Wednesday, April 4, 2018

Officer Scott Earhardt and the Great "March for Our Lives" Permit Boondoggle


Jim Fetzer

It began when Ole Dammegard sent me an email a correspondent of long-standing had sent him, which indicated that the "March for Our Lives" had been planned months in advance of the Parkland shooting that had "officially" motivated the march, which would have been required anticipatory knowledge that it was going to happen and therefore impugn the authenticity of the event itself. Here is the email Ole received, which includes the Officer Earhardt's email address and contact information:
At this point in time, our collaborative research has demonstrated that the Parkland shooting was a staged event, which involved the use of simulated munitions ("simunition"), which explains how it was possible for students who had been shot to experience miraculous recoveries--because they were not shot with AR-15 .223 high-velocity rounds, but with simulated bullets made out of bee's wax and laundry detergent! When we apply the Principle of Charity to the witnesses, the pieces of the puzzle fall into place:

                          The Parkland Puzzle: How the Pieces fit Together

When I received the email from Ole, I decided to call to verify its authenticity on Saturday,  where I reached Officer Earhardt's extension and left a message in order to enable him to call me back, which, not entirely to my surprise, he did not do. So I called again on Monday, leaving a somewhat more pointed message in the expectation that he might actually call, which he has not done. Meanwhile, I looked into the permit process for a major event in Washington, D.C., that would involved closing roads and discovered the procedure required submitting a Letter of Intent at least 180 days in advance of the event:

where the instructions for planning these events are rather elaborate and run 18 pages in length. My inference was that Officer Earhardt's response appeared to be right on the mark in conformity with the permit process.  While he has not responded to me, he has responded to other inquiries initiated by the intense interest generated by the earlier email, but now changing his story to the permit having been issued on 13 March 2018:
The very idea of a permit being issued on 13 March 2018 for an event to be conducted on 24 March 2018 is not in and of itself absurd, since that might have been the date on which the permit was formally issued in response to a request submitted months and months before, as the original email implied. But the very idea of a huge event involving as many as 500,000 participants with speakers, music, vendors and the like being issued on 13 March 2018, where planning began thereafter for an event to be held just 11 days later, is frankly preposterous.
And I am not alone in my belief, where many others with planning experience have affirmed the same. As you may have noticed, Officer Earhardt claims that he confounded "March for Our Lives" in March with "March for Life" in January. But that is completely ridiculous, since in the original email he identified the event as "the March For Our Lives Demonstration, here in the District of Columbia on March 24, 2018". He therefore knew at the time exactly which event he was  addressing--and it was not March for Life on 16 January 2018!


A cover-up appears to be in full swing, where Ole's correspondent has received a revision from Officer Earhardt, who now claims that he "misspoke" and that the permit application was submitted on 21 February 2018 and issued on 7 March 2018, which is a completely different story than the original that appears to be the only accurate and truthful report he has made on this subject. And if the permit had been issued on 7 March 2018, that would have allowed less than three weeks to plan an event expected to draw as many as 500,000, which is similarly absurd:


No doubt, Office Earhardt has excellent reasons for prevaricating, since his paycheck and pension are at risk. Those who run these events are powerful players in politics, where March for Our Lives was conceived as a sequel to the staged Parkland event as a Democratic Party campaign commercial with its outreach to younger Americans to register and vote against the GOP and anyone who supports the President or his administration, where their motives can be seen in their merchandise:


With the collapse of the Russian hacking meme, which was made up by Robbie Mook and John Podesta within 24 hours of Hillary's concession speech, the imminent Imran Awan trial of the DWS Pakistani IT team that spied on members of the House and the gradual but growing awareness of corrupt coordination of the DOJ/FBI/DWN/DNC, there was desperate need to change the narrative. They have faked shootings before and it has worked like a charm. Gun control has been a popular Democratic issue in the past, so they opted to play the gun-control card one more time.

Jim Fetzer, a former Marine Corps officer, is McKnight Professor Emeritus on the Duluth Campus of the University of Minnesota and co-editor of moonrockbooks.com.

 















11 comments:

  1. Thanks for the update. It seems bizarre that anyone would claim a rally could be organized in less than two weeks. When I emailed officer Earhardt he stated the permit was received on March 13, so now he has told three separate stories.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Thank you, Dr. Fetzer. Officer Earhardt seems to be operating in an increasingly confusing swirl of dates and events. I hope he has found a place to lie down, as he might be feeling dizzy.

    Meanwhile, I would suggest that we not apply the Principle of Charity to the lying crisis actors. Better would be the Principle of Actual Evidence, of which there is NONE to suggest that the "victims" were shot with simulated munitions or anything at all, as with the other staged "shootings."

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree that the speculation should stop at alleging "blanks" were fired without finding excuses for the bandaids.

      Delete
    2. What IS the "Principle of Charity," anyway?

      I agree that I don't see why it is necessary to bring "simunition" into it, at all.

      Delete
  3. Auchhhh... This stab of evidential behavioral analysis has pierced the pig's belly and made it squirt.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Acceptance of truth is a nettlesome subject. I've recently tried to get articles on MLK amended to show that Lloyd Jowers was pinned with the shooting but the newspaper writers and editors refuse to acknowledge and print retractions!!! I've seen this many, many times and have had huge difficulties getting any state papers and writers to acknowledge and admit Sandy Hook was a foul hoax played on the American public to effect gun control. No takers, it is totally boggling to see and realize that truth is coming in second place now rather tha first place. Are we talking cognitive dissonance or are Americans merely brain dead?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Assassination of Martin Luther King"

      at CorbettReport.com just another....

      WetWorks production BT J Edgar Hoover

      Delete
    2. Lmao. Not this Corbett clown again.

      Delete
  5. Some are claiming Ole's email specimen was a fraud but this reply of correction verifies the first response was genuine and authored by Earhardt. But the date 2/21, flies in the face of established policy that requires a minimum of 90 to 180 days of application followed by planning prior to the event.

    Then we have this TIME article published on 2/20, a day ahead of the alleged application now said to have been submitted on 2/21.

    Everything You Need to Know About March For Our Lives
    https://web.archive.org/web/20180221041415/http://time.com/5167102/march-for-our-lives-parkland-school-shooting-protest/

    ReplyDelete
  6. "Meanwhile, I looked into the permit process for a major event in Washington, D.C., that would involved closing roads and discovered the procedure required submitting a Letter of Intent at least 180 days in advance of the event: "

    180 days, ha? You are a quite the investigator. But you somehow didn't look at the actual form:

    https://mpdc.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/mpdc/publication/attachments/Parade%20Permit_2.pdf

    Which states:
    "This application shall be filed
    not less than fifteen (15) days before the date on which it is proposed to conduct the parade."

    It was ISSUED on the 13th, 11 days before, which would be perfectly consistent with it being submitted within that time period.

    How could such a CRACK investigator miss this? It's RIGHT ON THE FORM!

    And of course DC has to be able to accommodate protests that are timely with political situations, so of course there's a mechanism that's less than 180 days.People will just show up if you tell them they can't protest until 180 days after the precipitating event.

    Another piece of evidence, debunked,

    Thank you, thank you. If Jim allows I'll be here all week - please tip your waiter...

    ReplyDelete
  7. OK, good on you for putting my debunking up.

    And your response?????

    ReplyDelete