On September 22, 2011 the White House started an on-line tool called “We the People” to provide the American people a new way to petition the Administration to take action on a range of important issues concerning their country. The basic rule of this On-line tool is that if a petition gets enough support, White House staff will review it, ensure it’s sent to the appropriate policy experts, and issue an official response.
Such an innovative communication instrument had an immediate appeal on all kind of organizations to get involved in petitioning which the White House defines: “an American old Tradition” Anyone 13 or older can create a WhiteHouse.gov account and create or sign a petition on WhiteHouse.gov asking the Obama Administration to take action on a series of issues..
As soon as “We the people” was On-line, two petitions called for disclosure of government information on ET and an acknowledgement of any contact.
The first petition was made by Craig C. from Middletown, NY, an anonymous individual who apparently does not belong to any known organization and whose name on Google doesn’t provide any significant connection to the ET subject. This petition was posted on September 22 2011, (the very same day the “We the people” was On-line) and it was as follows
“Immediately disclose the government’s knowledge of and communications with extraterrestrial beings”
The second petition was as follows:
“formally acknowledge an extraterrestrial presence engaging the human race – Disclosure”
and it was posted on the WH petition website on the same day of the other by an organization called Paradigm Research Group, which is headquartered in Bethesda, MD.
According to their Facebook page, PRG is a political advocacy organization “seeking an end to a 64-year, government imposed truth embargo regarding an extraterrestrial presence engaging the human race”. Its executive director is Stephen Bassett.
However if you visit PRG website you won’t find any mission statement like the one on their FB page although you will find an extensive documentation about the Rockefeller Initiative and links to other organizations like the Exopolitics World Network.
As of Monday Nov. 7, the first petition has garnered 12,078 signatures, while the second had reached 5,387. The White House has promised to respond to any petition that gains a certain number of signatures within a given time — in this case, the requirement was 5,000 signatures.
More than 17,000 citizens joined the two petitions, and the White House has since amended the requirements for response to a minimum of 25,000 signatories.
However in order to put an end to this story, the White House response was posted on “We the people” and it was composed by a single response valid for both the petitions.
The response was redacted by Phil Larson, a man who supposedly works on Space Policy And Communications at the White House Office of Science & Technology Policy.
Here we only report the most relevant parts of the response
First part: “The U.S. government has no evidence that any life exists outside our planet, or that an extraterrestrial presence has contacted or engaged any member of the human race. In addition, there is no credible information to suggest that any evidence is being hidden from the public’s eye.”
The White House has a long history and tradition of jurisprudence both in constitutional and federal law production, and obviously they’re one of the most skilled government institutions in the world about legal issues and along their history they had the privilege to be advised by the most brilliant legal minds.
Like every issue involving the government, the ET petition’s response lies within the boundaries of the United States Federal Law system and its mechanisms. This means that when you petition such an important government institution which has at its own disposal the world’s top legal advisors, you cannot simply write a question as if you file a Police complaint. That’s why it is at least strange that the two petitioners ignored such a thing before questioning the White House…
We could be more indulgent with Craig C. from Middletown because we don’t know who he is, but Paradigm Research Group has really no excuse or justifications for acting so naïve.
However given the fact we know a little bit what a legal environment works like we are able to explain our readers what the White House response meaning really is about:
The first statement “the U.S. government has no evidence that any life exists outside our planet” means that the White House denies possessing any direct evidence or material proof of any living being presence outside planet earth. This can be explained under a legal point of view with multiple interpretations. For example the statement “the U.S government has no evidence” it can signify that no US government representative has ever entered in contact with anything that can be considered as ”evidence” of “extraterrestrial” life forms. There are five keywords here: 1) U.S. government 2) Evidence 3) life 4)exist 5)outside our planet
The main subject of this statement is the term “U.S. government”. What means the term “U.S. government” under the legal point of view? Is it the White House? A representative of the Executive branch can be defined as the “U.S. government”? when this is legally relevant, while this person is on duty? What about when he/her is off duty? These are crucial questions under a legal point of view because even a single detail can directly influence the legal truth and correctness of the White House response. If you look for the term “U.S. government” on Google, you will be directed to at least other three or four definitions, like 1) Federal Government of the United States (and this is the official legal definition) but the U.S. government is also called the United States, the U.S., the USA, America, and the States).
Paradoxically, the U.S. government could have made an official agreement with an Extraterrestrial being or an ET government or an ET company under any other of these definitions and by doing so they can legally affirm they have no evidence of extraterrestrial beings by adopting another definition for their official statement. According to Steven Greer, the Director of Disclosure Project and the C-SETI, “extraterrestrial” is an improper word as he would affirm we all are one single being in the entire universe, so he would recall the concept of “oneness” regarding the entire Universe population. Take the case that Steven Greer is hired by the White House as special advisor for ET matters, then the White House can officially state they haven’t met any Extraterrestrial even if the President himself was born on another galaxy.
Another example is the definition of government representative. When a government representative officially represent the U.S. government? Only when he/her is on duty or even when he/her is off duty? What about if he/her officially results to be lying in a hospital bed in a state of coma? What about death? When you deal with the government it’s all about the legal interpretation of reality and the “legal” outcome of the interpretation. This means it’s all about a legal definition of the situation and if the law can be interpreted (manipulated) by changing definitions and meaning, the “objective” reality will follow. It does not matter what reality looks like. What really does matter is the legal position we can assume and consequently prove it by stretching (interpreting) meanings and definitions of that specific reality and turn it into a statement that can be legally proved. And stretching reality is the specialty of the Law princes and princesses.
Among the zillions of conspiracy theories about the US government and Extraterrestrials I would pick up one that could better explain what I am trying to explain here. On the website exopolitics.org is reported an article that apparently was published on the Washington Post on Thursday, February 19, 2004. This article was written by the Washington Post Staff Writer Peter Carlson. (Although there’s no trace left of the original article on the Wash Post website). The article’s title is:” The Whole Tooth About the President’s Extraterrestrial Encounter”.
According to this story, on Feb. 20, 1954 President Dwight Eisenhower interrupted his vacation in Palm Springs, California, to make a secret nocturnal trip to a nearby Air Force base to meet two extraterrestrial aliens. This event has never been proved, neither there’s any evidence or testimony that can support the fact that this encounter really took place. Although on the night in question, the Associated Press reported this: “Pres. Eisenhower died tonight of a heart attack in Palm Springs.” but two minutes later, the AP retracted that bulletin and reported that Ike was still alive.
This is the kind of legal tricks I am referring to. If the President is pronounced dead, every possible action or decision that takes place while he’s dead, it cannot and it will never be legally relevant. Consequently anyone from its staff can absolutely swear under oath that nothing took place because the president was legally not in charge during that specific time he entered the Edwards Air Force base because he was officially and consequently legally dead. Actually the paradox is that the law provides that in case the President is pronounced dead the acting President is actually the Vice-President. Does the U.S. President can legally represent the U.S. government when and if he is officially dead? I don’t think so.
You have to consider that the meaning we give to the words we use in our daily language can be completely overturned and they can assume a thousands of different meanings in a legal context. The Federal government for example participates in many space programs and there are thousands of private contractors. If in one of these government-sponsored program it happens that a contractor has a contact with a “non terrestrial” being, this contractor does not legally represent the U.S. government. This means that if such an event takes place, the White House or any other U.S. government office or representative is absolutely and legally allowed to officially state that the U.S. government has no official evidence of non terrestrial life.
According to the Merriam Webster the verb “exist” means “to be present under specified conditions or in a specified place”. I would like to recall again the WH response: The U.S. government has no evidence that any life exists outside our planet, or that an extraterrestrial presence has contacted or engaged any member of the human race. The verb “to exist” is one of the most foggy in the entire universe of human language, as its meaning is still disputed both in the Law and in Philosophy. What does the verb “to exist” really mean? This is the kind of verb I would use to create a situation of legal uncertainty. In a trial court, a lawyer questioning a witness who reports about someone’s else existence, it’s like a legal dispute about the existence of God. However if we talk about a being, intended as any “life form” this would require a certain amount of evidence. In a court case this would require the witness to possess some sort of medical background and some material evidences of this person’s presence on earth or somewhere else and still those evidences can be disputed on a further level. Under the law everything and nothing can happen or exist, even our own existence can be disputed. That’s why if we talk about Extraterrestrial existence, the government or any other institution can affirm the reality and its contrary at the same time without falling into any kind of contradiction.
Presence. The term presence means: 1. The state or fact of being present; current existence or occurrence.
2. Immediate proximity in time or space. The White House response associated the substantive evidence to the adjective extraterrestrial, next to the substantive presence. Now if we scrutinize the definition extraterrestrial presence this means factually something or somebody that is still around, as the term presence requires the physical continuing being in space and time of an objective perceived entity. This definition automatically exclude any “presence” that took place before this very moment that is legally the moment in which the response took place. The little scoop I can make here is that in order to be legally okay the White House legal genius did not put the exact time and date when the response was written or published. (You can check yourself on “we the people”). We can make ourselves an idea from the time the response was published by the news publishers but the White House did not put any time reference for the response. I love the White House! They re the absolute Law Masters!.
Let’s put the hypothesis that a government official watches a video of a living being walking on the mars surface. Can the government official state under oath that he has been witnessing an existing being on the mars surface? Absolutely not, because what you see through the screen of a video cannot be proven to be “real” or “existing” under a legal point of view. Do you want to dispute the meaning of what’s “real” with a Lawyer? Ha! Good Luck! That would be real entertainment!
Let’s go back to the government official who watches the video. If the person who witnessed the event is not a government representative, or let’s say, before he watches the video he signed a document with which he resigns from his office: we can absolutely state that the U.S. government has absolutely no knowledge of anything. This is how it works in the legal environment and this is how I would run the show if I was in the government position of protecting a classified matter.
In the law system, it does not matter what you know or what you did or what the story looks or sound like. It only matters what you can proof in court before a legal authority and under the state and the federal law.
To make the challenge more difficult I invite you to check a publication called “The United States Government manual”. This yearly publication is printed by the U.S government printing office and it is the official handbook of the Federal Government, about definitions, roles, names and acronyms adopted by the United States Government. This Manual provides comprehensive information on the agencies of the legislative, judicial, and executive branches. It also includes information on quasi-official agencies; international organizations in which the United States participates; and boards, commissions, and committees.
The Manual is divided in eight main sections: Frontmatter, Legislative, Judicial, Executive, Other, Quasiofficial, International and Changes. For what it concern our field of interest I invite you to check the Changes section. This part of the Manual regards the History of Agency Organizational Changes and in practice it’s a report about Federal Agencies Terminated, Transferred, or Changed in Name Subsequent to March 4, 1933 and the new edition of this manual is redacted and published every year.
In the 2011 edition there are listed at least a hundreds of agencies that during the current year have been renamed. Under a legal point of view when a federal agency is renamed what it did with the former name before it changed its name is legally non existent. It never happened. Neither the same agency can be called to respond for anything that was made by the agency while under the former name. In order to be safe under the law, you just need to change a name, a letter or even a simple comma.
Among the many organizations calling for disclosure, one of the most distinguished ones is The Disclosure Project, run by a country Doctor: MD Steven Greer. Dr. Greer claims that the ET matter is a very secret matter, more classified than the hydrogen bomb and that the U.S. government protects this matter from public disclosure by Compartmentalization, on a “need to know” basis and by delegating classified projects to private contractors so that the government can deny any direct involvement or knowledge. In particular Dr. Greer affirms that “need-to-know” has nothing to do with military ranking or the position you occupy in the government, it’s all about the confidence you inspire to “those who already know”. If they think you re ok, they invite you to the club.
Well, I don’t think this is completely exact.
The May 14, 2002, edition of USAF Manual 10-206’s Chapter 5 (“Communications Instructions [for] Reporting Vital Intelligence Sightings” [including sightings of Unidentified Flying Objects]) prescribes the following intelligence-gathering process in its paragraph No. 5.7.4.: ” Make every effort to document sightings with as many photographs as possible. Send undeveloped film or prints and negatives, with a brief written report and other identifying information, to the Director of Naval Intelligence, Department of the Navy, Washington, DC 20305.
The Director of Naval Intelligence. This is the man you should address your petitions. Not the White House! Why? Because he’s the only government representative who is legally responsible for such a matter. Why the government chose the Naval Intelligence to protect its most sensitive matters? Because the Naval Intelligence is the oldest, prestigious and mostly the most trusted intelligence unit of the United States Government. So in order to be conclusive, the White House petitioners just wasted their own time by questioning the White House because that’s not the right interlocutor under the U.S. government law and regulations. Although as the Extraterrrestrial matter is classified as top secret material even if you question the ONI director I really doubt you could receive any significant feedback from him. I also suppose he’s a very busy man who certainly has enormous responsibilities and for sure he’s got not time to respond to incompetent petitioners. I wouldn’t respond them either.
However it seems that in the UFO community there’s some less naive folk than those two White House petitioners.
On the Internet you can find a copy of a letter to the Director of Naval Intelligence dated September 7, 2008. This letter was sent by Larry W. Bryant who is the Director, of the Washington, D. C., Office of Citizens Against UFO Secrecy. In this letter, Mr. Bryant requests the Director of the Naval Intelligence to send him all the generated records (photographs, video and similar) pertaining to Communications Instructions Reporting Vital Intelligence Sightings CIRVIS-UFO-related cases under terms of the U. S. Freedom of Information Act.
Eventually Mr. Bryant received an email from Jeana Watson, the Office of Naval Intelligence-Freedom Of Information Act Manager.
“Mr. Bryant, an email search of the ONI FOIA Manager’s email account produced no record of having received your below Freedom of Information Act request in September 2008 Your request has been sent to ONI’s Command Multimedia Department, Conventional Photographic Services and Digital Imaging Services for a search of responsive records. You will be notified of the outcome of that search upon completion” Did you notice the term “conventional”. This might signify that there might be also an “Unconventional Photographic Services” or it might be called “Non-conventional”, I hope you start to understand what the legal system really works like.
After a certain amount of time Mr. Bryant finally received a final response about his FOIA enquiry:
“Mr. Bryant, This is a final response to your below Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request assigned ONI case #08-006. As I informed you in my below email your request was sent to ONI’s Command Multimedia Department where a search for responsive photographs were conducted in our Conventional Photographic Services Department and our Digital Imaging Services Department. I have been advised by both Departments that ONI has not received any Communications Instructions Reporting Vital Intelligence Sightings (CIRVIS) or film for processing under a CIRVIS report. If you consider this to be a denial of your request or that ONI did not conduct a proper search for records, you have a right to appeal this determination. To exercise this right, refer to the above case number and provide your appeal justification to the Judge Advocate General Department of the Navy”
In the legal system the line between what’s real and unreal what’s objective and subjective, what does exist and what doesn’t is the thinnest ever and it’s this thinness that grants powers to stay in power.
Richard Weisberg is the leader of a movement called “Law and literature”, a literary movement about legal writing and interpretation. I had the privilege to work with Prof. Weisberg in developing my JD final thesis. Prof. Weisberg authored a book called Poethics, which explains how the Vichy regime in France was able to rule racist laws against the Jews by simply changing commas to the law texts.
Next time UFO enthusiasts want to petition the U.S. government, they better hire a top Constitutional Lawyer well versed in legal interpretation and federal court practice, otherwise they would just waste their time. In the end these two White House incompetent petitioners involved more than 17,000 citizens who innocently joined the initiative being absolutely certain to support competent petitioners. Indeed those two petitioners were absolutely incompetent because questioned the wrong institution, in the wrong way interpreting the petition using the wrong legal language, terms and words. From the way they acted you can almost say those two petitioners play for the opposite team….
Using the right language in a legal system is crucial in order to gain efficiency and results. I apologize for the petitioners incompetence, next time before joining a petition, make sure the petitioner has a strong legal background and he’s very talented in legal interpretation.