Phelan Vs. CIA

A groundbreaking Injunction has been filed in Federal Court, Central District of California. Case No. 2: 24-cv-05286-JWH-RAO asks for Injunctive Relief citing a number of acts perpetrated upon a US journalist, who subsequent to these acts fled the US and is currently residing in Mexico.

The Injunction declares, with proofs provided, that the journalist has been attacked with unconventional weapons, which provenance leads to the US DoD and that these weapons, largely chemical in nature, have resulted in a grave health crisis, requiring hospitalization. The Injunction provides proofs, in terms of medical records, that at every juncture appropriate medical attention has been denied or withheld. As a final cause of action, the Injunction alleges, with proofs provided, that she has been denied access to the legal system and although she has made numerous outreaches in an attempt to resolve the obvious placement on a US "kill list," these outreaches have been ignored.

Let’s step back for a moment and consider the implications of the allegations. The involved journalist, Janet Phelan, is mainstream-trained and has for decades now been writing for independent media. She has also authored a couple of books. In her articles and books, she has revealed a previously undisclosed domestic weapons system, pervasive through the US and allied countries, which has the potential for decimating, selectively, pre-designated residential populations.

Coming on the heels of the release from Belmarsh prison of another journalist, Julian Assange, whose persecution also spanned a number of years and could have well ended up with a life sentence for “espionage,” i.e., publishing hitherto unrevealed US war records, this Injunction points to an agenda within the US government to silence, by any means possible, those who step over an invisible line and publish verifiable and inconvenient truths.

Truths that indicate a profound disregard by those in power for human life.

Those of us who were fortunate enough to be born into a country which considers itself “free” and which has legal underpinnings to protect these freedoms, including freedom of speech, would be advised to attend to the progress of this Injunction. This Injunction may, in fact, be only the tip of the iceberg, indicating that there are others who have been covertly attacked and remain at distinct peril. As long as the atrocities resulting last year in the death of California resident Liza Goldsmith—and I am betting you never heard of her, have you?--remain hidden and unaddressed, we are all at risk.

And while you are considering the nature of weapons of war, let’s not forget the “lawfare” cases, which have resulted in the preventable deaths of thousands of elderly and disabled who had the misfortune to step into a weaponized court and stripped of their rights via an allegedly protective and lethal system known as “adult guardianship.” Julian Assange was also victimized by a form of “lawfare.” And according to the proofs provided this Injunction, the use of the legal system to disable individuals is at play once more.