Monday, September 13, 2010



It has been nearly nine months since Lori and I were almost killed by the Underwear Bomber, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab. For the first few months, Lori and I were very vocal over the media blackout and corresponding cover up to the real story of the Christmas Day events. If anyone is not familiar with our experience, our story can be read here in this blog. For the past few months, we have chosen to sit back and watch as the trial, or lack thereof, plays out in the courthouse we regularly practice in. While the media blackout to the true events continues, the failed attack on our credibility has been replaced with deafening silence as to our eyewitness account. To us, this matter has never been about seeking vengeance against the Underwear Bomber. When taking our eyewitness account and adding it to the small amount of honest facts that have come out, one can only recognize the Underwear Bomber as a mere patsy. It is quite shocking that, thus far, the Underwear Bomber hasn't been forever silenced as other patsies that have come before him. What has led me to write this update is the following article:

It seems as though the Underwear Bomber has now decided to fire his attorneys and represent himself. I am actually not too surprised by this event. Being an attorney myself, I can see his attorneys trying to stuff a settlement down his throat while he argues in opposition that he was set up. Further, I must consider the following in realizing why this happened:

My nephew recently started law school. In August he had an orientation with a guest speaker. That speaker just happened to be none other than the Underwear Bomber prosecutor, Barbara McQuade. During such orientation, Attorney McQuade indicated that she has a case in which certain information can only be given to the judge and not released elsewhere due to "National Security". Since Attorney McQuade was only appointed as a federal prosecutor in the summer of 2009, it is not too difficult to determine what case she is referring to. I am sure that this information could only lead to further frustration on the part of the Underwear Bomber and continued conflict with his attorneys.

When I read the Free Press article today, the attorney in myself came out and I had to ask how I would like to see the defense of this case handled.

It seems to me, that now that the Underwear Bomber is representing himself, or possibly using new attorneys, that the use of an entrapment defense is not out of the question. The use of such a defense could be one of the greatest moments in the history of the United States of America. Only through a defense such as this, could the full involvement of the U.S. Government be fully discovered and divulged. Please consider the following:

1. The Underwear Bomber was escorted through security without a passport by the Sharp Dressed Man who by all accounts, appears to be a government agent.
2. Congressional hearings have confirmed that the Underwear Bomber was likely let on flight 253 intentionally.
3. The bomb failed to detonate, and by many accounts, was designed so that it would not detonate.
4. The entire terrorist attack was filmed from before it started until after it ended.
5. The bomb was obtained in Yemen where the CIA has been known to have agents interacting with Al Qaeda.

Once you accept the above, it is not so far fetched to believe that the U.S. Government planted a defective bomb on the Underwear Bomber to:

1. Renew the Patriot Act
2. Get body scanners in the airports
3. Further the U.S. involvement in strategically located Yemen
4. Further the fraudulent war on terror
5. Provide further profit to the military industrial complex

Only through an entrapment defense that is fully litigated in open court could the American citizens get what they deserve, an open honest investigation into the Christmas Day events of 2009. Such a trial could possibly wake up the millions of American citizens that fail to even consider that its government is corrupt, dishonest, and working for those who only seek to consolidate their power and wealth.

I am not holding my breath that a trial with an entrapment defense will occur. Nor could I (under the rules of the State bar), or would I, want to be involved in the representation of a man that almost killed me. I encourage my fellow members of the bar to consider representing the Underwear Bomber pro bono and using such a defense to help not only your potential client, but also your fellow American citizens. It is not the prosecution of the Underwear bomber that will help fight the fraudulent war on terror. It is the prosecution of the U.S. Government officials responsible for the Underwear Bomber attack that will put an end to the U.S.S.A. (United Socialist States of America) and restore the U.S.A.


Candice said...

I certainly would like to know what happened that day!!

River2Sea said...

"Nor could I (under the rules of the State bar), or would I, want to be involved in the representation of a man that almost killed me."

Hi Kurt, I just checked this blog after reading about the latest news of the Christmas Bomber case and found your informative article.

Someone I greatly admire is an attorney named William F. Pepper. Perhaps you have heard of him. He wrote a book entitled Act of State: The Execution of Martin Luther King. He was a friend of King before he was assassinated, and some time after the event went to do an interview of the killer, James Earl Ray.

This encounter profoundly changed him, and he came out convinced that Ray was innocent. Martin Luther King's very own family concurred with this view, and they, represented by attorney Pepper, went to Court to defend the man who had allegedly assassinated their loved one.

Just things to ponder.

Mike Philbin said...

thanks for the update - it's so easy for the MSM to 'forget' these cases, no?


River2Sea said...


I can imagine this would make it all over the news: "Lawyer who was almost killed by Christmas Bomber takes up his Defense."

If you have the possibility of meeting this young fellow, why not take it?

If not to answer some of the questions you are asking yourself?

If not for just your peace of mind?



Jon said...

I thought it was far fetched that they intentionally trying to blow it up the plane. I knew there was something about that camera man. The bomb was indeed not meant to go off to make it look like there's an attack. I still call that terrorism. Scaring America that there's an attack, I call that terrorism. Obama better investigate this and not be like Nixon

Jon said...

Also, how do we know that the Time Square bomber was using a dud bomb too? That's a mindblowing coincidence two succesful bombing attacks in a row and both just happened to be duds.

Possum said...

So many oddities about this whole thing (aside from the commonly stated ones). Why in his underwear? If he was going to kill himself for "jihad" or whatever, why the extra self-inflicted pain? Why not go to the bathroom and ignite the bomb there? Also, why did he wait until he was in American airspace? That flight usually passes through British, Danish and Canadian airspace. Again, if you are going to kill yourself ... why wait?

Anonymous said...

Understand false flag terrorism with this most important video:

Dean Jackson said...

Hi Kurt,

interesting that you say "United Socialist States of America". In point of fact the phony 'War on Terror' is a cover for the war the West is still fighting with the USSR (the 'collapse' of the USSR in 1991 is a part of the Communist Bloc's 'Long-Term Deception Strategy', which was adopted by all Communist nations in 1960).

Keep up the good fight! Whether they be Soviet or American, I detest people who play chess with the lives of innocent civilians, as in the 3,000 Americans who were killed on 9/11 because the American government thought it a good counter strategic move against the USSR.

brian said...

Thanks for the info on this blatant case of false flag, which should be sent around the internet.
And yes its been used to role out Chertoffs retirement funding bodyscanners by clueless officials and endorsed by media personalities.
The idea that its to keep us safe is laughable, when frequent fliers can expect a nice cumulative dose of radiation...that even doctors dont advise.
FYI the following site led me to your blog, and is keeping tabs on the bodyscanner farce

Peter Duveen said...


I've been following this issue since your first blogs about it. Most people are not even aware of your experience, because it is blacked out by the mainstream media. They don't have a clue. Attorney Scott Fenstermaker, who for a short time represented Ghailani, another fake purported terrorist who a jury ultimately acquitted on all but one of 250 plus charges, believed that the defense of terrorist suspects was rigged to favor the government.

Anonymous said...

Entrapment? Not exactly. Yes, the intelligence services routinely use double-agents to facilitate counter-terrorism operations. Operatives and targets are routinely allowed to travel, even though they are under surveillance. It's just how these ops are run.

Sometimes, things go terribly wrong. 9/11 was such a worst-case disaster. The "underwear bomber" case had a happier ending. For a more in-depth explanation, please, see,,-MoneyGunmen

Robert Clark said...

Good Sir,
You are obviously a thinking individual. For that I am thankful.
While I have worked in a law office, I am not an attorney. That at times has been my mantra, and I have tread a very thin line in showing and telling people how to defend themselves against what has the appearance of a kangaroo court SYSTEM.
I do not mean to offend an officer of the court, and I stated my opinion at the start. And as he did have intent, with yourself as an intended victim, only you can decide the level of appropriateness for your involvement. That doesn't necessarily mean representation.
Good day to you.

Anonymous said...

I had heard some eye witness accounts (people that were on that flight), so it is good to hear an update. Your article is a good read and I will definately be sharing it with others. This seems like it might be a promising opportunity to expose some of the corruption that so many US citizens won't even entertain as a possibility. But like you said I too will not be holding my breath for justice to prevail. All we can do is share this and try to enlighten others while we wait for the outcome.

Thanks for sharing.

Unknown said...

It is all so simple. An obviously drugged up or mind beaten patsy shows up with a well dressed Indian man as you witnessed.
We have Rapiscan the people who make the infernal scanning machines, owned and operated by Indians! Who just happen to have Comrade Chertoff as their lobbyist.
The 'security' company at the departure point of your trip home is run by an Israeli security company called ICTS! Same company involved in 911,7/7, Madrid, Richard Reid etc.! Nice huh?
Chertoff is a dual Israeli citizen whose mother was a co founder of Mossad!
Israel is behind 911 along with their neocon (dual israeli citizens) 'syanims' and of course the traitorous Bush/Cheney crime syndicate.
History proves all, once one is motivated to connect the dots a whole other story emerges.
By the way the cameraman you witnessed is a Mossad operative you can be sure of that. Keeping a record of the operation for perfecting future false flag events. This coincides with the 5 Dancing Israelis arrested in Weehawken NJ on the day of 911

Anonymous said...

In addition to the obvious signs of this poor fool being a patsy for a false-flag operation (no ticket, no passport, no luggage, and being escorted through security and onto the plane by a sharp-dressed man - and the whole thing was filmed!), there is the small matter of the type of explosive used by the Underwear Bomber, which was pentaerythirtol tetranitrate, more commonly known as either PETN or plastic explosives.

PETN, according to Wikipedia, "is more difficult to detonate than primary explosives, so dropping or igniting it will typically not cause an explosion . . . it is difficult to ignite and burns relatively slowly." (Another increase-airport-security false-flag patsy was the Shoe Bomber, who just happened to be trying to ignite the same explosive, PETN, with a match.)

And isn't Umar the son of one of the richest men in Africa? It seems a bit strange that his daddy hasn't hired the best defense attorney in the country, no?

I hate knowing this: Even if some noble and brave soul stepped up to really defend Umar, it would be to no avail. Umar is the chosen patsy; he will pay the price. Plus, anyone competently defending Umar can kiss his or her law career good bye.

Umar knows better than any of us that you do not challenge the elites behind these false flag operations, even if they're family.

cosh said...

Don't forget the newly arrested Christmas Tree Lighting bomber. The Federales recruited a teenage kid over a six month period and provided him with a dud bomb. A sophisticated form of child abuse.
Another entrapment. Set up by the Feds so they could get another bust and trumpet how they are keeping us safe from 'terrarists'...
I seem to remember a case involving a group of people somewhere in the US (LA?)who were promised Fifty Thousand dollars if they would do a bombing. When arrested and tried, they said that were doing it only for the money. They are serving long sentences.
It is long since time for these frame-ups to be stopped...
Is there an attorney out there willing to mount an entrapment defense for one or more of these unfortunate 'patsies'? It would require great intestinal fortitude and an ability to, shall we say, 'stay in the hottest part of the kitchen'...
It would be an act in the finest tradition of American Jurisprudence, comparable,in my view, to Darrow's Monkey Trial defense.

mike said...

maybe i'm just spliting hairs here...but isn't the statement "the man who almost killed me" a stretch since even you admit that the device was a dud?

Lori Anne Haskell said...

This is Kurt Haskell:

Mike, to answer your question, we almost died from the fire alone. The plane was on fire above the gas tank and spreading until a flight attendant put it out. Therefore, my statement is not a stretch.