost any respect I had for those pigs that day.

Dirt Rat's picture

I live in Indiana, too. I wasn't aware about warrantless searches by police. However, conservation officers have some very broad powers and can conduct a warrantless search, if certain conditions are met and certain protocols are followed.

jpalm's picture

By the way, do any cops read zerohedge?

Yes, some of us do. And the ones who still believe in individual freedom are sick and tired of being lumped together with those who have no problem trampling all over the Constitution. The problem is that - just like the rest of our society - police officers don't really know the Constitution. They only know what case law allows them to do.


I have a friend who is an academy instructor. One day he asked a class of young, eager recruits if they would obey an order from the sheriff to go door-to-door confiscating guns. Half of the class said they would. Face it, they are groomed as children, just like the rest of the youth in this country. With that said, the good news is that lately I have seen the tide turning. More and more of my colleagues are pro-personal freedom and rabid defenders of the Constitution. They tend to have the stronger personalities that are required to shape the younger generations, so long as they are permitted to do so. They just don't make the nightly news with a headline that reads "cop believes in defending and upholding the Constitution, film at 11".


Not all of us are bad guys.

pan-the-ist's picture

I smell bullshit.  Half the force is corrupt, the other half it too stupid to keep secrets so they aren't allowed to join the club.

blindfaith's picture

you are not worth replying to, so I will no longer read your idiotic opinions.

mkkby's picture

I don't believe it either.  If so many LEOs believed in the the constitution, there would be a lot more op-eds, a lot more resignations, promotions of them to policy-making levels.  Anybody heard of this happening.  I didn't think so.

earnulf's picture

Like any group of people, you have a small minority that are actually trying to do good and believe in the Constitution and the rule of law.    They normally do not get the publicity that the "bad cop" does.     Most of the time I've found that most law enforcement treat you as you treat them.   There are exceptions, such as the cop who didn't appreciate me pointing out the guy driving the wrong way on a one way street and instead of pulling that person over, pulled me over from behind with the spurious claim of "where's your front license plate?"   (This cop never saw the front of of my truck and at least did apologize when he walked to the front of my truck and saw there was a plate on it.  Of course he then claimed to have gotten my black truck mixed up with another black truck which was non-existant during the five or so blocks that he claimed to have watched me)

I still treated him with respect, and I didn't call him on the BS storyline, giving him no reason to further his little power trip.    He had no choice but to let me go after "slowing me down" for a bit.

I don't hate all the cops because of that one and I won't stop showing respect to others until they do something to lose that respect.

There are cops out there that revere the Constitution, a strong gun-ownership favoring folks who don't like the over-reach being practiced by the state.     They do a tough job and I thank them for it.    But when it comes to my home, it's my responsibility first and foremost, especially when I'm occuping my home at night.      This should go to the US Supreme Court so that we can get a firm fix on where the nation stands and whether it is time to dissolve the government.

TheTmfreak's picture

Your story is way way way too typical. That is why the laws should be behind protecting the POSSIBLE INNOCENT rather than bolstering the law enforcers.

I believe no questions asked, I'd rather have a murderer who got away than an innocent man behind bars.

Its like the quesiton of taking OBL. I'd rather have had us never gotten him (what difference would it make) than to act like a bunch of tyrannical, empire thugs and who don't believe in the law and violate soverign countries borders. I'm shocked and appalled we thought, or think that is ok. Justice served? Really? I guess anybody can act as judge jury and executioner (except the populace, they have to have a badge, or in another country as the military, particularly ones where we have no legal control over)

alpha60's picture

officer, police thyself.

TheTmfreak's picture

I say it all the time. It is the grouping and generalizations that is going to kill us in the end.  Of course there are "good police officers."

I tried telling my girlfriend about this last night. All of these laws and rulings are "great and fine" when we are talking about a government that is just. I can no longer trust the police just because they're used as a revenue collecting service, and are prone just as much (if not more) to political manipulation.

The question your academy instructor posed is something I've said about the military. My fellow marine friends who are all "similar to me," I asked what would you do if your superiors gave you orders you absolutely didn't agree with? Would you follow them? What would happen if all of a sudden "martial law" was issued and the marine corps was used to do something VERY not allowed (such as taking weapons from citizens) would you do it? You would be punished if you didn't.

Is it really reasonable to believe that all German Nazi's back in the day were "so far different" from anybody of today? I doubt it.


The worst part about this ruling in my opinion is that if you were to transplant this incident with jews and nazi's you would say while the Nazi's were wrong, the jews SHOULD NOT HAVE RESISTED a tyrannical government.

Sean7k's picture

Oathkeepers is a group of ex-military and police dedicated to upholding the Constitution- to the extent of refusing to take orders that would be in conflict with it. 

Lumping all people into one group is just another form of prejudice.

TheTmfreak's picture

Dead on.

This is why for me, the marines corps is even more a hate love relationship for me. Just the other day at an IRR drill this general stated "You swore and alligence to the constitution." Some people take that very seriously.

I remember when I was at MEPS and was swearing in. Even at 18 years old I knew nobody around me was taking this seriously. They were gaffing off the entire process like a bunch of dumb shit sheeple.

mikeyv1970's picture

The nice thing about being an officer is that I swear an allegiance to the Constitution...not to a Government.  These kind of discussions are being had way up the food chain Tmfreak...


TheTmfreak's picture

I am certainly not ignorant to the facts you speak about. I read an article in amconmag not too long ago that threw out the idea of a military coup, which I hadn't considered (or taken seriously) until I read it. I think we are quite a ways away from something like that happening, but it is actually more reasonable than people might assume. Yes military industrial complex, yada yada yada (not denying it) but I think there is more to the story.

We have the same name by the way hah.

SWRichmond's picture

Here's the problem, and if you are as you say you are I am sure this is not lost to you: the courts and legislatures all too often blindly "support" police officers by legalizing anything they do.  Too many cops caught abusing people on video?  Well, we could either stop police from abusing people, or we could make it illegal to videorecord cops.  Guess which one is chosen?  With decisions like this one, courts and legislatures are driving a wedge between cops and the public

How, then, is the average person to protect himself from bad cops?  If the courts (who allegedly work for me) won't do it, and the legislatures (who also allegedly work for me) won't do it, and the executive branch (who also allegedly works for me) won't do it, and if the cops themselves won't do it, then I have to do it myself.  If you can offer another alternative, please do so; I can't think of one.  Which leaves me with a very very serious quandary: is the cop who is walking up my sidewalk a good cop or a bad cop?  What happens if he is a bad one?  What happens to me?  I am forced to choose between either immediate and total submission or personal injury and criminal charges.  Those are my only two choices.  And that is completely unacceptable.

On the subject of abuse: I am a human being, I have emotions, and it is possible for me to lose my cool.  Not so much now that I am a bit older, but nonetheless.  In any interaction with police, the courts will forgive an officer losing his cool and going too far in a violent confrontation.  But if a citizen merely displays anger in the presence of a police officer, the officer will be deemed justified to do whatever is needed to "control" the subject.  Why is that?  Because subjects have two choices in the presence of police officers, and those choices are: complete and total submission, or personal injury and arrest.  And that is completely unacceptable.

Too often mutual respect is absent from these interactions.  When a court system can justify this: it becomes very clear to me that I am on my own, and that no one is really on my side except me.  I know how to do that, and no one will like it, least of all myself.  Is that where we are?

King County Sheriff Sue Rahr says her office is "working on it."

Am I supposed to be satisfied with that?  Are you?

Now, in Indiana, police can just barge in, warrant or not.  This forces the homeowner / resident into a split-second decision: cops, or bad guys?  If they announce, real cops, or phony ones?  Life, or death?  This very chain of thought is the reason for the castle doctrine, and probably the reason for the right once enshrined in the Magna Charta. 

Locke, a few hundred years later:

But force, or a declared design of force upon the person of another, where there is no common superior on earth to appeal to for relief, is the state of war; and it is the want of such an appeal gives a man the right of war even against an aggressor, though he be in society and a fellow subject. Thus, a thief whom I cannot harm, but by appeal to the law, for having stolen all that I am worth, I may kill when he sets on me to rob me but of my horse or coat, because the law, which was made for my preservation, where it cannot [or will not] interpose to secure my life from present force, which if lost is capable of no reparation, permits me my own defence and the right of war, a liberty to kill the aggressor, because the aggressor allows not time to appeal to our common judge, nor the decision of the law, for remedy in a case where the mischief may be irreparable. Want of a common judge with authority puts all men in a state of Nature; force without right upon a man's person makes a state of war both where there is, and is not, a common judge.

Christopher Harris is sill in a coma.

TheTmfreak's picture

I've been really waking up to this fact for awhile. Its like i said the other day, the whole arizona tuscon thing and the talk of banning guns near congressman. Should congressman's rights really come over citizens? In other words, just because they are higher profile they should somehow negate everyone else's rights? Really?

I say this all the time about the president. HE IS JUST ONE MAN. He isn't THAT big a deal. Why do we keep ascribing SO much of our assets to this guy (ignoring who he is, it doesn't matter if its ron paul or not.) Like having how many ships protect him when he was in India? IS IT REALLY WORTH IT? Who gives a fuck if he is shot dead? There are thousands of other bozos that could keep the cogs flowing.

I hate trite statements, but I'm starting to accept that these trite and stereotypical statements actually have some real value. I'm speaking of course of "there are laws for some and laws for others."

iinthesky's picture

Something that may help police 'get it' would be explaining to them that the District Attorneys and Judges who work for these so-called criminal courts (Please find me where such named jurisdiction comes from) are in fact working for private corporations. If you go on Dunn and Bradstreet and type in for example 'New York Unified Court System' you wll see every single court in every county pop up with a credit rating as a for profit / municipal corporation. I personally watched the Manhattan DA come on television and talk about how he made a 80% return on investment in the court system for the 'taxpayer' and was damned proud of it too. I personally did not recieve my dividend check, did you? Its smoke and mirrors and the whole scam is to seperate you from as much fiat as they are able to through deception, intimidation, and violence. Police officers are their canon fodder. They are USING YOU people to do their dirty work and drag people into their system of extortion and racketeering while hiding behind another corporate 'legal system' monopoly called the BAR association. They make people believe that you can't learn and practice law without a license. Well, go ask any lawyer if they have a license to practice law. As far as I know, such a thing does not exist and no state government will tell you it does. If you ask they will refer you to the BAR association. Point being, police, you're being used and abused.

cranky-old-geezer's picture

If you understood the principles of unalienable rights America was founded upon, rights that provided Americans more individual liberty than any other nation on earth, rights mentioned in the Bill of Rights but not granted in the Bill of Rights (because they pre-exist the Bill of Rights), you would REFUSE to be a policeman.

If you understood the MOST important of those rights, the right of DUE PROCESS, you would REFUSE to be a policeman, since police are TRAINED to violate citizens' right of due process. 

The very PRESENCE of police outside property owned by their employer is a violation of the Bill of Rights and is unconstitutional.

The elected sheriff is the ONLY constitutional "law enforcement" presence in any county / parish, and they're in the judicial branch, not the executive branch (where police are).

In America's 3-branch system of government, legislative - executive - judicial, ANY government action against a citizen is done by the JUDICIAL branch, NOT the executive branch, and ONLY on a COURT ORDER from a JUDGE (elected by the people, therefore accountable to the people), to be carried out by the OFFICER OF THE COURT, the SHERIFF (also elected by the people and accountable to the people). 

Issuing court summons ("tickets") is a JUDICIAL function, NOT an executive-branch police function.

ARREST is a JUDICIAL function, NOT an executive-branch police function.

SEIZURE of property is a JUDICIAL function, NOT an executive-branch police function.

ANY action against a citizen by executive-branch police OUTSIDE property owned by their employer is a violation of the Bill of Rights, a violation of DUE PROCESS, therefore is unconstitutional by definition. 

City police and every other type of police exercising general jurisdiction are unconstitutional by definition.

Their only constitutional authority is in the role of hired security guards on property owned by their employer, like airport police and railroad police for example.

A city government does NOT own all the property within "city limits".  The ONLY place city police have constitutional authority is on property OWNED BY THE CITY GOVERNMENT.

So you support the constitution huh?  You support the Bill of Rights huh?

Ok, when are you going to QUIT that (city?) police job?

SoNH80's picture

Indiana is the asshole of the Midwest.  Awful, anal-retentive people, arrogant wankers.  I feel bad for the good Ohioans and Illini that have to live next to that cracker dump.  The only other states that could have come up with this cropper are Mississippi, Florida, or Michigan.

ToNYC's picture


All hail, our esteemed corporate masters!

mediahuset's picture

I wondered why I never looked at it before. porntube

Alcoholic Native American's picture

It was destroyed on 9/11.  Fuck this fluff and fake outrage.

kridkrid's picture

It was kind of our Pearl Harbor moment, huh?

Alcoholic Native American's picture

Yea, something like that, remember 9/11 was the 2nd time the world trade centers got hit.

Anyone remember the 1st time?



kridkrid's picture

"Why of course the people don't want war. Why should some poor slob on
a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best he can get out of
it is to come back to his farm in one piece? Naturally the common people
don't want war neither in Russia, nor in England, nor for that matter in
Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the
country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to
drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist
dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no
voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders.
That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked,
and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the
country to danger. It works the same in any country."

Shock and Aweful's picture

.....Ahhh...I see we are quoting Herr Goebbels....and the Nazi's Standard Operating Procedure for "propagandistic operations"?


I think it is startling to read some of the speeches and quotes from interviews / books written by Goebbels, Himmler, Hitler, Goerring, and other meglomaniacs like Stalin....and then look at how our modern systems of governance (both in the U.S. and in Europe) have taken their "advice"  on how to subdue and intimidate the general public into going along with a "brave new world" status quo.


Do not for one second think that the techiniques and polices that were so effective at brainwashing and controlling millions of Germans and Russians (and used to GREAT effect on the U.S. during the war as well) to follow their government into the abyss have not been studied, practiced, improved upon and implemented in more modern times.  

The German population of the late 1920's and early 1930's was a highly educated and highly political populace...much more so that the mind-numbingly servile and unquestioning "patriots" we have living in the U.S and most western European nations  (maybe this has something to do with an ever growing level of apathy that has been created by what I call the "laziest generation"....the ones who have never known what it means to do without and who's only real goal in life is to one day be able to say... "AHHHH At long last...I can finally relax...Everything is done for me"

If you want to be scared (or pissed off, or worried, or motivated) up on some of the political ideologies and propaganda techniques (and what those who implented them had to say about their effectivness) that were being used in the 1930s and 40s...and then watch the the paper...or listen to the government marienettes that come out and give you the days "newspeak"....It is quite humorouse sometimes...and would really be funny if it were not so goddam sad and insulting.


Or...maybe it's nothing...and everything really is getting BETTER...and we are WINNING in the endless WARS we fight.....that the water and food we eat is SAFE....that the police are here to PROTECT us....that we fight WARS because they really do HATE us for our FREEDOM...'s probably nothing but typical alarmism....time to go back to sleep.....zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz


samsara's picture

I believe the FBI gave them the explosives in '93 also. 

Debt is Slavery's picture

Two cassette tape recordings, obtained by SHADOW reporter Paul DeRienzo of telephone conversations between FBI informant Emad Salem and his Bureau contacts reveal secret U.S. Government complicity in the February 26, 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center in New York City in which six people were killed and more than a thousand were injured.

After careful deliberation, the SHADOW believes the question regarding the bombing boils down to the following: Did the FBI do the bombing, utilizing informant Salem as an "agent provocateur" or did it fail to prevent an independent Salem and his associates from doing it? The taped conversations obtained by the SHADOW seem to indicate the former:

FBI Informant Edam Salem: "...we was start already building the bomb which is went off in the World Trade Center. It was built by supervising supervision from the Bureau and the DA and we was all informed about it and we know that the bomb start to be built. By who? By your confidential informant. What a wonderful great case!" [Listen]

Who is Emad Salem? FBI bomber, Arab double-agent or just greedy? Possibly a combination of all three. Salem is a former Egyptian Army officer who is currently the U.S. government's star witness against Egyptian cleric Dr. Omar Abdel Rahman, whom the FBI says was the ringleader in several bombing plots, including the World Trade Center. Shortly after the bombing at the Twin Towers (World Trade Center) the U.S. government moved to take Salem into the Witness Protection program.

According to the FBI, Salem was aware of the plot ostensibly because he had infiltrated Sheik Rahman and his associates. He was recruited as a government informant shortly after the 1991 assassination of of right- wing militant Rabbi Meir Kahane. As an associate of Rahman, Salem traveled in the cleric's inner circle, surreptitiously recording conversations, and selling his information to the Bureau. But unknown to his FBI handlers, Salem was also secretly recording his conversations with them, most likely to protect himself.

According to attorney Ron Kuby, after Salem was taken into the Witness Protection program on June 24, 1993, he told the feds about the more than 1,000 conversations he had recorded sometime between December, 1991 and June, 1993. Kuby says that while some of these tapes are not significant, others contain substantive dealings with Salem and his FBI handlers. Salem was actually bugging the FBI.

The World Trade Center bombing, along with subsequent alleged plots to bomb prominent targets in New York City, spawned a number of federal indictments and trials resulting in the conviction of more than a dozen men, all of Arabic descent. Salem's exposure as a government informant who had a year earlier infiltrated the group of men later charged in the bombing conspiracy caused many to wonder why he and the FBI failed to provide any warning of the pending World Trade Center bombing.

The answer now appears self-evident. According to William Kuntsler, attorney for Ibrahim El-Gabrowny, one of those accused in the larger bombing case, the entire conspiracy was the product of Salem, the government informant. Kuntsler's law partner Ronald Kuby told the SHADOW that within hours of the World Trade Center blast, Salem checked into a midtown hospital, complaining of a loud ringing in his ears. There is a growing belief that some of the four men charged and since convicted and jailed for the World Trade Center bombing, Mohammed Aboulihma, Mohammed Salameh, Nidal Ayyad and Ahmad Ajaj, may be innocent [victims] of a government frame-up.

Attorneys for those convicted have maintained that the government's case is circumstantial at best, with no evidence or motive linking the accused with the bombing. The FBI and federal prosecutors have not as yet responded to questions over the lack of warning of the attack on the Twin Towers, despite the strategic placement of their informant.

Two possible scenarios emerge. One: Salem is a rogue FBI informant who created the conspiracy to bomb the World Trade Center for the money his information about the plot (minus his role) would bring. An attorney for one of the convicted men told the SHADOW that Salem was an FBI informant from November of 1991 to the summer of 1992. The attorney says that the FBI became aware of the World Trade Center bombing plot through informant Salem during this period, but they refused to believe his information or pay Salem's exhorbitant fees. In fact, the feds claimed that they dropped Salem as an informant during the summer of 1992 after he refused or failed a lie detector test. This left Salem with a bombing plot but no one to sell it to.

According to the attorney, Salem let the plot that he hatched go forward and the World Trade Center was bombed so that he could get money and publicity. The attorney says that within 48 hours of the bombing, the FBI requested Salem to help them solve the case. Salem quickly pointed the fingers at the defendants, all followers of Sheik Rahman.

So, who did it? From the above point of view, Salem constructed the bomb plot with those whom he subsequently set up. The U.S. government and its FBI were innocent bystanders who failed to prevent the carnage due to their unwillingness to take Salem's claims seriously, despite his close collaboration with Bureau agents for the better part of a year.

The other scenario looks like this: Informant Salem organized the bomb plot with the "supervision" of the FBI and the District Attorney as part of a classic entrapment setup. He befriended certain individuals, possibly some of the defendants, convinced them that his intentions to bomb the World Trade Center were sincere, and convinced them to get involved. The bomb goes off. Greedy Salem, with his ears still ringing, sells out his accomplices while attempting to sell more information to the Bureau. In order to protect him and their relationship, the FBI sequesters Salem and utilizes him against the real target of the FBI, Sheik Rahman.

In one of the taped conversations between Salem and "Special Agent" John Anticev, Salem refers to him and the Bureau's involvement in making the bomb that blew up the World Trade Center. As Salem is pressing for money while emphasizing his value as a Bureau asset, the conversation moves in and out of references to the bombing and the FBI's knowledge of the bomb making:

FBI: But ah basically nothing has changed. I'm just telling you for my own sake that nothing, that this isn't a salary but you got paid regularly for good information. I mean the expenses were a little bit out of the ordinary and it was really questioned. Don't tell Nancy I told you this. (Nancy Floyd is another FBI agent who worked with Salem in his informant capacity. The second tape obtained by the SHADOW is of a telephone conversation between Salem and Floyd -Ed.)

SALEM: Well, I have to tell her of course.

FBI: Well then, if you have to, you have to.

SALEM: Yeah, I mean because the lady was being honest and I was being honest and everything was submitted with receipts and now it's questionable.

FBI: It's not questionable, it's like a little out of the' ordinary.

SALEM: Okay. I don't think it was. If that what you think guys, fine, but I don't think that because we was start already building the bomb which is went off in the World Trade Center. It was built by supervising supervision from the Bureau and the DA and we was all informed about it and we know what the bomb start to be built. By who? By your confidential informant. What a wonderful great case! And then he put his head in the sand I said "Oh, no, no, that's not true, he is son of a bitch." (Deep breath) Okay. It's built with a different way in another place and that's it.

FBI: No, don't make any rash decisions. I'm just trying to be as honest with you as I can.

SALEM: Of course, I appreciate that.

contact Paul DeRienzo

Miss anthrope's picture

what was told to me was that the Constitution was no longer functioning after 9/11 because the "war on terror" was declared and continuity of Government (C.O.G.) took over.  Supposedly not even the senate homeland security committee is granted access to this C.O.G. plan...... if it sounds like, walks like, swims like, looks like a duck, it is PROBABLY a duck..... that's all I can say.  I do believe our country no longer lives under the constitution.  I just wish they would bring it out in the open already and stop pledging to defend and uphold and all of that BULLSHIT.  Really, is ANYONE ELSE ready for a little truth?