The David Knight Show - INTERVIEW USA Will Send Assange Here…

Episode Date: February 21, 2024

The USA has said they will not put Assange in a SuperMax prison or SAMS but there's another kind of prison they've created for dissidents — special units within a couple of prisons designed to keep political dissidents from communicating to the outside world. Marty Gottesfeld, MartyG.substack.com, spent years in one of these CMU (Communication Management Unit). He tells us what life was like there and who are some of the prisoners still there.Find out more about the show and where you can watch it at TheDavidKnightShow.comIf you would like to support the show and our family please consider subscribing monthly here: SubscribeStar https://www.subscribestar.com/the-david-knight-showOr you can send a donation throughMail: David Knight POB 994 Kodak, TN 37764Zelle: @[e-mail] App at: $davidknightshowBTC to: bc1qkuec29hkuye4xse9unh7nptvu3y9qmv24vanh7Money is only what YOU hold: Go to DavidKnight.gold for great deals on physical gold/silverFor 10% off Gerald Celente's prescient Trends Journal, go to TrendsJournal.com and enter the code KNIGHTBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-david-knight-show--2653468/support.

all right joining us now is marty gottesfeld and uh marty's got a lot of different social media accounts i just asked him where he is he said he's trying to migrate everything to substack martyg.substack.com where you can find his writing uh but um marty and we've had marty on i actually had his wife, Dana, uh, for many years while Marty was in a communications management unit. This is where they put political prisoners in the U S right now is where you will see Julian Assange heading. And so we want to talk to him about what life is like there.

Uh, it is very, very difficult. It is there to manage and to shut off any communication to the outside world. And so that's what they've designed this thing for. And that's why they put dissidents and political prisoners there. We do have political prisoners, a lot of them, in the United States. So joining us now is Marty Gottesfeld. Thank you for joining us, Marty. Thank you for having me, David.

Tell us a little bit about, just give us an overview of the CMU. We can get to your case in particular, and why you were there. And of course, it was a great injustice. And I've talked many times today about it. And we'll talk about that and things that are still happening with your court case. But you're out now. But tell us what the communication management unit is like. So it's a small, self-contained prison unit.

Guys in the CMU do not get to go out to like the prison yard. They do not get to go out to the other places inside the prison that the average federal prisoner, you know, gets to go. They keep it self-contained in a very small area so that they can cramp down communications, make sure that like you can't pass another prisoner a note or have another prisoner call somebody on your behalf, right? They keep even the laundry within the unit. The rest of the prison complex sends their laundry out, right? Like a central laundry place, but they're worried that, you know, it's just an

example. Prisoners will pass notes to the guys working in the laundry and then be able to get communications out that way. So they actually keep even the laundry right inside the unit and like when you buy a commissary right uh for the most part it's prisoners who pack the commissary bags but not for CMU prisoners only staff can pack a commissary bag for CMU prisoner which you know sometimes makes it harder to even get your commissary if it's like a busy week right like they might not have the staff to to actually pack the bags for the the cmu guys um it's when i got there april 1st 2019 to the cmu in terre haute indiana and there are two run by the bureau of prisons which is a federal agency of the justice department right so the one is in terre haute ind. That's the original facility.

It was opened around 2006 during the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The wars provided the financial justification for the unit. The idea was that they would lock up like al-Qaeda guys, you know, jihadi guys there, and they would monitor their communications and they would mine those communications for Intel to use in the war efforts. A few years later they opened up a second communications management unit at the United States Penitentiary in Marion, Illinois. I spent about a year in that unit as well so I've been to both CMUs. They justified the second unit as they didn't have enough room

in the first one, and after they'd been running the first one for a while, they had guys who had keep separate orders, like they can't put this guy with that guy, or they'll attack each other on site, so they needed some place that they could resolve those kinds of problems. The second

unit basically doubled the CMU budget. The max capacity of either unit at any given time is about 50, 60 guys. When I first got there, they were running in about half that capacity. At any given time, there's probably a little fewer than half are, you know, it's hard to even call them real terrorism cases, but they're at least cases that have some nexus to something cognizable as terrorism. They tend not to be the really high profile cases, though. The really high profile cases, they go to the supermax in the federal system in Florence, Colorado. So it's important to understand that.

These are not the only places where they can hold actual terrorists, right? Like El Chapo will never see a CMU. He went from MCC New York, the high security lockup in Manhattan, straight to the supermax in Colorado. So this is not where there's no justification to keep these units running for prisoners like that. This is where they put a 20- know, a 20 year old kid who gets indoctrinated on the internet, or gets entrapped by the Justice Department, or both, who gets caught on like a plane to Syria or on like a cruise ship to Syria to try to fight on

the other side of a geopolitical dispute, you know, in which the United States takes an interest, right? Those tend to be the so called terrorism cases there. The Bureau of Prisons gets millions and millions of dollars, tens of millions of dollars to run these units. They take prison guards with no intelligence training with, you know, who would not be able to cut the mustard at State Department or CIA as intelligence analysts. And they label them intelligence analysts, they give them six-figure salaries, and then their job essentially becomes to give people like me and Julian a hard time. Yeah, yeah. Well, it's interesting.

You said El Chapo, will you not find him there? I guess, would they send the Sackler family there for their opioid stuff? No, they're not going to go to any prison, right? Yeah, but those types of people, if they were in prison, right, it's a very real possibility. You know, I think I'm not trying to, you know, be hyperbolic, but, you know, if the feds were to lock up Trump, for instance, right, if any of these cases against Trump result in a prison term, you know, even a prison term pending appeal. I'm not saying, you know, that he wouldn't have appellate grounds or whatever, but if he does do any time in the federal system,

a CMU is a likely place that Trump would go as well. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Keep, keep him from communicating with the outside. They take away his, uh,

his cell phone tweet with, uh, they're worried about his followers. They're worried about his supporters, right? He can make life very difficult on a CO if he were to say, I have a problem with this particular CO, Mr. Smith. The Bureau of Prisons would take very unkindly to that,

and he'd likely find himself in a CMU. And so, like so many other things, like the Patriot Act itself, we see something that is set up to to house people that are violent terrorists and instead this thing then turns against in many cases people who are dissidents people who are opposing their narrative people are political opponents there's shaffer cox for example is in one of these uh he's not a terrorist. He's not a threat of violence to anybody else, but they want to make sure that they cut off his communications because he has influence,

and he can influence people against the government narrative that they want to maintain. So Schaefer Cox, was he there? Not to mention a lot of his case was concocted. Yeah. He and I, we were a few doors down from each other. His case, it's almost laughable. I mean, and it would be laughable if they hadn't hemmed him up for so long on it. You know, the appellate court largely satirized his case when they reversed it and took away most of his sentence. And that was the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals. You know, it's a very liberal court that did not, you know, found the government's theory in that case, you know, kind of at the periphery of what a jury

could reasonably convict under. When we talk about Trump and lawfare and things like that, I mean, this has been going on for a very long time to other people like Schaefer Cox, but they have the ability to completely shut him down because he doesn't have a big following. He doesn't have a billion dollars or several billion dollars. And so what they've done to him is horrific. And they put him into one of these communication management units that are there. Now, this is, as you were pointing out, you're not going to drive to Terre Haute, Indiana,

and you're going to see a sign out there that says Communications Management Unit. It's a small part of the prison that is there and a small part of the one that is in Illinois as well, right? So this is a subset of that. Yeah, and so the Terre Haute CMU is actually the old federal death row. They built the new federal death row elsewhere in the compound, and then they used the old death row as the CMU. So I've been inside Timothy McNay's cell. And then they leave out some of the placarding from when it was the death row. And it's kind of like an ominous warning, like,

keep doing stuff we don't like, and we're going to move you down. We'll find a way to concoct something and move you down the road. Like, there's a lot of subtle coercion, right? You mentioned before that coercion is a form of force and, you know, they have to try to maintain the appearance that, you know, there's a real public interest in running these units. And that's why, in my opinion, you do have the 30 to 45% kind of like terrorism material support cases that

are there. Those are the excuse, right? And prisoners like myself, like Julian Assange, those are the excuse right and prisoners like myself like like Julian Assange we are the real reason um and so when you're there like if you're if you're me right when you're on the phone with a journalist they just hang up the phone take your phone away if your wife points you to the press which which Dana did with me uh you know they throw you in solitary um I have all the paperwork uh to prove this i've spoken recently uh in a few places about what mr assange can expect to face in the cmu and i think i was the federal prisoner with a course of conduct most similar to mr assange's because i was published right very few guys in prison in prison do right and julian also he does publish right um they hate prisoner

lawsuits out of the cmu so they retaliate against any kind of litigation to uphold your first amendment rights you know first they kind of they they squelch the first amendment rights and then if you try to go to court they retaliate against you further right and i think that's something that um mr assange unfortunately can expect when I was preparing to file a lawsuit, they said that my attempted lawsuit was extortion, and they threw me in solitary. Even though courts all around the country have ruled that, you know, to try to say that litigation is extortion is frivolous, is patently frivolous. It doesn't matter because no one has prepared in the Bureau of Prisons or in the local U.S. District Courts to be fair to you once you're placed in a CMU. Unfortunately, in this country, most of our federal judges are former DOJ prosecutors, right? And they get spun that, you know, these are terrorists, this is the terrorism unit. So you're dead on arrival in court, you know, even before you get there, the courts

aren't going to want to hear it. I'm out now. now before i was out i had a federal habeas uh pending in the u.s district court for the southern district of indiana it was fully briefed it's been fully briefed now since july and the court has not ruled on it right and i had pro bono counsel help me with with that case it's a very well prepared case and what they did you know and under the rules and the statutes in the federal courts, federal habeas is supposed to jump to the front of the line. It's supposed to be the very first thing on which a court rules because it affects somebody's liberty. And liberty interest is one of the highest interests, if not the highest interest you can have in the law in this country. But if you're filing a habeas from a CMU, the court just doesn't rule on it until you're already out.

And then they can say it's moot, you're already out, but they avoid having any ruling, or they avoid having a majority of rulings that could go against the CMU on First Amendment grounds or on due process grounds. So this is something that you filed while you were still a prisoner there, is that correct? That's correct. And they still have not heard it, and as you expect, they're going to delay this and then say it's a moot issue? Yeah, I mean, that's a moot issue. Yeah. I mean, that's part of the course, unfortunately, but at the same time,

you have a federal statute. We actually put it on the docket to the judge and asked him to rule. He said, look, no, look under the rules, this was supposed to be the very first thing that court, uh,

here's that we put that on the docket. And, you know, a few months ago and then still. So let's, you know, and I want to get to your case and let you tell what happened with your case. And because you were there under these conditions, and Dana was working very hard to get information out about this and to get the information about the way they abused your case, how you're a political prisoner. But do you think you mentioned the Supermax prisons? Do you think that they're going to send Julian Assange to the Supermax or to the CMU?

And what is the difference between the two in terms of prisoner population? Well, I think they'll send him to the CMU. The Justice Department has already made what I believe was an unqualified assurance to London that they would not, under any circumstances, send Assange to the supermax, right? They've kind of said that they won't initially put him under what are called special administrative measures or SAMs, which is kind of like the highest classification of communication restrictions a federal prisoner can be under,

but you don't need to be under SAMs to be at the CMU. Like I was never under sam's but it's a distinction largely without a difference right like it doesn't doesn't you don't need to be under sam's the problem for them with sam's is it would cause a diplomatic uproar and the attorney general the u.s attorney general would actually personally have to sign off on it right so there is some accountability there where he could later be questioning as to why he signed off on this communication restriction whether it was constitutional you know all that to put you in the cmu they only need to sign off from the uh associate director of the bureau of prisons it's nowhere near as high level and official and those

associate directors are like toilet paper they get changed often pretty much for the same reasons so you know it's it's way more likely that he will end up in a CMU. And they claim that the CMUs are general population units, that there's nothing atypical or significant about the hardships in the CMU. They've made these claims to the U.S. courts. The U.S. courts have largely credited those claims. The reality is, of course, though, it's not a general population. Theoretically, I was supposed to get two 15- minute phone calls each week while i was in the cmu i was supposed to be allowed to call the media

um you know and i didn't even get those but in you know compared to that right the average federal prisoner depending on uh his you know his or her exact circumstances and this is in flux now with some of the prison reform stuff going on but they get 300 to 500 telephone minutes per month, right? And CMU prisoners get at most 30 a week. And a lot of the times they don't even get that for various reasons. They can just lock the unit down without providing a reason and give no one their phone calls. And that goes on for days on end.

If you miss your calls through no fault of your own, like if there's a technical issue with the equipment, which has happened, you just don't get your call. There's no make-up call. You have no in-person contact visits in the CMU, whereas in the rest of federal prison, you have contact visits. So Dana was unable to hug me for four years and then after nbc dropped the four-part docu-series on my case and justina pelletier the bureau of prison simply deleted dana from my contact information would not allow me to re-add her never served me any paperwork to say that you know i did anything wrong or dana did anything wrong uh and i was not able to speak to dana for the last seven or eight

months wow um that i was going to see a news and then when I was speaking with John Kiriakou who is the CIA whistleblower who exposed the Bush torture program I was discussing a different case that we get into that affects operation fast and furious and the efforts to investigate operation fast and furious so I was talking with John they didn't They clearly didn't like that. They heard Fast and Furious. They cut off my call with him. Would not let me call him again.

I have a nephew who is an attorney. So he was kind of my last resort. I thought, okay, well, they really shouldn't mess with calls to a licensed attorney. My nephew was trying to help me with my case, trying to help me find counsel in the area. The calls were of legal nature. I was discussing the restrictions and when they had been applied and the facts upon which there are reasonable inferences of retaliation. A very similar set

of circumstances to what, unfortunately, Mr. Assange can expect to experience himself. And they just cut off my calls to my nephew with what we call him anymore. So for my last several months in the CMUs, I couldn't call anybody. They just cut off my calls to my nephew and let me call him. So for my last several months in the CMUs, I couldn't call anybody. They just deactivated my phone account. They never said that I broke a rule. They never gave me any kind of hearing of any kind. And that's part of the course

when you do things that upset them. But Dana quoted me to a reporter at RT, and RT ran an article with my quotes. And they took my phone away for nine months and added 27 days to my sentence for being quoted by media. Right. And these are just, these are just some examples, right?

And this is unfortunately what he's going to run into. And he's not the type to go quiet. Yes. I got it. It was off. And I get that. But unfortunately that means he's going to run into this retaliation over and over and over again. So they can make the pledge that he's not going to be put in a Supermax.

They can say that he's not going to get the special administrative things that Sam did. And yet, you know, well, they don't say it. They're not going to put him in a CMU. What's that? No, they've not said they're not going to put him in a CMU. Yeah, that's right. Nobody knows about the cmu really it's the that is not out there and so uh it's like oh okay well i guess we got all the bases covered no they're not talking about the

cmu they're keeping that kind of quiet and uh that's likely to be what he's going to get there and so um it is a very just to give you an example david right when I was in the CMU, the SAMS guys got their phone calls, but I did not, even though I was never on SAMS. During this period where they cut Dana and they just wouldn't let me speak on the phone at all, deactivated my phone account because I was talking about Fast and Furious, the guys on SAMS were all getting their phone. I was not. They actually treated me harsher than the guys who were on sims but they're arguably i think a lot of those cases are bogus too but where there's arguably some national security basis right where the u.s attorney general himself signed off and said this prison represents national security threat those guys were getting their calls and i was not getting

one and the most amazing thing about it is in in your case, this was not, it wasn't an allegation of violence or national security threat or any of that kind of stuff. What it was was a case of medical kidnapping that you worked to expose against Harvard's Children's Hospital. And because they're so heavily connected with government, they use the government to punish you for that, which is truly amazing. And I want to get to that as well. But you mentioned, and I want to talk about this Fast and Furious thing and what John Kiriakou was talking to you about. What is going on with the Fast and Furious? What is this information and how did you come by it? So there's a prisoner in the Terre Haute CMU right now named Donald Reynolds Jr.

And his case, he didn't realize that at first. So he's a firearms collector, or he was when he was out. He was a firearms collector. He had several historically significant pieces. He had a Browning from World War II. The government approached him, and they asked him to be an informant. And they had no leverage over him. He was not a criminal.

It wasn't like they had him on something small or trying to turn him or anything like that so he refused right so the feds show up they raid his house they raid his parents house they find nothing no drugs all the firearms are legally licensed he's got his class three stamps right he's uh got his local permit he's in compliance with state law federal law everything um but they concoct this drug case, this drug trafficking case against him, even though they've found no drugs. They've never found any drugs. And they use that to kind of silence him. As the years go by, they give him life plus 75. Wow. In this case, it's the first time nonviolent offender with no drugs found. They give him life plus 75.

In comparison, El Chapo got life plus 15. right so they actually gave donnie a harsher sentence than el chapo uh as the years go by donnie starts putting stuff together the names and dates in his case right and uh he went to trial he forced them to go to trial like any innocent man would or you would assume any in this event yeah and he starts to realize that all the names and the dates overlap with fast and furious. And it took years for the information to come out, right? And so then I write about his case from inside the CMU, which was difficult to do, but I got it done. And the American Conservatives did a months-long investigation.

They published a feature under the headline, The Knoxville Kingpin Who Wasn't. They go over all of Donnie's case. they go over all the names and the dates they conclude in the end that this case is you know certainly adjacent to fast and furious the names and the dates everything lines up and they recommend clemency for donnie because of the prosecutorial irregularities and they found several witnesses i'm sure this doesn't surprise many in your audience, but it would surprise the average member of the public. They found several instances where federal prosecutors filed affidavits saying this, this person told us X, or a federal agent says this source claimed X.

They then compared the trial testimony of these witnesses who sang a very different tune at trial, right? So either the prosecutor was lying or the source was never credible in the first place and that's kind of the story of donnie's case and he's been fighting to try to get out fighting to try to expose this and they threw in a cmu and they retaliate against him viciously right and my theory on it is you know the u.s house of representatives during the obama administration issued a subpoena to the white house for records on Operation Fast and Furious.

Obama asserted executive privilege to quash that subpoena and never got the records from the White House about Fast and Furious. Fast and Furious, for those who don't know, the Justice Department allowed high power armor penetrating firearms and ammunition to go to walk from the United States to the Mexican drug cartels, the Mexican drug cartels that use those firearms to massacre people, Mexican nationals, and also actually a gun Walker program began under Bush. And yeah. And then it became a receiver. Yeah. It became fast and furious under Obama.

So it really is, you know, the ATF through both of these administrations, as we see over and over again, you know, whether it's a Republican or Democrat that is an office, these same types of things are happening. And, uh, and it was really to carry the water for the UN arms Trade Treaty, which they wanted to make a case that you had small piece of firearms or ammunition or whatever identified and recorded in the United States. That was their end goal. That was the UN gun control move, the UN Arms Trade Treaty. And that's what this was all set up to support. And I think even the New York Times, after this all blew up and they had these federal agents get killed, I think even the New York times after this all blew up and they had these federal agents get killed. I think even the New York times said that this was a false flag.

Everybody understood it was a false flag. Okay. Yeah. Yeah. So Donnie, right. He puts this all together and he's trying to get out. He's trying to get back into court.

The Obama administration had the subpoenas quashed under executive privilege right which a president can claim uh whatever the u.s attorney general briefs him on a matter it's analogous roughly to regular attorney client privilege except between the president and the attorney general right the problem for donnie and the justice department rises because donnie's defense was entitled under the Fifth Amendment and under Brady v. Maryland. That's the discovery case where the government's got to turn

over all of its evidence to your defense counsel, including evidence that speaks to your innocence, evidence that is not favorable to the prosecution. The prosecution doesn't just get to bury that, they have to turn it over to the defense. So this information was never turned over to Donnie's defense. Nothing about Fast and Furious was turned over to Donnie's defense. This is an appellation, right? If it's proven that they

withheld this information, Donnie's conviction gets reversed. He gets to come back into court. And as long as his liberty is on the line, they cannot use executive privilege to quash Brady. Because the liberty interest trumps the executive privilege interest. The congressional legislative interest does not trump executive privilege. But Donnie's liberty interest does. And so if he ever gets back into court, they're either going to have to drop the case, or the truth about Fast and Furious is going to come out. And so he, like myself, and I fear Julian Assange, right, this is a great example of the type of case that's in the CMU that there's no purpose to protect the public,

there's no public safety interest, there's no compelling interest to protect prison authorities, Donnie has never been violent, he's not accused of violence um and you know but they'll use the cmu in his case and in julian's case and in my case in shaffer cox's case and there's another gentleman there named kurt johnson uh kurt's a great guy he interceded to stop a murder in the cfu after they had already been one murder there was going to be a second and mr johnson stepped in and stopped it he was suing big banks on behalf of homeowners in 2008 before the financial crisis saying that the loans were credits for an adult yeah right yeah he gets sentenced you know a few months before the crisis uh you know everything

hits the fan right and if his case had been a few months later maybe it would work out very differently um right but that's another guy who's there in the CMU. Again, it would be very embarrassing for the system. Who went to jail in the 2008 financial crisis? The whistleblower. That's right. Only the whistleblower went to prison. These are the types of cases that are in the CMUs.

Wow. And of course, John Kiriakou, the whistleblower about the CIA torture. Did they not have the CMUs at that point in time? I know, where did they put him when he was in jail? So he has written, I'm not allowed to have any direct communication with Mr. Kiriakou since I'm still on supervised release, right? So I have to preface with that, right?

But I do recall that while I was on my way to the CMU, Mr. Kiriakou wrote about my case, and he said that he had been placed in a modified CMU at FCI Loretta Pena. And I have not heard that there was a modified CMU there. No one else that I know of has heard about that. But given that he was CIA, it's certainly very it's certainly possible if not you know likely that they did something very special with him even by cmu standards oh yeah yeah they probably yeah they probably did their own get his own individualized uh cmu just for him that's that's probably exactly what happened well uh let's talk a little bit about your case um because i i think it's interesting to to see the links that they will go to,

to put somebody in and to severely restrict their communications to punish you. As you pointed out, if somebody does an article about you, you have a communication you were trying to, you were able to kind of in some of your legal proceedings, you were able to get some information out that way to your wife, but they pretty much kept everything. excuse me, about to sneeze there. They pretty much kept everything under control.

And tell us a little bit about why you got there, because it truly is, your case is truly astounding. You are not a threat to anyone other than a very highly politically connected and very powerful, wealthy organization. And so we could see this type of thing happening, for example, if somebody were to expose and be a whistleblower about Pfizer or something like that, right? Because these people are very highly, it doesn't even have to be a health issue. It could be any kind of a whistleblower who's exposing information about a politically connected organization or corporation. So tell us a little bit about the background of your case. So there was a, at the time she was 14 years old, a girl named Justina Pelletier. She has mitochondrial disease, which is a congenital genetic condition

that's degenerative, progressive, and sadly often fatal. It's the same condition that baby Charlie Gard had, or actually the same type of condition that baby Charlie Gard had in the UK, and there was a more recent instance of another child in the UK who had this condition, and

they effectively just pulled the plug on them. They would not allow the parents to seek experimental therapies to try to help these kids. Justina has a slightly more survivable form of it. Mitochondrial disease is like an umbrella term for a bunch of different genetic disorders, so no two cases are really the same. Her gastroenterologist had moved from Tufts University Medical Center

to Harvard's Boston Children's Hospital, and Justina caught the flu. The flu causes severe complications for mitochondrial disease patients because mito is a metabolic disorder. Your cells in your body have a hard time converting food into chemical energy to run the body systems so then when the patient gets the flu and has nausea and has a hard time eating right you're compounding this metabolic problem because you know the food that was getting in already had a hard time being converted to energy now you're stopping the food from getting in in the first place right so her primary mito doctor a renowned guy named Dr. Porson at Tufts, refers Justina to see her gastroenterologist who, you know, the month before was working at Tufts. And this would have been no problem.

She would have gone right into Tufts and seen him. But he had moved to Boston Children's Hospital, I think it was, to pursue a grant. So he refers her to Boston Children's Hospital to see her gastroenterologist. This is a doctor who had been with her for years. This gastroenterologist had actually operated on her to put in a psychostomy to help her use the bathroom. But she gets to Boston Children's Hospital via ambulance like three o'clock in the morning on a Sunday during a blizzard. The gastroenterologist is not there. She gets seen by a young neurologist a few months out of his medical training. He doesn't believe that Justina has mitochondrial disease.

He refers the parents for medical child abuse, basically Munchausen syndrome by proxy, where his theory effectively seemed to be that Justina's parents were seeking attention and making her sick just to kind of bring attention onto themselves. It ignored the diagnosis. It ignored the fact that Justina's older sister also had Mito and was successfully treated for Mito. And again, this is a genetic condition, so it tends to run in families. It tends to be passed down the maternal line. So he either didn't know or ignore those facts um sent justina for a form of psychological therapy for what they call um somatophone disorder or like psychosomatic disorder where like you think you're sick and your brain then kind of makes you sick or your symptoms fit your own perception of your illness right um they took justina off all her mito uh treatments right and

that was when her parents you know really expressed severe alarm because again this is a degenerative and often fatal illness you take her off of her treatments there's going to be severe repercussions and we've seen that there in fact were you know she was walking she could at least feel her legs when she walked into boston children's hospital she was having some trouble ambulating because of the flu and the lack of energy but you know she certainly she was ice skating six weeks earlier yeah i remember seeing the pictures of her in skates yeah now she's crippled now she can't walk right and it's because they took her in my view because they took her off of these mitotherapies and we don't know if she'll ever walk again unfortunately so at the height of

this case right the government alleges that i launched the largest distributed service attack a ddos attack that uh they had ever seen that i basically sent too much let me interject here for let me interject here for a second because this went on for quite some time and she's degenerating throughout all of this a clear case of's what I feel over here. A clear case of medical kidnapping. And there's been other allegations of medical kidnapping by other people over and over again from this particular institution. And so this has gone on for quite some time before the allegations came out. Go ahead. They had a word for it at Boston Children's Hospital.

They called it a peridectomy. Like appendectomy is removal of the appendix. A hysterectomy is removal of the uterus. Like a peridectomy. Like appendectomy is removal of the appendix. A hysterectomy is removal of the uterus. Yeah. Right. Like a peridectomy, removal of the parents. Right. That's what these doctors called it that came out of the Boston Globe.

Wow. And at one point, Boston Children's Hospital is monitoring or between Boston Children's Hospital and the state. They're monitoring Justina's communications. They're clamping down on Justina's communications. It was almost like she was in her own little cmu inside boston children's hospital yeah she couldn't discuss her care or treatment with her parents and they would terminate the call or terminate the visit they limited the parents to one 20-minute phone call a week and i think one in-person visit uh for like 40 minutes or an hour or something like that again control the

the topics of conversation to prevent anything from getting out they would not allow the parents to photograph justina so they couldn't document right and show the public that she was deteriorating right they couldn't show the public what she looked like now versus what she looked like before right so at the kind of behind this uh justina's parents published a handwritten note by justina where she talked about the kinds of things that the people had done right and it was they hurt me all the time they don't let me sleep very much please hurry right and so like that note comes out like the day before uh the government alleges i launched this this huge distributed denial of service and basically the charges against me

amount to sending too much internet traffic at somebody's network, right? That's, that's what we're, no, that's what we're talking about. They never claimed that I, uh, any patient information that I ever penetrated the system broke into anything. That's right. You know, did anything. What I did was I took down their donation portal. That's right. That was the allegation. Yeah. Taking down their donation thing.

Not that anybody was harmed by this, but just taking down their donation thing during a fundraiser event. Well, they, they, they, they, they alleged that people were harmed or could have been harmed, but the jury wouldn't convict on it. When all the facts, when all the facts were aired in court, they did not obtain a conviction. Uh, they tried and under the federal law, the bar is so low for them. All they had to prove was that i potentially not even actually but potentially impacted the medical diagnosis treatment or care

of one individual and they couldn't meet that bar they failed to meet that bar in federal court with a pro-government judge yeah right literally everything going for them and they would not allow me to plead defense of another like if i'm in a dark and i see someone being attacked you know with a knife or with a gun right and i shoot the assailant right and then they charge me with murder right in the united states you're supposed to be able to plead defense of another right it's just like the self-defense if someone were to attack you and you were to take action to defend your own life if someone were to attack your wife and you took action to defend your your wife's life when someone were to attack your child you're going to take action to defend your child's life right so they just wouldn't let me argue they

took it away they took it out of the jury's purview they told the jury instead that my good motive was no excuse uh for the crimes charged. Wow. Right. And then we find out that the federal judge who sits on my case is a clerk, shareholder, director of a for-profit family seafood business called Slade, Burton & Co. Inc. That Slade, Burton & Co. Inc. donates to Boston Children's Hospital. That Boston Children's Hospital publicly thanks Slade, Burton & Co.-Inc. On the very same website, the government alleges I brought them. We find out that the Harvard hospitals that were all allegedly affected by the DDoS do

industry research for Slade, Gordon, and Co-Inc. And an industry trade group called the Seafood Nutrition Partnership to market the company's products to the public as heart healthy. We find out that the judge was a board member and a member of the corporation of an organization called New England Home for Little Wanderers, that his brother was also a board member of this organization, and that this organization, since 2003, is partnered with Boston Children's Hospital to divert juvenile psychiatric inpatients to outpatient stay, which is what they were trying to do with Justina as soon as she became hot potato, right? And then we find out that one of my jurors in this case, from a jury that was

supposedly drawn randomly, was an accountant for the Home for Little Wanderers. And she steps forward on the first day of trial and says, hey, I was an accountant for the home for little wanders and she steps forward on the first day of trial and says hey i was an accountant for the name of the home for little wanders i'm worried this might cause a mistrust and we move to dismiss this juror and the judge refuses and the judge never disclosed yeah and he never discloses that that he was a board member at the name of home for the warners then they find out that the first witness in the case the government's first witness was a contractor with an agency that actually did the i.t work for the new england home for little waters and the judge never discloses this and never uh never recuses from the case right and the number of connections i mean this is just scratching the surface in my

case and i have all the documents to prove it and you mentioned that there's a new filing in my case. And I have all the documents to prove it. And you mentioned that there's a new filing in my case. I've moved to vacate the conviction. You get one chance after your appeals are done, you get one further chance under federal law to attack the conviction. And I've moved to do that. And the filing is pending in the U.S. District Court in Boston right now. But unfortunately, it's pending before the very same district judge, the same person with all these conflicts of interest gets to decide whether the conviction should be overturned.

Wow. And when we look at Julian Assange, I didn't get into this earlier in the program, but the judge, well, there's two judges that are presiding over this thing. One of these two judges has a very, very long history with British Intelligence, the ministry of defense. He has even been involved in enhanced interrogation cases and things like that. Just like, yeah. And so, I mean, he's got a very, very long history with the very people who are coming after Julian Assange, just like this judge in your case. And Assange will be tried in the Eastern district of Virginia over here in the

United States. That's the jurisdiction where they indicted him. That's known as the intelligence court, right? To people like John Kiriakou, Edward Snowden, Julian Assange, right? That's where they bring all these intelligence cases. And basically, your jury pool is Alexandria, Virginia. Your jury pool is, you know, pulling from these very same federal agencies. And the U.S. judges, unfortunately, they don't disclose largely. The Wall Street Journal a couple of years ago published a front page expose. They found that 131 U.S. federal judges had sat over 650, presided over 650 cases in which the judge owned an equity interest in one of the parties. So that's like microsoft sues amazon the judge owns stock in microsoft and the judge does not disclose right and does not recuse himself right and to put that into perspective because the well street journal i don't know why they didn't they never did the u.s doesn't have that many federal judges 131 federal judges is about one-sixth it's about one-sixth of the federal judges so with a very uh you know i mean less than comprehensive i mean it was there was good

work that wall street journal did i'm not trying to impugn it but their search was just like surface line right and with a comprehensive and that they went over every judge's disclosures but they didn't look too deeply into each particular judge's situation. They found that one in six U.S. judges broke the law when it comes to recusal. Now imagine what a deeper analysis would do, and imagine Julian's judges in the Eastern District of Virginia, who likely have serious ties to these contractors, likely own equity in stock, right, in companies

like Northrop Grumman, right, and the other defense contractors, right, the people who sold the tanks, right, the people who sell the weapons, you know, to the military, and, you know, Julian arguably cost them a lot of business, because he made it a lot harder to continue to prosecute the force in Iraq and Afghanistan.

They lost a lot of money. Yeah. Because of his reporting. Yeah. Well, it truly is amazing. And of course, you're talking about a surface looking at conflict of interest. They wouldn't have probably discovered the kind of connections that you discovered with this judge if they just did a surface analysis. Exactly. It was a couple of different levels deeper than just the surface.

Yeah, that's exactly my point. And, you know, they discourage attorneys from looking into these issues. And most attorneys, like my attorneys, would not file to recuse my district judge. They feared him so much. They feared retaliation from him. At least that's the only logical explanation that I was ever able to conjure was that they fear this guy so much that they will not brief the issue. And so I was left to to conjure was that they fear this guy so much they will not brief the issue and so I was I was about to do it per se and then you know if you if you brief something like this unrepresented they uh you know they they try to uh act like you're some

crackpot right like the lawyer who has himself for a client is a fool right but like at the same time like they make sure that none of the court-appointed attorneys are ever going to brief this they make it very unlikely that even a private retained attorney uh would ever brief this and then you try to brief it yourself even if you have all the documents all the evidence right they say you're you're something because you represent yourself well you really are a fighter and it is truly um i'm sorry for what happened to you but how long were you and you went into the uh super, supermax in, uh, 2019. So you were there a little bit less than five years.

How long were you in that? Uh, not the supermax, the CMU. Yeah. How long were you incarcerated for? Sure. So I was in the CMU one way or another from April 1st, 2019 to June 9th of 2023. So we're moving four years. I was split between the two facilities.

I did time in both. I've seen both. There are some meaningful differences, but nothing really that would affect Julian or nothing that would affect his extradition case. The bottom line is they're going to put in one of these units. They're going to do so for unconstitutional reasons.

They're going to violate his constitutional rights. There's really no reason that britain should extradite him and there is no representation from the u.s government that is credible right in terms of preserving his rights and if we're just real here he's only being prosecuted because he told the truth that's right people found that embarrassing and went against, you know, powered moneyed interests. And there used to be a time, I feel, in this country, where that wouldn't be an issue. They wouldn't be able to go after you like this. And with Assange in particular, right, they agonized over the witness case

because, you know, their verification's off. The Obama administration, they called it the New York Times problem. Like, how are they going to justify prosecuting assange but not prosecuting the new york times and the thing is now they're just very selective federal laws are written in such a such a way that they can they can pick on anybody that's right right it's like well i'm starting to see what we're starting to see is in the uk they said well if you're an accredited organization you know you get a different standard so we have a a dual standard for so-called non-accredited, non-establishment media than there is for other people and for anybody who is exercising their free speech. And as Ed Snowden

pointed out, he said what he's being accused of are crimes against a state. And the extradition treaty between the US and the UK specifically excludes somebody from being extradited for crimes against the state. Most extradition treaties have carve-outs for political offenses or that kind of thing. That's something that you expect to see in an extradition treaty. Yeah, and yet what we have now is all of the Western governments are rapidly moving towards criminalizing dissent, and that is what's so concerning about this. They're moving against the press, the independent press.

They're moving against individuals exercising their free speech. But it is all about criminalizing dissent and criminalizing information. It's not enough for them to ban people. It's not enough for them to financially deprogram people. They have to now move to criminal penalties. We see this happening throughout Europe. There's the movement towards this in the U.S. as well. It's a very foreboding harbinger of what is on its way

when they can do this to Julian Assange. And you point out the New York Times problem. Going back to the New York Times and The Washington Post and Pentagon Papers. They didn't come after the press people. It's one of the reasons why they're alleging that he had incentivized somebody to get these these these papers. And that's so tenuous what they're coming after for. It's pretty transparent that this is political persecution. Yeah, I mean, what journalist would not encourage a source to come forward and

how how how explicit does that encouragement have to become before it's a problem you know under the conspiracy laws the united states even a tacit agreement they call it an unspoken tacit agreement is enough to find a conspiracy so under this theory really any journalist who runs a secure drop box right couldbox could be said to be tacitly encouraging people to violate the classification that espionage is. It's a very slippery slope. I agree wholeheartedly with your comment about the way dissent is being criminalized. I think it really, on the other side of it right it shows that for the most part

these government narratives are so weak so flawed that they know they cannot stand the scrutiny yeah right when you feel truly confident about your perspective about what you're doing your actions right you don't mind the scrutiny i've never it never bothers me to get a tough interview question about justina about like what if this had done, like, whatever. I'll answer those questions. I don't mind being in the hot seat and answering a difficult question because I truly believe in what I did. I think it passes muster. But when you know your argument is weak, that's when you can't have people question it.

That's right. And we've seen this with the so-called science behind climate change, the so-called science behind the pandemic and everything. Oh, you can't see my data. I'm not gonna you dare not question me about this and so immediately when somebody shuts this thing down and they don't want to show you their data if they're talking about science or they want to shut down uh anything that is about dissent and claim national security of some sort uh we know exactly what is happening with it. And as you point out, they're very fearful about this. They understand how weak they are in this, but it is also something that makes them a lot more dangerous because they're going to start lashing out in new ways against people

in terms of punishments and even imprisonment for this. And it is really sad to see how every aspect of the first amendment is actually being just trashed and shredded with these actions. Yeah. And if they succeed in expediting the songs, right. The message really is that they can get any whistleblower anywhere. Yes.

This is, this is a test case, right? Like if they succeed in getting him right, that means that they can get you in the uk and all the commonwealth nations they can get you anywhere in asia they can get anywhere where they have influence anywhere where they're able to hold aid or cooperation or any of these kind of uh unilateral bilateral diplomatic arrangements right and the us does we buy influence all over

the world you know all that aid we give we don't do it out of the goodness of our hearts and then you know we do that to buy influence and you know at the same time you have a foreign corrupt practices act like i can't fly a customs agent you know if i go on vacation to the bahamas and i'm going to get some some liquor or something i'm not supposed to bring in if i slip the guy at 20 right i've committed a felony i'd violate the four practices but if the u.s government gives some country a billion dollars worth of aid say to fire a prosecutor looking into some unsung

that's perfectly legal that's perfectly legal so I'm going to prison he does it with a billion dollars I pay taxes I'm going to prison he does it with a billion dollars and don't you dare ask which I paid taxes. Yeah. I'm going to prison. That's right. He does it with a billion dollars bond money.

Don't you dare ask. Oh, yeah. Yeah, it's amazing the double standards and just the corruption, the corruption, the ruthlessness as we turn more and more authoritarian. In terms of what is happening with your case now, you got this action that is pending there. Is that what I know that Kiriakou served his time and was released. He wanted to get a pardon because if you got a criminal record that limits you during certain things, certain activities. In his particular case, it was keeping him from getting his pension. And, of course, the interesting story that he had about Rudy Giuliani wanting a couple million dollars to do that for him with Donald Trump.

But apart from that, I mean, is that in play with the filings that you have there? Is that part of it? So clemency comes later or usually comes later. It can be granted at any time but one of the arguments they try to use against you um when you when you go for a pardon right is that you have to exhaust everything at the courts right they don't they're not trying to preempt the courts generally right the president has the prerogative to do whatever he wants but the kind of accepted practice going back many decades is first you exhaust everything in the courts you give the courts the opportunity uh to do what's right right so i'm still kind of at that stage. And but if this fails, then yes, the next thing, next thing up would be would be a partner. I feel I'm a good candidate for that, especially given what happened to Justina, what Boston Children's Hospital has been seen doing after Justina. They really have kind of committed themselves

as a partisan political organ. That comes with benefits to the institution, but it also has other ramifications, right? Which means that, you know, my case might be viewed in a partisan light because of the partisanship of the other actor. So, yeah, I mean, my effort or my focus, first and foremost, has to be the litigation, at least for now,

and then we'll see what happens after that. Well, I certainly wish you the best with that. And, again, I appreciate your tireless efforts to help other people in the CMU that are unjustly convicted, that are political prisoners, to expose this kind of incarceration that is directed towards political prisoners, enemies of the state for whatever reason. And we've seen this net continue to get wider and wider, going after parents who speak out at a school board meeting, for example. It is absolutely insane to see the way they are extending these borders of people that they allege to be threats to them, extremists, terrorists, and all the rest of this stuff.

They have no other way to support their policies. They have nothing else. That's right. Yeah, they are desperate. And so people can find you again at Substack, martyg.substack.com and of course while you were still incarcerated your wife Dana ran a lot of social media platforms on Facebook and other places that were under free martyg

and those are still available as well people can find you also on Twitter at martygottesfeld g-o-t-t-e-s-f-e-l-d but again martyg.substack.com is really probably the best place for people to find you,

isn't it? Cause it's good. Thank you so much, Marty. Thank you for the work that you do. It is very important. People need to understand what is happening with us. The David Knight Show is a critical thinking super spreader. If you've been exposed to logic by listening to The David Knight Show,

please do your part and try not to spread it. Financial support or simply telling others about the show causes this dangerous information to spread farther. People have to trust me. I mean, trust the science. Wear your mask. Take your vaccine. Don't ask questions. Using free speech to free minds.

It's the David Knight Show.