OCT. 24, 2012 VANCOUVER, BC - Vancouver 9/11 Conference co-organizer James Fetzer and Canadian Author Greg Felton, both former witnesses before 9/11 War Crimes Tribunal, threaten Judge Alfred Lambremont Webre, JD, MEd of the Tribunal with D.C. Bar complaint in a letter of October 24, 2012 to conference speakers and others.
The 9/11 War Crimes Tribunal is a citizen's Tribunal of Conscience, and not a juridical Tribunal in any formal Province or other legal jurisdiction. Judge Alfred Lambremont Webre is a citizen Judge on the Tribunal. Judges on a citizen's Tribunal of Conscience do not have to be lawyers, attorneys, or members of the bar, as a Tribunal of Conscience is a community political entity and not a formal juridical Tribunal or Court of law.
Alfred Lambremont Webre is a member (Inactive Status) of the District of Columbia Bar (Washington, DC), not the British Columbia Bar. Judge Webre, an author and Futurist and a resident of Vancouver, BC, does not and has not ever engaged in the practice of law in British Columbia. It is not necessary to be a member of any Bar to be a Judge on a Citizen's Tribunal of Conscience. Lord Bertrand Russell was Founder of the Russell Tribunal against the Vietnam War and was not a lawyer, but a concerned citizen, philosopher and mathematician. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell_Tribunal
Judge Webre is a Judge on two citizen's Tribunals of Conscience:
A. The Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Tribunal - http://exopolitics.blogs.com/breaking_news/2011/11/bush-blair-found-guilty-of-war-crimes-in-malaysia-tribunal-judgment-of-the-court-pdf.html
B. The 9/11 War Crimes Tribunal
Issue in dispute: Affidavits of 9/11 Tribunal witnesses Andrew D. Basiago and Leuren Moret
The issue in dispute is whether Judge Webre violated a verbal or written "agreement" to exclude the affidavits of Leuren Moret and Andrew D. Basiago, two witnesses which the Tribunal deem are necessary to (1) provide probably cause of key Accused in the false flag operation of 9/11; (2) provide the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court (ICC) over the issue of 9/11, as the affidavit of Leuren Moret provides probable cause for UK and Canadian citizens as key 9/11 Accused. The ICC does not have jurisdiction over 9/11 Accused who are U.S. or Israeli citizens. All of the 9/11 Accused provided by written submissions of James Fetzer's speakers listed U.S. or Israeli citizens, none of subject to the jurisdiction of the ICC.
As set out in the following articles, Judge Webre did not and could not have verbally or in written form agreed to this precondition. Judge Webre initially approached James Fetzer in a February 17, 2012 requesting that Andrew D. Basiago be considered as a speaker at the Vancouver 9/11 conference in June 15-17, 2012. To enter into an agreement such as James Fetzer alleges would have been a violation of the independence of the 9/11 War Crimes Tribunal and an unethical act by Judge Webre. At no time was Judge Webre presented with a formal agreement or stipulation to exclude the affidavit of Andrew D. Basiago. In fact, the status of James Fetzer was the same as that of Andrew D. Basiago. James Fetzer was merely a witness before the 9/11 War Crimes Tribunal. As set out in these articles, Judge Webre, sensing undue influence from then 9/11 witness James Fetzer, entered the affidavit of Andrew d. Basiago onto the witness docket so as to preclude any attempted obstruction of justice and evidence tampering with the Tribunal of Conscience over which he is charged as Judge.
Following the introduction of the affidavit of Andrew D. Basiago onto the Tribunal's docket, then 9/11 Tribunal witnesses James Fetzer and Kevin Barrett subjected Judge Alfred Lambremont Webre, the 9/11 War Crimes Tribunal and one of its 9/11 witnesses Andrew D. Basiago to numerous bullying and derogatory group emails, and articles that attacked Judge Webre, the Tribunal and one of its witnesses. Judge Webre has responded forthrightly in his own right in the following articles:
1. 9/11 War Crimes Tribunal
2. 9/11 War Crimes Tribunal expected to issue Indictments of Accused in 9/11 events on January 22, 2013
3. 9/11 Tribunal under attack for prosecuting 9/11 Accused beyond “the Usual Suspects” - 9/11 War Crimes Tribunal
by Alfred Lambremont Webre, JD, MEd
Judge, 9/11 War Crimes Tribunal
4. James Fetzer: 9/11 Delusional Haranger, Senile Academic & Cultural Illiterate
by Alfred Lambremont Webre, JD, MEd, Judge, 9/11 War Crimes Tribunal
TRIBUNAL ACTION PLAN: Undeterred, The 9/11 War Crimes Tribunal has published its Action Plan, and will be issuing its Indictment of key 9/11 Accused on January 22, 2013, two days after the inauguration of the next U.S. President.
October 24, 2012 Letter of Vancouver 9/11 conference co-organizer James Fetzer
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: James Fetzer <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: Wed, Oct 24, 2012 at 2:26 PM
Subject: Re: Alfred Lambremont Webre, JD: 9/11 disinfo op?
To: Alfred Lambremont Webre <email@example.com>, Alfred Lambremont Webre <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Cc: Greg Felton <email@example.com>, Donald Fox <firstname.lastname@example.org>, Clare Kuehn <email@example.com>, Barbara Honegger <firstname.lastname@example.org>, Kevin Barrett <email@example.com>, Josh Blakeney <firstname.lastname@example.org>, John Duddy <email@example.com>, Chuck Boldwyn <firstname.lastname@example.org>, Christopher Holmes <email@example.com>, Dwain Deets <firstname.lastname@example.org>, nicholas kollerstrom <email@example.com>, Ben Collet <firstname.lastname@example.org>, email@example.com, Susan Lindauer <firstname.lastname@example.org>, email@example.com, Splitting The Sky <firstname.lastname@example.org>, Rounda Bout <email@example.com>, Jeff Prager <firstname.lastname@example.org>, Enver Masud <email@example.com>, John McCarthy <firstname.lastname@example.org>, Anthony Hall <email@example.com>, jack etkin <firstname.lastname@example.org>, Connie Fogal <email@example.com>, Ryan Povich <firstname.lastname@example.org>
I hate to disappoint Alfred but I have never had a "handler", either now at VT, in the past at OpEdNews, nor at any of the institutions of higher learning where I served as a faculty member during my 35 year career. I have never heard of Eileen Fleming, not have I ever dealt with someone so unscrupulous and self-serving, where I cannot believe how eager he seems to promulgate one falsehood after another. I infer that when he has sunk so low and been exposed so thoroughly, he feels that he no longer has anything to lose. The articles to read about this low-life are these four:
"Now It Can Be Told! The REAL Reason Obama Was Nearly Devoured by Carnivorous Pleiosaurs on Mars"
"The Vancouver Hearings: Subversion from Within"
"Alfred Lambremont Webre, JD: 9/11 disinfo op?"
Kevin Barrett: My last word on the subject of Alfred Webre:
I doubt that the legal profession has ever experienced a more embarrassing kin than Alfred Lambremont Weber. I
have resisted Greg Felton' suggestion that Alfred ought to be reported to the bar for at least the following reasons:
As we have seen, Alfred Webre has made false and unwarranted assertions about me and Kevin Barrett and Veterans Today, which he is continuing to this day. He has accused us of being agents of disinformation. The blatant falsehoods that he has asserted when he knew better, including especially his completely absurd suggestions that we have been attempting to suppress the affidavit of Andrew Basiago by focusing on “the usual suspects”, leaves no latitude for doubt that he has been lying.
Even if he was sincere in the beginning–merely gullible in his willingness to believe in Andrew Basiago, for example, as a complicated case of irrationality–he has been lying to conceal his duplicity in dealing with me and has become what he accuses us of being, a 9/11 disinfo op. And the circumstances that have arisen here have motivated Greg Felton, who was among the first to conclude that Alfred was acting deceptively and fraudulently as a judge in The Vancouver Hearings, has also uncovered reasons to question whether Alfred Lambremont Webre, J.D., was even properly formally qualified from the beginning to serve in the role of judge:
1. Violation of Terms of Reference.
His participation in the 9/11 Vancouver Hearings (hereinafter “the Hearings”) was contingent upon his not entertaining theories of a speculative, extraterrestrial nature. The fact that he imposed Andrew Basiago’s submission on the Hearings—a submission that included “remote viewing” and Mars jumping—without the consent of Hearings’ organizer Jim Fetzer demonstrates judicial arrogance and usurpation of authority.
2. Mala Fides
In conversation with Barbara Honegger and Ernst Rodin after the hearings, Webre, according to Honegger’s report, expressly regretted his earlier agreement to exclude the above mentioned speculative theories and wanted to find away to introduce them surreptitiously. This admission demonstrates bad faith (mala fides) toward his commitment to abide by the terms of his appointment, thus casting into doubt his motives for acting as judge of the Hearings.
3. Judicial Misconduct I
As a judge, Mr. Webre had a moral and professional duty to remain detached from the specific presentation of each witness. By including Andrew Basiago, Mr. Webre crossed the line from being a judge of evidence to being an advocate for a point of view. As he wrote in an e-mail Thu, Sep 27, 2012 at 12:23 AM, Alfred Lambremont Webre, JD MEd <email@example.com> wrote: “Well, sorry to disappoint the critics, but technological and not psychic quantum access was used by DARPA time labs to retrieve 9/11 materials.”
4. Judicial Misconduct II
Mr. Webre failed to disclose to the conference organizers a professional and personal conflict of interest in including Basiago’s submission. Basiago was the editor Webre’s book EXOPOLITICS: POLITICS, GOVERNMENT AND LAW IN THE UNIVERSE (and has been a personal friend of Webre’s for 10 years). This conflict of interest is exacerbated by the fact that Webre’s new 9/11 tribunal website is hosted by his Exopolitics blog: http://exopolitics.blogs.com:911_war_crimes_tribunal
Perhaps even more remarkably, Greg has pursued Alfred’s standing before the bar in Canada and his entitlement to serve in the role of judge:
I placed a call to the Career Development Office at Yale Law School to find out if a Juris Doctor graduate is allowed to practice law in B.C., given that Alfred Webre received his JD from Yale in 1967. Although Webre had practised law in the U.S., I was told that any American lawyer would have to pass the bar in Canada to be legally allowed to practise here. A call to the Law Society of B.C. turned up no record of Alfred Webre as a practising lawyer, meaning he had not passed the bar. In short, Alfred Lambremont Webre was not professionally qualified to act as judge at the Vancouver Hearings, and as such any findings or affidavits filed by him are inadmissible.
The conditions that I introduced for him serving as a judge–keeping his personal views out of it and requiring that I be able to review the Basiago affidavit before it was accepted–were all for naught. He always had his own agenda, which he pursued smoothly right up to the end, when he could not longer conceal it. I hereby accept responsibility for having him involved in this. He had spoken in Madison in 2007. I was impressed by his participation in the Kuala Lumpur Tribunal’s proceedings. He introduced a quasi-judicial dimension that complemented our efforts. I thought he would act in a professional and ethical manner. I now believe he should be held accountable for his misconduct.