Similar Stories Of Killings- Canada Genocide- American Killings–Boarding School

When I was taken away by the Federal government in 1970 to the Boarding School in Montana, (I think the idea was that I would never see the place.) there was no expectation of my arrival.

I never showed up. No one asked about me. I wound up walking around half dead. I made it from Tulsa to Stringtown, that’s about 140 miles. I stopped in Stringtown and then came back to Tulsa. Stringtown is just north of McAllister.

Basically, I was missing and no one cared. The school or the Feds never bothered to look for me. I was eleven.

That is to say; that, the way they got rid of us here in the states was different than in Canada. I think that once the kid came up missing, they were replaced by the other kid who assumed their identity.

Unrepentant: Kevin Annett and Canada?s Genocide (Documentary)

If you showed up later they still tried to kill you. The documentary about the genocide in Canada is close to the same things. The one thing I knew about the church hate involvement was that they did abuse children here, like in Canada, and you were not allowed to know where you were from or who you were, but the killings were done mostly outside of the facilities. Usually in a domestic setting.

In my case, none of the churches wanted me to go to church. If you did, they would run you down, anyway.

I was often accused for  committing crimes against them. But no crimes committed against me were ever called crimes.

Not unlike Nazi Germany, I guess. In some respects anyway.

The most people I ever knew that were killed was in Hosston, LA. in 1975. They murdered around 200 there in an area just south of Hosston. I don’t suppose there were a lot of Native people killed there. They were mostly white, as far as I could tell. Some may have been part Native or Mexican. I escaped. The authorities have never told the truth about what happened there. It’s the place where Jimmy Hoffa died.

When and where Hoffa died.
Possible victims in 1975 Hosston. Pictures taken by Rodney Alcala. He did not act alone.

Rodney Alcalla took some pictures of people there before they were killed. He took my picture, too.me hosston1975


After Thought From pt.1-2 Of Part One (How To Get To Heaven)

(I know you came here. I know who you are.

And I know that you think you get by with it.)

This means that the Israeli’s had the technological

ability to travel through space and come to this planet.

What they didn’t tell me is why.

The Sanctuary was closed. It has to be reopened during judgement day.

In the new beginning.

(How To Get To Heaven)


Political Favors For Exemptions From O_Care Is Unconstitutional

  Political favors to exempt organizations from (O_care).

  Is unconstitutional.

 How did it become the authority of Senators to exempt themselves  or their office workers from the Affordable Health Care laws that    are mandated to other Americans?

____      ____     ____     ___     ____     ____     ____    ____

 How long will it be before the Democrats make abortion mandatory  to lower income mothers, who are single or live in certain places,  demographically speaking?

______      ______       ______     ______      ______      ______     If the Patient Protections and Affordable Health Care Act (O_Care) is an emulation of the Chinese system from the past, which it is, then, isn’t government mandated abortions a part of the objective of the plan?

  I think it is and they knew it all along.

*Obamacare is as Communist as Shanghai, China on Stalin’s birthday.







Conspiracy Against Penn State By Freeh And Kelly (Most fascinating indeed.)

1. Information was obtained concerning the 2001 incident.

2. 2001 information was falsified and called evidence by Freeh investigators.

3. Allegations were made against Penn State. Charges by Kelly were based on information that came from Freeh that was false.

4.  Testimonies were coached. The person claiming to be the victim of the 2001 incident had to be coached. (Was coached.)

5. The incident concerning the janitor in the year 2000 was planned, in order to deceive the janitor. The testimony of the janitor was gathered. The prosecution knew the janitors testimony was false. They also knew the other witnesses were coached. They attempted to coach McQueary. To some degree they did.

6. The plan was to fabricate false witness and to fabricate false evidence to accuse Penn State of covering up information on sexual abuse cases at the school.

7. The conspiracy began before the Freeh investigation but Freeh investigators had to have been able to validate the actual incident where they got the 2001 information from. Which would have proved Sandusky was not involved. (This proves, that there is no doubt, that Freeh and Kelly conspired, together.)

8.  The conspiracy began with falsely accusing Sandusky at the Alamo bowl. The child involved was coached.

*Freeh and Kelly were co-conspirators.

Sources-  Don Robbins (Eye witness to the actual 2001 shower room incident.) – Research-

If the 2001 evidence was falsified by the Freeh investigators, during or before the Grand jury investigation, then we know the allegations against Penn State covering up information about Jerry Sandusky, were planned.

Then we know that the 2000 incident, where the janitor saw the (fake) Sandusky acting in the shower room with the actor, was also planned; (then we know that they planned it all.) And that means: CONSPIRACY.

If you didn’t know about the 2000 incident; where the janitor claimed he was frightened about the possibility of losing his job, if he reported what he thought he saw in the shower room; He was told it was  Sandusky licking the crotch area of what appeared to be a ten or eleven year old boy. (That was actually a planned act to deceive the janitor ).

Earlier; the janitor was told that the man he saw in another building, was Sandusky. But it wasn’t. (They knew it wasn’t.) Those people were conspirators with Kelly and Freeh. They were associated with Freeh. I would imagine that they had something to do with obtaining the 2001 information. The question is; where the 2001 information came from in the first place? I say it came from the logbook Paterno kept in the other office and it was probably in his house when they got the information from it.



   They got into Sandusky’s house. They got into Paterno’s house. They got into Paterno’s office. They got into Schultz’s office.  We know that because they admitted they knew that information from 2001 was in Schultz’ office. They had to find the 2001 information on the shower room incident to know what happened. They found the 2001 information on the page from 2001 in Paterno’s logbook. It was most likely in his house. The home had security. Sandusky’s house also had security. That’s like saying someone or someone’s let people into the houses and the offices. Who could that someone be?

*Where is the security station/post in the building where the shower room incident happened in 2002? (2001)


The Shower Room 2001 PSU (Keys To The Case)

There was one incident that involved the shower room in 2001 at Penn State.

Most or all of the information concerning that incident was contained in the office log of Joe Paterno, or on a separate typewritten brief on the incident.

The incident was in the daytime. It had nothing to do with reports of people in the shower. Sounds were heard and reported. Nothing was found to cause further suspicion. The matter was noted and forgotten. (Joe Paterno made a note of the incident in the office log, That morning.) At 9:30. *The mob would say, “How does he know that about the office log entry?” There was no other shower room incident in 2001. The information concerning sounds being heard from the shower room in 2001 did not apply to the other shower room incident where McQueary said that he saw Sandusky. The Sandusky incident happened and was reported to Paterno by McQueary the next morning around 9:30 in 2002. Claiming that information concerning the 2001 shower room incident was about Sandusky, and accusing the defendants of failing to report suspected child abuse, led to criminal prosecutions. Where investigators obtained the 2001 information was not revealed. Why the information was not checked by prosecutors or the defense is now the question. Was the information from 2001 obtained from an illegal source? I say that it was. The illegal source would be Joe Paterno’s office log. Journal. Daily log. Whatever you want to call it. The information from 2001 wasn’t available any place else. And someone took the information. Like an animal taking the bait from a trap. Except the trap didn’t spring. It’s not a matter of who originally obtained the information, and how, so much as it is a matter of who it was in the Grand Jury that obtained the information from them. Illegally. And knowing later that the information did not pertain to Sandusky. And that the incidents from 2001 and 2002 were completely different. But calling for charges to be pressed anyway. And also using the tainted and falsified information as evidence in court. And accusing Penn State officials of covering the information that they knew had nothing to do with what they charged Sandusky with. Information that was never told to them by McQueary in the first place. *And also, to answer the mob question about how I knew that the information about the shower room incident in 2001 was written in Joe Paterno’s office log, it is because I was there when he wrote it into the log, that morning. I also knew that Mr. Sandusky was often times faced with parents and children who made certain claims. Or spread rumors about certain things. Over a period of more than a decade. None of the claims or rumors were ever found to be true. None of his accusers in court had any proof of ever filing a complaint to police or contacting any other person about what they claimed he did. Including the fist claimant who was not accepted as a credible witness. Found to be not telling the truth about 2001. Considering the fact that there was no incident or complaint or any evidence to prove any suggestions to that effect. Not to police. Authorities. Church . Parents. Grand parents. Friends. Siblings. Neighbors. The same was true in the testimony of the other claimants. There is a want for monetary settlement by the claimants. The truth is that Jerry sandusky was convicted on rumor, insinuations, false evidence, false testimony, and specifically hearsay. And nothing more. Some of the hearsay testimony that was recorded and shared with the public is completely preposterous. Hearing details of incidents that allegedly took place in open and public places….. well let’s just say I doubt that anything like that happened in the swimming pool.

After thoughts about the trial:

I studied and researched the Sandusky history and case. After my memory came back, somewhat, not totally… I’m trying to say that at first the trial didn’t mean anything to me until I remembered the 2001 incident. That’s where this started, because I knew about the 2001 incident and that Paterno put info about the 2001 incident in his journal. I knew they were using the 2001 info to suggest that Penn State was covering the 2001 information up. But I knew the 2001 information was only in Paterno’s logbook. And I knew that it didn’t have anything to do with Sandusky, because I was there in 2001.

 I remembered , later, about the man who looked like Sandusky. He commented on it to me. I know that his grandson was a wild acting little boy. I didn’t know why. The time frame fits. I think McQueary saw that man and his grandson in the shower room, not Sandusky.

   I knew that if nobody said anything about the swimming pool incident for all those years, there’s no way the coaches at Penn State could have known about it. Listening to , or, reading the testimony about 2001 being dismissed and the testimony about the swimming pool being so absurd as to not being believable, I had a conclusion about doubts. Knowing that the person came and claimed 2001 as real, I knew that it wasn’t. Sandusky was not charged with 2001. The prosecutors tried to say that 2001 meant 2002. Or that McQueary was wrong and 2002 was actually 2001. It wasn’t. The prosecutors charged officials anyway with covering the 2001 information, claiming that 2001 was about Sandusky when they knew by then that it wasn’t.

Tree-Blue Rose- Mist impressionistic abstract by Don Robbins (pastel)
Tree-Blue Rose- Mist impressionistic abstract by Don Robbins (pastel)




Sandusky- Why He’s Not Guilty-Penn State case “False Evidence”

  The justice system in Pennsylvania is what the system is (not) supposed to be like.


Where did the 2001 evidence came from in the investigation? 

I say it came from the Federal investigators  having someone mine evidence from Coach Paterno’s house, while he was out.

And that the evidence was known by investigators, to be (not) associated with Sandusky. They knew the information from 2001 had nothing to do with Sandusky.

The 2001 information was given to the prosecution and charges were filed on the basis of the 2001 information.

The prosecutors had to know that the 2001 information was not legally obtained.

The judge did not require that the information be validated as admissible in court or in ordering warrants.

The defense did not question the source of the information, nor did they check to see if the information was falsified, or tainted. In reality the 2001 information was both tainted and falsified in the most corrupt and illegal way.

There had to be a major conspiracy between the investigators, the prosecutors, and the judge. The defense has no excuse for not checking the evidence.

The 2001 information was allowed in court as evidence. The statement that the prosecution made about McQueary in court, concerning his hearing sounds coming from the shower room before he entered the shower room and saw Sandusky, was made from the 2001 evidence. McQueary later testified and said that he never made any such statement. The information on the sounds heard coming from the shower room was from the 2001 incident. In reality, the 2001 incident was a completely separate incident than the 2002( McQueary sees Sandusky) incident.

The investigators convinced the Grand Jury that the 2001 incident information was actually about Sandusky, but it wasn’t. And they knew it wasn’t.

Let’s look at it this way: First– The 2001 shower room incident information was only obtainable by taking it from the private logbook (journal) of Joe (Coach) Paterno. The 2001 incident was otherwise unknown to anyone and forgotten about. There was no other information on the matter. Written. Not officially or otherwise. There was no record of the 2001 incident.

So, let’s say someone broke into the Paterno’s house and took a few of the Coach’s office log books. Some of the entries were written about a shower room incident in 2001.

The entry said 9:30. Shower room. Heard sounds of some type of assault in shower room. Witnesses called police. Administration informed by coaches who heard sounds and checked shower room. Shower room empty. Source of sounds unknown. Sounds reported to be of a possible sexual assault. Witnesses talk to police and Coach Paterno.

Paterno makes note of the incident in his logbook. The time is about 9:30 in the morning. After initial inquiries by the security, police, and administration, nothing more happens, Nothing is found. The matter is dropped. There is no official records kept of the incident. The record of the incident is in Paterno’s logbook.

Years pass, someone sees the entry that is studying the logbook. They give the info or logbook to the investigators, possibly anonymously and for money. The investigators assume that the info is, at first glance, about Sandusky. Later, they track the information to the incident and find out that the 2001 information doesn’t have to do with Sandusky after all, but they use it to press charges and accuse officials at Penn State of covering up the very information that they know doesn’t apply to the Sandusky accusations.

Prosecution begins. The judge does not question the validity of the 2001 information that is used as evidence.

In court, the 2001 information was used to suggest wrongdoing on the part of Sandusky and Penn State officials. Even though the 2001 incident was not something that Sandusky was charged with, the damage was done, Claimants came out of the woodwork with outlandish stories and accusations. There was never any actual evidence or true testimony or records of complaints against Sandusky. The jury found Sandusky guilty, not on what he was originally charged with, but on other counts of  fondling and one claim of oral sex in a swimming pool on campus with fifteen witnesses and four instructors. None of which said anything about the supposed incident until the trial. No teachers were told, no parents, no police reports, no evidence of any other person being told about the oral sex in an open building, accessible to the parking lot and doors to the main building with maintenance personnel present in the area at the time. Now come on! That is impossible! All of those people and no one ever said anything to anybody?

Listen, If no one was told anything about anything, including police, parents, teachers, social workers, priests, preachers, brothers and sisters, or school administration, then how was it that the coaches under Paterno and Paterno would know if no one else did? Sandusky was not a coach under the office or authority of the athletic department at Penn State. He was not working with or for Paterno during this time. So what are they talking about?

The absurdity of the prosecution against Jerry Sandusky and the claims against Penn State are now beginning to be understood by the people involved. And the people of Pennsylvania deserve better than the circus act in the state justice system. The fastest way to bring the corruption and injustice concerning the persecution of Jerry Sandusky and Penn State officials to court, is to bring the matter of the 2001 information up for inspection by the authorities that investigate corruption in the courts and legal system. I suppose some federal laws were violated by the prosecution and investigators. Maybe they could start there.

I’ve said from the beginning that Penn State was not guilty and that Sandusky was convicted on hearsay. The information from 2001 was tainted evidence and falsified to warrant charges. The rest is up to investigators to determine. I did what I could for justice and Jerry Sandusky. I knew Penn State did nothing wrong. I was there in the locker room the morning  of the incident  in 2001. Tegans asked me to go up there before he died in the crash. www.BillTeegins.com I did. That’s the reason I was there.http://www.newseum.org/scripts/Journalist/Detail.asp?PhotoID=1531

The reason I talked to Paterno was because of the incident and because Teegins asked me to give a message to the coaches at Penn State, while I was in the area, to just drop by. So I did.

The message was Pink Underwear.


From now on, the incident in 2001 at Penn State University concerning the shower room incident, will be called the pink underwear incident. The incident in 2002 concerning Sandusky will be called the Sandusky 2002 incident.

I didn’t have any connection with Penn State, but, there was a reason I was there in 2001. The reason had to do with a man named Bill Teegins.Bill Teegins.

Teegins knew I was going to be in the Penn State area in 2001. He asked me to do something for him while I was there. What he asked me to do was ask to see the coach at Penn State and tell him I had something to tell the coaches.

After the incident was over concerning the shower room, I had the chance to talk to Paterno. He called some men into his office to hear what I had to say that was so important. All I said was “pink underwear,” No One understood what I was talking about. Some of the men thought it was funny. Thought I was crazy. One of the men asked where I was from. I told him Oklahoma, and that I came up there to Penn State to tell them what I said. They couldn’t figure out what it was about. I asked them if any of them knew Bill Teegins. They thought for a while and then all at the same time they started laughing. The laughter went on for quite a while. Whatever it meant to them, it must have been very funny.

After that, I talked to Paterno. I told him it might be a good idea to put a note in his records about us hearing the sounds from the shower. He did. There was no other information on the subject for all those years. No One had any reason to record any details about the incident. Only Mr. Paterno recorded details about the incident.

Ultimately, someone got a hold of that information from Mr. Paterno’s personal journal. Apparently those people shared the information with the Grand Jury in the investigation against Sandusky. The notes in the journal were about people hearing sounds of a sexual nature coming from the shower room, that day, about eight thirty in the morning. Those sounds and notes had nothing to do with the Sandusky incident. The Grand Jury just said it was information that related to the Sandusky incident in 2002, not 2001. The Grand Jury said that the Sandusky incident in 2002 was actually in 2001. They made that determination after some investigations. Apparently they were mistaken.

That information made it sound like McQueary heard sexual assault sounds coming from the shower room and walked in on a naked Sandusky with a child. But that isn’t what happened. McQueary testified that he never said he heard any sounds like that before he walked into the shower room that night, when he saw Sandusky.

Everyone had forgotten about the incident that day when I told them about the pink underwear. I remembered because of it. I remembered being in the locker room and hearing the sounds with other people, and telling Paterno what we heard. Nothing came of it and the incident was forgotten.

I also remembered telling Paterno, later, that it might be a good idea to make a note of the incident. He did.

The thing about that is that there wasn’t any information about that incident except for what Paterno had in the journal. It looks like someone got that information out of his journal and decided that it had to do with the Sandusky incident. But I don’t think they got the information from Paterno. (Penn Gate.)

It made it look like there was information that should have brought suspicion against Sandusky, that was ignored by officials at Penn State.The same information may have been used to help convict Sandusky of something he didn’t do. Information that concerned a forgotten incident, that had nothing to do with a cover up or Sandusky.

This is true. “The pink underwear incident.”

* I do not remember if Teegins died in the plane crash before the pink underwear incident. It was close to the same time. Feb. 2001.