Unclassified Compartmented Information (UCI): Biological Warfare for Dummies

Hello, Chief!

Permit me to introduce myself. I am a recipient of a letter from the Congregation of Saints at the Vatican, and I ain't even Roman Catholic.

According to the Article III Courts in the Fifth Circuit, I am a "litigation hobbyist", and I've been called everything except a child of God in courtrooms; so, that's actually quite a compliment. I'm the great grandson of an Ellis Island immigrant who escaped the Holocaust, the grandson of a franchise martyr, and godson of the first Negro House Majority Whip, but according to the President I ain't really Black.

However, if you ask anyone in VA8, i'm a not a serious option fringe independent whose been on the periphery of Northern Virginia politics for almost a decade, and the Progressive Voters Guide in Seattle says I'm against the government response to the current public health crisis, but I can't find even one press account to verify that is actually true, and may sue for libel.

However, the Office of the Commonwealth Attorney may be familiar with my latest activities in retirement, and when most Americans were watching Renee Russo, Dustin Hoffmann, Kevin Spacey, Cuba Gooding, Jr., Donald Sutherland and Morgan Freeman on the silver screen in Outbreak, I was actually helping to develop that real world capability for the U.S. Army, so if a Patrick Dempsey set off a zoonotic event pandemic, we wouldn't have to drop napalm on Cedar Creek. But apparently, for purposes of the controlling statute to get a grand jury regarding the death of a former police officer, Bishop Gerald Glenn, my credentials as a former biological warfare planner are not deemed to be qualified as a "competent witness".

So, I am introducing myself to you to let you know that I attended night school, a very special night school.

Daddy was a preacher and the New Jersey State National Guard Chaplain, and could cite chapter and verse if he had a mind to on occasion, but I spent half my time being groomed to succeed him in a calling to the ministry and the other half in courtrooms just a cussing and doing the zealous advocacy crap attorneys do for their clients as a protégé to a legendary civil rights and criminal defense attorney; and I never won an argument quoting Jesus, but the ever diplomatic Rev. King, a friend of my father, and with whom I had shared a spiritual mentor, had one great line in his last address: "I'm gonna tell you what my imagination tells me", before ranting on about everything he had read somewhere like a right to protest for that which is right.

I have a favorite case, Luteran v. U.S., 93 F.2d 395 (8th Cir. 1937), a conspiracy case about a Republican who had stolen 150 votes to raise his vote count, and in a race he lost by a landslide anyway. The court wrote:
"This court has recognized for practical reasons that where proof of a conspiracy has been established a relatively slight amount of evidence connecting the defendant therewith is sufficient to sustain a verdict. McDonald v. United States, 89 F.2d 128 (C.C.A. 8); Galatas v. United States, 80 F.2d 15 (C.C.A. 8). Participation in the formation of the conspiracy is not essential to culpability if after it was formed the defendant aided or abetted it with an understanding of its purpose. McDonald v. United States, supra; Laska v. United States, 82 F.2d 672 (C.C.A. 10); Burkhardt v. United States, 13 F.2d 841 (C.C.A. 6). The evidence must disclose something further than participation in the offense which is the object of the conspiracy at some stage of its execution, for there must be proof of an unlawful agreement either express or implied. Dickerson v. United States, 18 F.2d 887 (C.C.A. 8); Linde v. United States, 13 F.2d 59 (C.C.A. 8); Burkhardt v. United States, supra. But where the defendant aided the conspirators knowing in a general way their purpose to break the law the jury may infer that he entered into an express or implied agreement with them. Galatas v. United States, supra; McDonald v. United States, supra."

Slight evidence? Aiding and abetting? Unlawful agreement, expressed or implied? Imagine that.

In Luteran, "Appellants invoke[d] the rule that mere acquiescence or silence or failure of an officer to perform a duty does not make one a participant in a conspiracy unless he acts or fails to act with knowledge of the purpose of the conspiracy ‘and with the view of protecting and aiding it.‘ Burkhardt v. United States, 13 F.2d 841, 842 (C.C.A. 6)."

If we have a duty to speak, in other words, under the law, we must, and you, I believe, have a right to remain silent.

Major Mike Webb
God's Advocate in Pandemic
You can’t save the world if you are NEVER born!