The Revolutionary Spirit of Attorney Larry Klayman

Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God:  because many false prophets are gone out into the world.  I John 4:1

Larry Klayman of Freedom Watch, Inc.

Search the internet, if you want to know about the controversial, litigious Larry Klayman, who was once a Department of Justice prosecutor of anti-trust cases, but went on to found Judicial Watch, later separating from that group under a cloud of disagreement. He presently heads the  nonprofit private foundation, Freedom Watch, Inc. and practices law under his Klayman Law Group in Washington, D. C.

Today I am focusing on an interesting claim made by the Jewish Larry Klayman, that he is operating under the authority of a spirit named Jesus.

Most of us are familiar with the late Richard Wurmbrand, who as a Romanian Jew believed in Jesus Christ and went on to take a noble stand, and was imprisoned and tortured for some 14 years because of his faith. My topic for today is cut from a different cloth: that of a so-called profession of Christian belief that is employed to serve the merchandising efforts of Alt Right conservatives.  In the case of Klayman, his Jewish Christian “Trump” card is played to contrast his seemingly daring protestations against his cousins,  the monied liberal Jews who undergird Alt Left politics.

On January 31, 2017, The Hill published a  Katie Bo Williams article called,  Larry Klayman:  ‘Why I’m not scared’.  Williams wrote, “In 2009, Jesus came to Larry Klayman while he was driving down Ventura Boulevard…As he drove through Los Angeles, he was talking to himself, saying, ‘Larry, you’re a revolutionary.  Jesus was a revolutionary.  Jesus told the high priests to go eff themselves, and then he told the Romans to go eff themselves’.  Suddenly, Klayman says, he felt a tremendous feeling of positivity and warmth.  He recognized the feeling – Jesus had come to him in a Catholic church years before and encouraged him to become a Christian. This time, there was a different message. ‘Larry, you’re working for me now,”  Klayman says he was told in 2009. ‘You’re not like me, obviously.  And you will pay the price-but I’m there with you’.”

Testing the spirits, whether they be of God

Christians are to study the Bible, and are instructed in I John 4:1 to test the spirits, whether they be of God.  In the short statement of Larry Klayman’s 2009 experience, he begins by discussing with himself, that he is a revolutionary. I am assuming that his definition of “revolutionary” is that of common usage, based on the root word to revolve, describing a person who represents the governed, who is attempting to overthrow or renounce a government or ruler.

So following his declaration, “Larry, you’re a revolutionary”, Klayman says, “Jesus was a revolutionary. Jesus told the high priests to go eff themselves, and then he told the Romans to go eff themselves”.  What Scriptures support Klayman’s conclusions as to  what kind of man Jesus really was?  Was Jesus just one of the governed, who went around reproving the high priests and Romans with profanity? Or is Jesus, as the Son of God,  part of the holy and pure Godhead who created all things, and is the Final Authority who ordained government, in the first place?

Revolutionary Styled Methods for Overturning Truth

Mark 7:9 records Jesus as saying, “…Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.”   Paul, in Colossians 2:8 warned the church, “Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.”  The tradition which is referred to in the first verse was the oral traditions of the elders at the time of Christ, which later on were written down in various books, such as the Babylonian Talmud, which is considered by adherents to be “God in the flesh”.

Talmudic thinking exemplifies the rejection of the commandments of God, and involves various means of overturning the authority of God, while yet retaining a façade of righteousness which is disingenuous. An illustration of this method of attaining final authority, and having the last word,  has been described as thesis, antithesis, synthesis.  The goal is to set up two opposites, wherein the solution to the conflict is to arrive at a synthesis of innately opposite principles.

There is another common use of this triad which is seen in Catholicism or Mormonism, and run-of-the-mill religious cults:  Two authorities are set up; for example, the Bible and the Book of Mormon, which internally contradict each other in various places.  Thus it requires a third-party to step into a position of higher authority to settle the differences.  That third-party is called a JUDGE, who has the final say in resolving conflicting interests.

So let’s get back to our inquiry as to what spirit is Larry Klayman’s so-called Handler, since I do not detect an attitude of worship in this anecdote. Was this warm and fuzzy feeling the Holy Spirit, the spirit of truth, as described by Jesus Christ in John 16: 7-14 which was sent after Jesus died on the cross, to guide his disciples “into all truth”, reproving the world of sin, and above all,  glorifying Jesus Christ? The spirit which came unto Larry Klayman came as a “feeling” which Klayman recognized from the Catholic Church, as “a tremendous feeling of positivity and warmth”. We can rule out the possibility that this spirit came to convince Klayman of his sins, and lead him into repentance.

A Spirit of Conviction Rejected the Plaintiff’s Defamation Lawsuit filed against Journalists for  simply reporting the facts

Interestingly, in 2009, there was a convicting spirit which was sent to reprove Klayman, as we read in an April 9, 2015 Courthouse News article, News Outlets Off Hook for Defamation Claims. Written by Deshayla Strachan, the article relates,  “As recounted in U. S. District Judge Anne Conway’s opinion, in June 2009, Klayman and his former wife were involved in a contentious child custody battle in Ohio. The magistrate concluded the attorney engaged in inappropriate touching of his child, and also gave a high level of credence to the testimony of the children’s physician, who reported allegations of sexual abuse to children’s services.  Klayman objected to these conclusions and several others, but ultimately an appeals court held the magistrate did not abuse his discretion in reaching his conclusions, Conway wrote.”

The primary statement which lead off the Courthouse News article began, “Two U. S. news outlets did not defame a Florida lawyer accused of abusing his children and not working for a client, a federal judge ruled.  Larry Klayman sued City Pages, Phoenix New Times, The Voice Media Group, and their reporters, claiming they defamed him when they published three articles accusing related to judicial proceedings in Ohio and Florida.”  This article’s headline, News Outlooks Off Hook for Defamation Claims is our take-out lunch today, as it ties in later on with a question asked by Pete Santilli on the subject of “retaliation against journalists” to Larry Klayman, which Klayman avoids addressing.

The Political Money Tree

So while all this was going on in 2009, the  warm and fuzzy spirit that came upon Klayman reassured him, “Larry, you’re working for me now”, but with the proviso that he would have to pay a price. What price did Larry have to pay for this form of employment?  Since we know that Larry Klayman has had over the years, the backing of rich supporters, and his present nonprofit private foundation, Freedom Watch, Inc.’s 2015 990 donations are the envy of lesser known public research groups, what price has Klayman had to pay, except perhaps in the coin of notoriety?

$1,323,510 in donations for 2015 Freedom Watch, Inc.

Now, according to The Hill article, just prior to the warm and fuzzy spirit showing up, “Klayman had found himself in a really low place:  His client had just lost a sexual harassment case, which he blames on a judge he says had a grudge against him.  Days before, he survived what he describes as a near-fatal car crash”. The writer of the article remarked, “The story is a Klayman special- no hedging and plenty of righteousness”. The author of that 2017 article must not have come across that other 2015 article which describes Klayman’s 2009 family problems which U. S. District Judge Conway had opined on, in coming to a decision about Klayman’s defamation complaint.

Fast forward to 2018, nine years after Larry Klayman became an operative for  the spirit of the revolutionary Jesus

Now here is an eye-catching headline by Right Wing Watch’s Kyle Mantyla, who wrote on December 3, 2018, Larry Klayman Likens Jerome Corsi to Jesus and the Founding Fathers.

After reading this article, I watched the November 30, 2018, Pete Santilli interview of Klayman to hear the quotes for myself.  At the beginning of this broadcast, Santilli features a news report of one of Klayman’s clients, Laura Loomer, who had handcuffed herself to a New York Twitter headquarters office.  Not only that, she wore a yellow star to dramatize her self-imposed martyrdom.

The Jerome Corsi Lawsuit

Setting aside those images of  Laura Loomer’s provocative behavior, Santilli went on to  interview Larry Klayman (Klayman Law Group), who in conjunction with the Gray Law group, are representing Jerome Corsi in a lawsuit  filed against Special Counsel Robert Mueller, the United States Department of Justice, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the National Security Agency, the Central Intelligence Agency, Jeff Bezos, the Washington Post, and Manuel Roig-Franzia.  The January 21, 2019  Amended Complaint (document 15) was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, linked here:  jerome corsi amended complaint.

The complaint against several government agencies involves “the conducting of illegal and unconstitutional surveillance, in violation of the Fourth Amendment and both the USA Freedom Act and Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (“PRISM”), as well as a violation of the secrecy provision the Fed. R. Crim. Pro 6(e)(2) pertaining to grand jury proceedings and other illegal acts”.  In addition, the remaining two defendants and the Washington Post have been accused of “tortuously interfering with Corsi’s business and contractual relations, in concert with the other named Defendants, as well as defamation.”

While I was viewing the November 20, 2018 Pete Santilli Show, Larry Klayman LIVE! Klayman vs. Mueller- Taking on the #Deep State, I observed a curious event which ties into today’s theme of the revolutionary spirit of Larry Klayman.  Larry Klayman had a TV set in the background, which was displaying the FOX News channel. See what showed up around the 4.47 mark of the Santilli show:

The word REVOLUTION flashes on the  Fox news channel  behind Klayman. Yikes!  Maybe there is a warm and fuzzy spirit of revolution, after all!

 

At the 7.18 mark, Larry Klayman is discussing Jerome Corsi, saying, “…he’s not in there just for himself because he’s 72 years old.  If he’s convicted it could affect a life sentence, but also the American people, and he’s doing that in the mold of our Founding Fathers- he’s risking his life because he believes in this country and he will not be ramrodded and coerced into testifying falsely.”

Pete Santilli [7.40]:  “Certainly not- I, we’ve uh, we’ve certainly said prayers for him as well because I do know first hand of the pressures obviously having been held myself for 619 days…Cliven Bundy longer..”

Pete Santilli [8.29]  asks Larry Klayman if he is concerned about the transition of (Deep State’s) retaliating against whistleblowers, now transitioning into retaliation towards journalists, and he uses Jerome Corsi  and himself as examples. To which Larry Klayman responds, “Well they’re going after everybody, Pete.”

It would appear that Pete Santilli is rather naïve in his question to Larry Klayman, because Larry Klayman has no hesitation to retaliate against journalists if it concerns himself or his clients.  For example, the Amended Complaint filed by Jerome Corsi on January 21, 2019 on page 17, lines 68 and 69 relates that “Money that Plaintiff (Corsi) received from Dr. David Jones, Alex Jones and Infowars was not ‘hush money’ but instead legitimately earned compensation.”  The amount of money being paid Plaintiff Corsi was $15,000 per month.

This is an astonishing amount of compensation, but not to be outdone, the attorneys for Plaintiff Jerome Corsi are asking for the following relief and judgment against the Defendants, which includes journalists.

Page 18 of Jerome Corsi Amended Complaint against Mueller, several government agencies and the Washington Post publisher and a journalist

Larry Klayman [17.24]: “..So this is the world we live in right now, is that this President is frankly from the standpoint of our government our only hope, and if he goes down all hell is going to break loose in this country.  Believe me, I don’t want to see that happen.  It’s not just going to be violence by the Left.  It’s going to be violence by the Right and it’s going to be Civil War.  We’re trying to avoid that.[17.47]

Jerome Corsi’s January 21, 2019 Amended lawsuit states that he was paid $15,000 per MONTH by Infowars as legitimately earned compensation, and Larry Klayman who is representing Corsi against Mueller and others had suggested on the November 30, 2018 Santilli show that there will be a civil war if President Trump goes down.  On the same day of Corsi’s Amended lawsuit, the Michael Savage Podcast featured Alex Jones of Infowars declaring “Trump WILL be assassinated on this timeline”.  The date predicted by Alex Jones for the assassination of the President is March 15, 2019, although he also stated the time period was “in the next 90 days”.

At the 20-21 minute mark of the Santilli show, Larry Klayman discusses President Trump, saying that “He shouldn’t back off.  His instincts are great. I love this President. Go for the fences.  Don’t worry about it.  Do what you have to do and let the rest of them be damned.  And that’s what Jerome Corsi said, ‘Be damned.  I’m gonna take this up the line legally.  I’m not going to be railroaded into a plea agreement’.  This is not something that you can turn the other cheek on.  Jesus wouldn’t have turned the other cheek.  He told Pontius Pilate to go stick it.  He wasn’t going to lie that he wasn’t the Son of God.  He told him to take a hike”.

Did Jesus tell Pontius Pilate to go stick it?

Here are excerpts from a King James Authorized Holy Bible:

John 18:28-38:  Then led they Jesus from Caiaphas unto the hall of judgment:  and it was early; and they themselves went not into the judgment hall, lest they should be defiled; but that they might eat the Passover.

Pilate then went out unto them, and said, What accusation bring ye against this man?

They answered and said unto him, If he were not a malefactor, we would not have delivered him up unto thee.

Then said Pilate unto them, Take ye him, and judge him according to your law.  The Jews therefore said unto him, It is not lawful for us to put any man to death:  that the saying of Jesus might be fulfilled, which he spake, signifying what death he should die.

Then Pilate entered into the judgment hall again, and called Jesus, and said unto him, Art thou the King of the Jews?

Jesus answered him, Sayest thou this thing of thyself, or did others tell it thee of me?

Pilate answered, Am I a Jew?  Thine own nation and the chief priests have delivered thee unto me; what hast thou done?

Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world:  if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence.

Pilate therefore said unto him, Art thou a king then?  Jesus answered, Thou sayest that I am a king.  To this end was I born, and for this cause I came into the world, that I should bear witness unto the truth.  Every one that is of the truth heareth my voice.

Pilate saith unto him, What is truth?  And when he had said this, he went out again unto the Jews, and saith unto them, I find in him no fault at all.

John 19:1: Then Pilate therefore took Jesus, and scourged him

John 19:4 Pilate therefore went forth again, and said unto them, Behold, I bring him forth to you, that ye may know that I find no fault in him.

John 19:7-10  The Jews answered him, We have a law, and by our law he ought to die, because he made himself the Son of God. When Pilate therefore heard that saying, he was the more afraid; and went into the judgment hall, and saith unto Jesus, Whence art thou? But Jesus gave him no answer. Then said Pilate unto him, Speakest thou not unto me? knowest thou not that I have power to crucify thee, and have to power to release thee?

John 19:11 Jesus answered, Thou couldest have no power at all against me, except it were given thee from above:  therefore he that delivered me unto thee hath the greater sin.

John 19:15  But they cried out, Away with him, away with him, crucify him.  Pilate saith unto them, Shall I crucify your king?  The chief priests answered, We have no king but Caesar.

Oops, the revolutionary spirit of Larry Klayman forgot that Klayman is a LAWYER!

Larry Klayman claims that Jesus has a profane mouth, is a revolutionary, and told Pilate where to stick it.  What he fails to mention is that Jesus Christ delivered these words:  Woe unto you, lawyers!  for ye have taken away the key of knowledge:  ye entered not in yourselves, and them that were entering in ye hindered. (Luke 11:52) The law that these lawyers interpreted was the Law of God, which is integral to the Scriptures as the whole counsel of God, and the judgments which affect the eternal destiny of all men. It is no small thing when attorney Larry Klayman misrepresents the character of Jesus Christ.

Attorneys and Judges have complained about the litigious Larry Klayman and his numerous frivolous lawsuits.  Klayman has borne false witness against what is recorded in the Scriptures, and this is evident  because he failed a basic command of the Bible: to test the spirits, to see whether they be of God. Such carelessness is unbecoming to a man who considers himself to be a crusader for justice.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Advertisements

The Vanishing of Trustworthy Historical Documentation

“He is a merchant, the balances of deceit are in his hand:  he loveth to oppress.”  Hosea 12:7

I am a collector of discarded books from the Hattiesburg, Mississippi library, and so for ten cents, I acquired the 2008 Federal Rules of Evidence with Advisory Committee Notes and Legislative History (Christopher B. Mueller and Laird C. Kirkpatrick). On page 251, the 1961 lawsuit Dallas County v. Commercial Union Assoc. Co., Ltd. was cited as part of  a discussion on hearsay exceptions.  In this particular case, the Court had found that an unsigned newspaper article published 50 years earlier did not fit within any of the recognized hearsay exceptions. However, the Court concluded, “the article was trustworthy because it was inconceivable that a newspaper reporter in a small town would report a fire in the courthouse if none had occurred“.

There are two primary components that ensure the trustworthiness of journalistic reports.  The integrity of the reporter sits on one scale of the counterbalances, while the fact-checking capability of the readers is set on the other scale.  In the example of the small town newspaper noted above, the article was unsigned, but the accountability resided with the publisher whose personal reputation would be well known in the community.  And then secondly, it is significant that the newspaper readers were within the same proximity to the material facts of the article as was the reporter.

The Balances are two scales which hold opposing weights, held up by the hand of Justice.  This concept is seen in the court system where material facts and legal arguments are evaluated, and in the financial sphere with its double-entry accounting system where every entry has a corresponding and opposite notation to a different account.  And then of course in the physical world of Newtonian physics, the third law observes that “for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction.”

Much of what is described as Alternative Media News reporting is untrustworthy in detail and scope, because the internet’s set of “balances” are inherently deceitful.  The primary blame for this state of affairs lies with the partiality of the propagator of the news reports itself, who presently are able to broadcast to a vast audence with little or no personal cost to themselves, and are allowed to operate behind a curtain of a false public image.

Although there are commentaries and forums that serve as restraining forces against the promotion of lies on the internet, the relationship of these websites to a writer of the original report is often just the anomalous tie provided by using the same tag words, which allows search engines to group similar topics together.  The “face-to-face” relationship that exists between local newspapers and their readership base has been severed in the internet world.

Example One:  The Balances of Deceit Are In His Hand

One recent example of an untrustworthy internet news publication is True Pundit, who was recently called out in an August 27, 2018, Buzzfeed expose by Craig Silverman, titled, Revealed:  Notorious Pro-Trump Misinformation Site True Pundit Is Run By An Ex-Journalist With A Grudge Against the FBI.

But months earlier, someone with the pseudonym exGOPer started a thread on January 23, 2018 under Politics on elitetrader.com, titling it  A Brief History of right-wing’s favorite fake news site True Pundit (loved by Russians). “exGOPer”  provided an extensive numbered list of his observations. Below, I pull out a few of the interesting ones from the beginning of this thread, which are useful to our discussion on the vanishing of trustworthy historical documentation.

Under (1) exGOPer notes that True Pundit began publishing on June 9, 2016. Line (3) says, “All articles on True Pundit are published anonymously.  The only person publicly associated with the website operates under a pseudonym- ‘Thomas Paine.’ (Thomas Paine, a Founding Father of the United States, was instrumental in convincing the colonies to rebel against Britain.)”.  Line (4) adds that “From June 9, 2016 to June 12, 2016, it seemed clear True Pundit had been started up in a hurry-it published dozens of stories but no original reporting.  More than 95% of stories were simply links to other sources, while True Pundit ‘originals’ were two-sentence news summaries.”

Line (8) states, “then, on June 12, 2016, the Orlando nightclub shooting occurred- and it seemed a switch had been turned on.  True Pundit had its story…”.  Line (10) observes, “It must have seemed odd to any readers of True Pundit in those first 72 hours of operation to read that the Philly publication already had ‘multiple’ sources in the Philadelphia Police Dept. and *multiple* Philly-based ‘recognized security expert’ sources-but so they said.”

(11) comments, “But Mateen” [Orlando nightclub shooting story] “changed everything.  Suddenly True Pundit was publishing what it said were original (‘exclusive’) stories, all of which relied-or-claimed to-on FBI sources. Not just one source, but multiple-and not just random sources, but sources close to the Pulse investigation.”  (12) “The mystery of this was dispelled almost immediately, when True Pundit wrote the following in an ‘exclusive’ on Mateen after the shooting:  ‘True Pundit has folks who worked for the FBI and other agencies on staff.’  It then claimed to have ‘unique insight’ into FBI operations.”

Our last line which we shall consider, (13) states,   “Whether or not True Pundit really had ex-FBI staff, no reader could possible know.  But what was clear was that True Pundit was obsessed with the FBI, had-at a minimum- some basic knowledge of criminal investigation, and was very, very, angry at the current state of the Bureau.”

This thread by exGOPer, continues on, point by point, making observations about True Pundit, in an attempt to weigh in the balances the trustworthiness of the reporting of Thomas Paine, now known to be Michael D. Moore. While this forum writer posts under an anonymous name, his presentation of factual observations is detailed and astute.  In contrast the writer under the pseudonym Thomas Paine has presented himself in a false light by borrowing from the historical reputation of a real person in American history. There is something defamatory and insulting about a person writing under false pretenses, by masking himself with another person’s good reputation, without the consent of that once, long ago, real flesh and blood individual.

Example Two: He loveth to Oppress

The Anonymous broadcaster of profaneness, defamation, and  false accusations to provoke and harass his selected victims.

I recently ran across a YouTuber using a fake name, where I was drawn to look at his videos which he had linked, via tag words, to a particular YouTube channel which I like. I am going to call the fake name channel “X” as this channel’s content is continually both factually false and/or defamatory. Apparently this person has lost at least one channel for violating nudity standards, and seems to have received numerous strikes to his videos because of their defamatory content.

On his new channel which has few viewers, X laments, “Because they are watching me, they’ve been watching me because I used to go into chats and say shit and I see that, that is a waste of a complete waste of time to say anything in a chat opposing these people and they’re controlled chats.  All you’re doing is exposing yourself to, now they know who you are, or at least your fake account.  Because you can try and dox me dude, try and figure out who I am.  You’re gonna have a hard time.”

Channel X did a video about a published report someone else had written on journalism and the internet. He offered his commentary and judgments without apparently even reading the report.  With respect to the real name of the author of this copyrighted material,  the cowardly X comments, saying, “this is by either —- or his brother, it doesn’t matter which one.”

It does not matter who wrote it??? The legal owner of the book is identified, and X has no right, without proof, to state otherwise. X continues in his nonsensical manner, “This person is saying the journalists’ enemies, so in order for you to be a journalist, right, you have to take some classes or something, you have to get a degree or something in journalism.  It’s a club like the Freemasons, it’s just another club, right?  And they don’t want us in their club, they don’t want us in their 1% club, you know what I mean?  So for, for people on YouTube, we’re supposed to fall, you know, we need degrees in journalism before we can report on anything.  That is total horseshit man, there’s plenty of people putting out good information on the internet, OK?  So what does it take to get a journalist, journalism degree, I mean, what do what, what do you need exactly?  What are people not- you know what I mean?”

“Because you don’t like what’s being reported because you want to keep the gatekeeping going?  You know what I mean?  Um, it’s bullshit man because when it comes down to it, you’re trying to control social media.  That’s what this is, a set-up for future living, you know, laws, future uh regulations on free speech that’s basically what it is so you’re posing as people for free speech, but you’re really um trying to set up some regulations um, I just can’t believe people are falling for this guy, for —, for —, all these characters.  I cannot believe people are falling for this shit.  It’s right in your face what’s going on here….”.

Sorry Channel X, I don’t know what you mean, except that you seem to be unaware that the United States already has time tested Constitutional laws against your abuse of free speech.   And what right does anyone have to alter the factual, personal history of other people?

Example Three:  He Is A Merchant 

Previously on August 20, 2018, I had discussed an April 21st interview by Jason Goodman of Crowdsource The Truth called Pete Santilli-FBI Informant or Framed by Hackers?  In that interview Santilli commented on the use of online anonymous identities for covert operations.  At the 35.32 mark, he remarked, “…it was overwhelming to me that they, that they admitted this in open court.  The FBI during the Bundy Ranch quote-unquote investigation said that they had, they had over a thousand trolls in the threads, a thousand…” [Jason Goodman: “The FBI had trolls.”]..”the FBI and this is documented, the FBI had 1,000-over a thousand trolls- in the threads on anonymous accounts and they call themselves online covert investigators…” .

Merchandising of Americana patriotism

The astonishment expressed by Pete Santilli, regarding the use of anonymous identities by the FBI, needs to be viewed against the backdrop of his own use of false accounts to serve his personal commercial interests.

For in an audio dated November 8, 2013 which can be found at Vinnie Eastwood’s Face Book page Pete Santilli Exposed, we hear Santilli saying, “This, this list of Twitter accounts has just been stewing, okay, because I used to have at one point of time, I had like 600 Twitter accounts being manufactured and in the rotation and we had automated messaging and basically having them set up so that they didn’t look like fake accounts because they had messages going out and links and so on and so on.  So that when somebody lands on it, they see that it doesn’t have like one follower and two messages.  That’s a boring person, so I set up these dormant accounts and I made it look like they’re active now.”

Is there an ethical difference between setting up fake identities to covertly troll others versus using such accounts to trick persons into being directed to a profit motivated online broadcast? Anonymous identities which have the purpose of causing the disruption of the normal flow of conversation, fraud, harassment, commercial trickery, altering history and the time honored interpretation of laws are undermining the stability of our society.

At nytimes.com a January 27, 2018 article,  The Follower Factory written by Nicholas Confessore, Gabriel J. X. Dance, Richard Harris and Mark Hanson, addressed the use of social media bots, by highlighting an “American company named Devumi that has collected millions of dollars in a shadowy global marketplace for social media fraud.” The authors claim, “Devumi sells Twitter followers and retreets to celebrities, businesses and anyone who wants to appear more popular or exert influence online.  Drawing on an estimated stock of at least 3.5 million automated accounts, each sold many times over, the company has provided customers with more than 200 million Twitter followers, a New York Times investigation found.”

The most shocking statement in this article is that “the accounts that most resemble real people…reveal a kind of large-scale social identity theft. At least 55,000 of the accounts use the names, profile pictures, hometowns and other personal details of real Twitter users, including minors, according to a Times data analysis.”  Additionally, it was asserted that “these accounts are counterfeit coins in the booming economy of online influence, reaching into virtually any industry where a mass audience- or the illusion of it-can be monetized.  Fake accounts, deployed by governments, criminals and entrepreneurs, now infest social media networks.”

It would appear that in this day and age, a vast number of so called internet journalist reporters readily alter material facts, resulting in the falsification of this generation’s documentation of its national and personal histories.  Years from now, this information cannot be utilized for legal or historical purposes, other than to document how modern day liars undermined American values for malicious and selfish purposes.