Tuesday, November 27, 2012

9/11 ATTACK ON AMERICA: RESPONSE OF THE INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT


Please see the response of the International Criminal Court to my letter regarding the September 11, 2001 attack on the United States.

As suggested in the ICC letter, would you be interested in "raising it with appropriate national or international authorities"? Are you prepared to commit time and/or funds to this effort?

Please reply via email to ceo@twf.org, with ICC/OTP/911 in subject line, if you are interested.

Enver Masud
Founder and CEO

Wednesday, November 21, 2012

What's really happening in Gaza


Completely aside from the merits of the grievances on the two sides, one side is militarily omnipotent and the other side crouches helplessly in fear— Richard Falk, "The Latest Gaza Catastrophe," Al Jazeera, November 18, 2012

° In the past few days we have witnessed, yet again, the "American superpower" groveling at Netanyahu's feet. When Netanyahu decided to again murder the Palestinian women and children of Gaza, to further destroy what remains of the social infrastructure of the Gaza Ghetto, and to declare Israeli war crimes and Israeli crimes against humanity to be merely the exercise of "self-defense," the US Senate, the US House of Representatives, the White House, and the US media all promptly declared their support for Netanyahu's crimes.—Paul Craig Roberts, "Puppet State America," paulcraigroberts.org, November 19, 2012

° The Muslims as terrorist, Islam as a religion of violence and hatred, the Jew as eternal victim, the Holocaust as a unique historical event, the uniqueness of which is echoed in the political manifesto of 'manifest destiny' and 'exceptionalism' of the United States of America, the 'good guys" of World Wars I and II, constitutes the current propaganda pastiche determining the limits of politically correct discourse. Any criticism against Israel is automatically translated into anti-Semitism and criticism of the United States is unpatriotic or even treason.—Lynda Burstein Brayer, "The Absolute Right of Palestinian Resistance," counterpunch.org, November 20, 2012

° It is an ongoing assault on the Palestinian people. And especially the people of Gaza, which began a very long time ago and the plan is to effectively get rid of them as an entity.—An Interview With John Pilger: "Israel's Gaza Rampage: It's Not Just War," counterpunch.org, November 21, 2012

° US President Barack Obama ... came up with this: "There is no country on earth that would tolerate missiles raining down on its citizens from outside its borders.... Obama's drones do rain Hellfires from Pakistan to Yemen—Pepe Escobar, "Obama the Pivot," counterpunch.org, November 22, 2012

Monday, October 22, 2012

Monday, October 1, 2012

9/11: Communication to International Criminal Court


THE WISDOM FUND
P O Box 2723 
Arlington, VA 22202

October 1, 2012

International Criminal Court 
Office of the Prosecutor 
Communications
Post Office Box 19519 

2500 CM The Hague
The Netherlands 

Dear Sir:

It is stated at the ICC website: “The OTP is currently conducting preliminary examinations in a number of situations including Afghanistan, . . . ” and one is invited to “submit information about alleged crimes”. This letter and enclosures provide information about the coverup of the facts of 9/11 used to justify the wrongful invasion of Afghanistan.

Former Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson, chief U.S. prosecutor at the first Nuremberg trial, called waging aggressive war "the supreme international crime”. The enclosed Evidence of Complicity andCover-up at the Pentagon, slide presentation, and book 9/11 Unveiled contain information that could lead to indictments of individuals who were either complicit in or covered up the facts of 9/11 that led to the invasion of Afghanistan.

A co-founder of the Center for Strategic and International Studies, Washington, D.C., Deputy Director for Planning at the National Security Council, and Principal Foreign Policy Adviser to Richard Nixon has written: “9/11 Unveiled . . . is the best short summary of what most Americans and virtually all of the rest of the world consider to be the ‘9/11 mystery’.”

I managed the National Power Grid Study (directed a couple of dozen, multidisciplinary teams — total 150 persons), and the National Electric Reliability Study for the U.S. Department of Energy. I also set up and directed the Operations Review Division at the Iowa Commerce Commission, and consulted for the U.S. Agency for International Development and the World Bank in several countries. I’ve received awards from the Human Rights Foundation (South Africa), the U.S. Department of Energy, and the American Federation of Muslims of Indian Origin.

I urge you to examine the enclosed evidence. My associates and I are prepared to provide more. 

Sincerely,
Enver Masud
Founder and President

Saturday, September 15, 2012

Attacks on embassies in wake of anti-Islamic film a result of U.S. wars, double standards, lawlessness

A wave of anger that saw British, German and American embassies in Khartoum attacked by rioters swept across the Muslim world with violent scenes playing out on streets from north Africa to south-east Asia.

In all, there were protests in at least 23 nations, stretching from Morocco to Indonesia and from London to Mogadishu, Somalia.

U.S. officials took pains to separate American policies from the explosion of violence. You have to be starved of history to believe that.

Wednesday, June 20, 2012

Crusade: Rep Peter T. King's Jihad


Hearings on radicalization within the Muslim-American Community

Today, June 20, 2012, Rep Peter T. King (R-NY), Chairman of the Committee on Homeland Security, convened the fifth in a series of hearings on radicalization within the Muslim-American Community.

Of course, only witnesses who support Mr. King's conclusions, or who were not likely to offer unpleasant facts, were selected. Those who could offer critical facts not supportive of Mr. King's conclusions were again excluded.

Mr. King, if you truly want to protect Americans, . . .

Saturday, May 5, 2012

The 9/11 trial excludes hard facts

2000+ military, intelligence, industry professionals do not believe the official account of 9/11. KSM couldn't possibly have masterminded 9/11. He was water-boarded 183 times. After that he would have been willing to say anything to stop the torture.

Saturday, March 17, 2012

Update on CLEAR Internet service: excellent to painfully slow

Back in June 2010 we reported on CLEAR's Internet service. For the most part it was excellent, and reasonably priced. It's still reasonably priced, but it now ranges from excellent to painfully slow.


With download speeds often below one MB/sec, it's impossible to watch Netflix like CLEAR's banners proclaimed in June 2010.

Tuesday, February 21, 2012

Iran: UN Security Council Resolution 1696 is 'of dubious legality'

Arms Control Association Director Daryl Kimball said in a telephone interview from Vienna. “Getting serious means focusing on the near-term problem that 20 percent enriched uranium represents,” which drives the “hysterical war talk in some quarters.”—IAEA Iran Visit May Offer End to War Talk Over Nuclear Work

Security Council Resolution 1696 is of 'dubious legality'. The IAEA's Iran file should never have been presented to the UN Security Council.

At the end of July 2006, the UN Security Council adopted Resolution 1696 made enrichment suspension mandatory under Chapter VII of the UN Charter, which empowers the Security Council to act in the face of "threat to the peace, breaches of the peace, and acts of agression.'

In "The Age of Deception" (p199), IAEA Director General ElBaradei writes that the resolution was of dubious legality. There was still no proof that Iran's nuclear activity involved a weapons program. It was quite a stretch to say that a small laboratory-scale centrifuge-cascade constituted "a threat to international peace and security" when peaceful uranium enrichment is legal for all member states under the NPT.

Wednesday, February 8, 2012

Ted Olson's key role in constructing the official account of 9/11

In a front page article on September 12, 2001 — On Flight 77: 'Our Plane Is Being Hijacked' — Marc Fisher and Don Phillips of the Washington Post reported that Barbara K. Olson called her husband twice in the final minutes before the crash of Flight 77. The FBI contradicts this account.

FBI exhibit (P200054) from the trial of Zacarias Moussaoui contradicts the Solicitor General's account. It shows that Barbara Olson made only one phone call — it did not connect, and it lasted for 0 seconds.

Ted Olson is one of the lead lawyers in the fight to get the 9th Circuit to deem California’s same-sex marriage ban unconstitutional.

Friday, February 3, 2012

On Syria: more junk journalism

Bob Taylor, a retired British journalist based in Brussels, contributed the following to an ongoing informal exchange of thoughts among former colleagues and friends.

Whatever one’s judgment of events in Syria, I am dismayed (yet again) at the uncritical way the western media have bought into the official Washington/London/Paris narrative. The media clearly don’t want to learn the lessons of Kosovo or Iraq. Once more, absolute good takes on absolute evil. Where are the shades of grey in the reporting? where is the background? Where the context?

Why burden readers and viewers with this baggage when the outcome of each warlet is a foregone conclusion? For make no mistake. The western endgame in Syria is regime change and the ousting of Bashar al-Assad who is as soiled goods as Milosevic and Saddam ever were. Even more so in the case of Syria, the media have become wittingly or unwittingly a frontline weapon in the hands of western governments to keep up 11 months of virtually daily international pressure on the embattled Damascus regime.

Our simplistic ‘humanitarian wars’ have so far achieved simplistic results. Albanian primitives replace Serb primitives in Kosovo. Shia primitives (plus Kurdish renegades) replace Sunni primitives in Iraq. Are these exemplars of the manly democracy we set out to impose by righteous force? Is this what we went to war for, with its vast cost in civilian and military deaths? Where is the value-added from the billions of taxpayers’ dollars in terms of decency, tolerance and social justice for all the citizens of these countries?

Bashar al-Assad’s regime is harsh and repressive in many respects. To blame the revolt on outside forces, as it does, is a classic exercise in self-deception and scape-goating.

But to deny or ignore the self-interested and largely negative interference of outsiders as the western media does is either willfully misleading or based on naivety or stupidity. Syria represents what is left of structured Arab opposition to Israel. It is a channel of support for Hezbollah and Hamas. It is an acolyte of the evil Iranians. For years, Israel has been trying to destabilise the Syrian regime and infiltrate its political and civil organs. For Israel (and the US) to stand on the touchline with arms folded until internal events in Syria play themselves out would require a degree of forbearance that is quite out of character for both governments. This is what our media would have us believe.

Israel is the elephant in the Syrian room. The western media rarely mention it. Yet it is the big winner in the event of a diminished Syria. If I were in charge of Israeli intelligence, I would be making trouble for Bashar like there was no tomorrow. You can be sure that those really in charge are working overtime. I have looked in vain for adequate press coverage of this aspect of the unfolding Syrian drama in the last 11 months. This is left to outsiders whose voices are drowned in the tidal wave of self-righteous outpourings from the mainstream media in favour of western and Israeli outcomes.

In my view, these outcomes are not (yet?) a foregone conclusion in the case of Syria. To make them so will require a more visible and muscular interference by the US and Israel (and/or their surrogates). The sham of a home-grown revolution removing Gaddafi was quickly exposed.

The outcome for Syria could well be the ascendency of the Muslim Brothers and the Sunni over Bashar and his Alawites (one more set of primitives replacing another set) – with what impact on Syria’s secularism and the co-existence between Sunnis and Alawites, Christians, Druze and Kurds? From a cynical western standpoint, if Syria is reduced in the process to a bit player in the middle east, who cares? But we’re not there yet.

Wednesday, February 1, 2012

Syria: Lizzie Phelan on Press TV

New York Times interview with Lizzie Phelan on Syria and Libya

Earlier today I was video interviewed over Skype by New York Times journalist Robert Mackey about my coverage of events in Libya and Syria and my criticisms of the mainstream western and GCC media in relation to events in those countries.

This was my first interview by a mainstream western media organisation and I have been told that the video will be published in full tomorrow.

Prior to the interview I was sent three questions outlining the general topics that would be covered in the interview. In some ways the interview veered away from these topics and so here I will publish the questions that were outlined prior to the interview and publish my full answers to them, just because I feel like it is important that full responses are given to these questions in particular, and while I made most of these points in the interview, there are some points that I omitted.

ROBERT MACKEY: Since your impressions of what is happening in Syria seem to be strikingly different from those of many foreign reporters who have worked there recently, I wanted to ask you about how you found your sources and what you think accounts for the different picture painted of the conflict by other journalists.

LIZZIE PHELAN: First of all I hope that you will give me the opportunity to answer all of your questions in full, so that the context which is always lacking can be provided. I also hope that you will ask all the questions that you proposed when I agreed to do this interview. If not I will myself publish the full questions and my full answers.

This question is flawed, because what you really mean is that my impressions of what is happening in Syria seem to be strikingly different from those reporters from the NATO and GCC countries which have a vested interest in destabilising Syria. Of course my impressions are actually shared by the majority people of this world, from those countries outside of NATO and the GCC and particularly those which are victims of these powers. But because they do not own a powerful media their voices are drowned out by the impressions of the minority reflected in the mainstream media of the NATO and GCC countries.

So in relation to my sources, I find my sources through a number of different means, but my main means is I talk to ordinary people every where I go and in Syria this is not difficult because people are really keen to speak about the crisis in their country, especially to foreigners who they feel strongly have a false impression about their country and current events. This was overwhelmingly, but of course not exclusively, the point of view that I encountered. And this is reflected in my reporting.

In fact, like in Libya, I was so overwhelmed by the volume of people that wanted to talk about their anger at the fabrications in the media of the NATO and GCC countries that my colleague Mostafa Afzalzadeh and I decided to make a documentary so that we could reflect what ordinary Syrian people are really saying. This documentary will actually expose how if it was not for such media the crisis in Syria would have been over before it started and the people of Syria would be living in peace now.

The difference with journalists from mainstream media in NATO and GCC countries is that they come with an agenda, and that agenda is to cover what they call is a “revolution” happening inside Syria and to give substance to the false claims that the Syrian government is a threat to the Syrian people. So if for example they walk down the street and they have 10 people telling them there is no revolution happening in Syria and actually the people want the army to protect them from the terrorists that are flooding the country, and then they have one person who tells them that there is no democracy in Syria, they will discard the 10 as government spies and run with the one person who said something different, I witnessed this myself.

If they were to do the reverse and reflect the majority view on the street, then this would undermine the coverage of their media organisations over the previous 10 months that have painted a picture of a government hated by its people, and in turn it would undermine their own credibility as journalists working for those organisations.

But in time they will not be able to supress the truth. However, like in Libya the danger is that the truth only comes out when it is too late, when a country has been successfully destroyed by the NATO and GCC countries, with the vital help of their media. Then the western media can afford to be more honest, although never entirely, because the aims, for example of regime change, of their paymasters have been achieved.

I on the other hand am not concerned about towing a line in order to “make it” as a journalist working for one of the world’s most respected media organisations, I became a journalist in order to reflect the truth at whatever cost that may come. The only thing I am loyal to is my conscience.

RM: Since you have appeared on Press TV and Russia Today, as well as Syria state television, do you have any concern that you might seem to be endorsing the governments that finance those channels, or do you see your role more as that of an activist, opposing the policies of the US and UK, than as a neutral reporter?

LP: This question in itself is a very deceitful and loaded question, and it is taken out of all context. It implies that BBC, CNN, Al Jazeera etc and the journalists who work for those organisations are independent from their financiers. If I worked for BBC does that mean that I am endorsing the British government which funds it and that government’s centuries long and present abuses across the world?

Why is the NYT concerned about my work for Russia Today and Press TV? I challenge you to find me specific examples of journalists that work for these organisations that have engaged in bad journalistic practise. Why are you not concerned about journalists who work for Al Jazeera that is funded by and reflects the foreign policy of the Qatari emir and royal family. Al Jazeera has been proven many times over in the past few months to have published false reports about events in the region, not least Libya.

How can their journalists be neutral when their employer hosts the largest US military base in the region, and has been responsible for sending thousands of fighters, weapons and a lot of money to kill and destroy in Libya and is now doing the same in Syria in addition to having called for Arab troops to invade the country. Likewise, I have yet to hear the NYT question the “neutrality” of journalists who work with the British state funded BBC, or journalists who work for the Murdoch Press which is well documented to have strong connections with all the major western powers which are responsible for the greatest violations of international law.

So the question should start from the premise that no news organisations are neutral, and each represent a certain ideology. So if you ask me if I feel more at peace working for news channels which reflect the ideology of states that are defending themselves from constant attack by the west, that is an ideology that opposes foreign interference in their affairs and promotes their own independence, or would I feel more comfortable working for media organisations that reflect the arrogant ideology that western civilisation is superior and should be imposed across the world by any means necessary, then I think any person with the slightest understanding of global politics and at least recent history would say the former.

An additional deception in this question is that there is such a thing as neutrality and that journalists are able to separate their own beliefs in what they choose to cover and how they cover it, or indeed the pretence that journalists do not hold an opinion.

As I said, I am not concerned about others perceptions of these things, because anyone who perceives that because I have worked for Russia Today or Press TV it means that I am in someone’s pocket, whereas if I was working for a western organisation I would be “neutral,” is deceiving themselves and choosing to look at a tiny portion of a whole picture.

Incidentally, when I was stuck in the Rixos Hotel in Tripoli with those 35 other journalists, one of the days, two American journalists rushed into the hotel and swiftly exited when they realised that the hotel was being defended by Gaddafi supporters. Actually one of the two in particular was worried about the Gaddafi supporters harming him, but they requested that they just leave. Why was he so worried? Because he said he was related to somebody senior in the NTC no less. I have never seen his neutrality being called into question by the mainstream media.

Finally, what is an activist? If it means that the role you play has the effect of agitating events, then I would say that we are all in some shape or form activists. For anyone to think that their actions are benign and have no repercussions, is at best naïve. This is particularly true for all journalists, whose actions as reporters have greater repercussions than other ordinary citizens of this world. And this is of course because their voice is afforded a special platform, and when you study journalism you are taught that a reporter should act as the eyes and ears of the general public, and thus you have greater influence than the ordinary citizen.

So you either use that platform to promote justice and the principles of international law which are fundamental for everyone's well being, or you bury your head in the sand about the responsibility that comes with that platform and you use it to promote your own personal career or interests.

RM: I also wanted to find out more about your reporting from Libya, and ask how you respond to allegations that you supported the government of Col. Qaddafi? All in all, I'm trying to get a better understanding of what drives you to speak out against Western governments but apparently lend your support to governments, like those in Iran, Russia and Syria now, that have been accused of serious human rights abuses.

LP: Again this is another deceitful question and epitomises the manipulative approach of the world’s powerful media, such as newspapers like the NYT.

Here you are asking me this question because the west’s major powers and media criminalised Muammar Gaddafi, Iran etc by accusing them of abusing human rights.

So you are trying to put me into this trap by saying that if I support Muammar Gaddafi, and Iran I also support abuses against human rights.

But first of all this question of human rights is an absolute fallacy and is at present the number one stick used to bash leaders of independent developing countries in order to provide a moral justification for the imposition of the western system upon those countries.

My colleague Dan Glazebrook did an interview on Russia Today last week following the decision by Doctors Without Borders to stop their work in Libya in despair at the appalling torture against tens of thousands of pro-Gaddafi Libyans by those rebels who have been cheered on for the past year by the western media. He reminded the public that according to HRW reports from the past 5 years, there were three possible cases of deaths in custody in Libya over 5 years, which is really exemplary, but in Britain there were 4 cases last month alone. So I would be far more concerned about being associated with the British government and thus its appalling human rights record. And that is just Britain - the rest of the NATO countries, particularly the US and also Israel and the GCC countries fare no better.

Factually speaking Libya was a paradise for human rights and Muammar Gaddafi was due to receive a human rights award prior to the NATO onslaught. And of course Libya had the highest standard of living in Africa and much of the region, including a much higher standard of living than Saudi Arabia which hardly ever is in the spotlight in the mainstream western press.

Nonetheless, you wouldn’t dream of implying that a journalist who works for the Sun or the Guardian in Britain, both of which take a position of supporting one way or another the Conservative party or the Labour Party, of supporting abuses on human rights because they work for papers which support parties that have committed some of the greatest injustices known to man throughout history all across the world and up until this present day. Injustices which far outstrip any injustices that have occurred at the hands of any leader of a developing country.

So why the two-faces? This is all part of the prejudice in western media that western civilisation is superior to anything else and therefore those responsible for the injustices committed by the west need not be held accountable, and anyone who speaks out against that should have their name dragged through the mud.

Malcolm X famously said “if you are not careful, the media will have you hating the people who are being oppressed and loving the oppressor”, and that quote rings true more than ever today most recently in the way that the western and GCC media has covered events in Libya and Syria.

But to respond to your question directly, as I have stated, what I support is respect for international law, and the most important principle in international law, and one of the main stated aims for the body that was set up to uphold international law, the now redundant UN, is respect for the sovereignty of nations and non-interference in the internal affairs of states. Recent history shows that the root of the greatest injustices known to man is the violation of these principles and so anyone who violates these principles is a criminal and should be treated as such, and anyone who is a victim of such violations should be defended.

Now not only these principles, but all relevant international laws and norms were violated in the case of Libya and the west’s treatment of Muammar Gaddafi, and this has been well documented. The same violations are playing out against the Syrian government.

How is it that one can moralise about human rights, but not give a second’s thought to the fact that a senior member of the US government, Hilary Clinton called for the death of another head of state, Muammar Gaddafi, just two days before he was assassinated. I hope I don’t need to tell you that that was entirely illegal and abhorrent.

I am wholly against such violations, just as anybody who believes in international law and justice would be, and therefore I will support the right of anyone to defend themselves against this violation by any means necessary.

I have been accused by some of being a mouthpiece for the Libyan government but now the truth is coming out, we know that the essence of the former Libyan government's analysis has been proved correct, whilst almost everything reported by the mainstream Western media has been proved wrong:

- The rebellion WAS indeed armed from the very first day of the uprising (this was confirmed in Amnesty's in-depth report from late last year) - not a peaceful movement

- The rebels WERE working hand in glove with Western intelligence agencies to facilitate a NATO blitzkrieg

- The NTC ARE disunited and incapable of governing the country.

- The rebels DO have a racist, even genocidal, policy towards sub-Saharan African migrants and the third of the Libyan population is dark skinned

- Gaddafi's government WERE NOT conducting aerial attacks against protesters or mass rape (or indeed ANY rape, according to Amnesty)

- There HAD NOT been 10,000 people killed in Benghazi by Gaddafi's government during the uprising (as the NTC claimed), but 110 (Amnesty figures again) killed on both sides prior to NATO's attack

On every major issue, the Gaddafi government's analysis and figures have been proven far far closer to the truth than the NTC's and the western media’s initial and unequivocal position. So ANY journalist telling the truth about these issues would have "sounded like a mouthpiece of the regime", because the government's analysis was essentially correct, and has now been proven correct.

Saturday, January 21, 2012

Nonprofit corporation proposes 'White List' to halt unlawful blacklisting

The Wisdom Fund, a Virginia based nonprofit corporation, has proposed the following rules to counter Internet blacklists that stifle free speech.

1 - Establish a "White List" for nonprofit corporations.

2 - Require Internet Service Providers to forward mail from those on "White List" to its intended recipients without hindrance.

3 - Penalties and lawyer fees for noncompliance.

Lior Leser, an attorney whose "practice focuses on helping companies build solid Web 2.0 Legal platforms", advised The Wisdom Fund that blacklists are "shutting down free speech."

Multiple "White Lists" exist, but they're not used widely, it's not clear how one gets on them, and there are no penalties to ISPs for not using them.

Tuesday, January 17, 2012

Nonprofit corporation’s email server blacklisted by barracudanetworks.com

ACLU of Virginia
530 East Main Street, Suite 310
Richmond, VA 23219


REQUEST FOR CASE REVIEW: STIFLING FREE SPEECH ON INTERNET
Nonprofit corporation’s email server blacklisted by barracudanetworks.com


On December 5, 2011, The Wisdom Fund (TWF.ORG) was informed by Heller Information Services, Inc. (HIS.COM — our Internet Service Provider since 1995) that our email server had been blacklisted by Barracuda Networks, Inc. (BARRACUDANETWORKS.COM).

This had the effect of limiting our email to the 3000+ regular readers of our news reports, and dozens of others with whom we communicate on as needed basis.

We believe this is a free speech issue affecting all nonprofits, the facts are not in dispute.

The Wisdom Fund is a nonprofit, 501(c)(3) corporation registered in the Commonwealth of Virginia, employee identification number 54-1755689.

We have several email lists ranging from less than 100 to about 3000. On average, we send less than one email daily to 3000 recipients. This list was developed over the past 15 years. Other, smaller, more recent lists, are utiltized to communicate on specific issues with others.

All of our mailings include an unsubscribe link, and unsubscribes are handled by a third party — ethreesoftware.com, whose software we use to send bulk email. The process is automated — subscribes and unsubscribes are controlled by ethreesoftware.com.

Prior to July 29, 2011, we used different software, Intellimerge, for bulk email and to handle unsubscribes. This process was only partially automated, hence the move to ethreesoftware.com.

Our reading of PUBLIC LAW 108-187--DEC. 16, 2003 is that we are exempt from this Act — the Act applies to the transmission of unsolicited commercial electronic mail via the Internet. Our mail is non-commercial, nevertheless, we attempt to utilize the best practices of the Act.

The blacklisting by barracudanetworks.com is stifling our right to free speech, and seriously impacting the operation of The Wisdom Fund.

We have had no response from Barracuda Networks’ agent, Dean Drako, to our letter of December 9, 2011 — sent Certified Mail, Return Receipt.

This is the latest in our continuing battle to keep our emails reaching our readers. Paul Heller of Heller Information Servicess and I have devoted considerable effort over the past few years to get email past Yahoo, Google, and other gatekeepers.

The issue may come under the jusrisdiction of the Federal Communications Commission which has been reviewing “net neutrality” issues. However, the courts may be better equipped to handle free speech issues.

We request your help. Relevant documents are attached.

Enver Masud
President, The Wisdom Fund