April 1l1, 2015

Cornerstone report:

 

The U.S. Coast Guard is the tyrant of the sea

 

About six months before I was anonymously detained over the Fukushima report, I was invited to dinner at a good friends home while I was in Bakersfield. His son, Nicholas Theriault, was on leave from the Coast Guard and I was invited over to meet him.

 

Being the investigative type that I am, I already had background information about the U.S. coast guard sinking every boat that approached Ecuador, sight unseen. That's right, the U.S. Coast Guard put up a blockade off the coast of Ecuador, and sank every boat that approached that nation (this was going on a few years ago and was still going on when I talked to Nicholas).

 

The Coast guard also has been assigned to patrol the coasts of many other nations, invited or not. But when I spoke to Nicholas, I had only heard about the Coast Guard actually getting nasty with Ecuador. As it turned out, Ecuador was NOTHING compared to what the Coast Guard does elsewhere.

 

After I asked him about Ecuador, where he believed they were doing a GOOD JOB, I asked him what the Coast Guard does out on the open sea, and was blown away by where the conversation went from there. At no point did I ever express what I really felt about what he had to say, I just went along with it all, as if I agreed with his mission.

 

He went on to say how the Coast Guard does not just stick to the coast, that they patrol the oceans of the entire world, even the totally open international waters. He started talking about burning the boats they came across while out to sea. And what I have to say here is NOT in error or by mistake, I structured the conversation to cover every angle and leave no room for doubt.

 

I said, "What do you do when you come across a boat that is out to sea, in fully international waters, TOTALLY OUT OF AMERICA's JURISDICTION?" I picked a no man's land as an example, the equatorial region 2,000 miles south of Hawaii, where NO drug dealers would be likely to go, where there would ONLY be innocents.

 

He said, we board it. I said, but that's illegal. You have no jurisdiction in that region. He said, "That does not matter, because we are the U.S. and what is anyone going to do about it?"

 

I said, What happens when you go on a boat, and there are no drugs, and there is no smuggling going on, NOTHING, the people on the boat did NOTHING. He said, "we check their papers. If they are out to sea, and they do not have their papers in order, we take them off the boat, imprison them, and burn the boat. We cannot leave the boat just drifting out at sea. We HAVE TO burn it."

 

" I said, "Why arrest them if there is no crime occurring?" He said, "PAPERS ARE EVERYTHING. If they do not have them, we imprison them and take them back to the U.S., and burn the boat." I said, "Even if it is a multi million dollar yacht or sail boat?" and he said YES.

 

Then I said, Well, what happens if after being processed in the U.S. there was nothing wrong. He said, They get to go home. I said, Well, what about the boat? He said, it's their loss, we don't care.

 

I said, Well, If they leave from a home port, and are just out for a cruise, and are returning to that same home port, they would not need papers. He said, THAT DOES NOT MATTER. IF THAT IS THE STORY, WE STILL JAIL THEM, BURN THEIR BOAT, AND TAKE THEM BACK TO THE U.S.

 

And I made it very clear, I then asked him, SO, if you find a boat 50 miles off the coast of New Zealand, and the people on the boat do not have their documents in order, you burn the boat and take them back to the U.S., even though it would be obvious that they really probably are just out for a cruise and returning to New Zealand, where EVERYONE IN THE HARBOR WOULD RECOGNIZE THEM AND NEVER RAISE AN EYEBROW UPON THEIR RETURN, and HE SAID YES.

 

Extrapolations -

 

This behavior is verified. Straight from the horses mouth. He enjoyed burning boats, he said it made him feel important. He loved the job, but I will make a point now that Nicholas no doubt never thought of -

 

You cannot get away with burning boats and imprisoning people from other nations unless it all occurs in secret and no one is ever released to tell about it. So these people you are arresting at sea are all anonymously detained or put to death, if the court cases really happened a majority would be returned home. This is not happening. If anyone was ever released to tell about it, it would be international news. You never hear about this in the news, even with the internet as an alternative source. So your arresting people is in fact a de facto death sentence, all over a piece of paper that may or may not have ever been needed. And here is another doozie -

 

The military operates under a system of compartmentalized clearances. So Nicholas would never even know if the people on the boats were really papered or not. He would just know they got jailed, and their boat then had to be burned. But WHAT IF:

 

What if the Coast guard is REALLY going around imprisoning people who have uncovered scandals, have unique inventions the elite want buried, or any number of other reasons the elite scumbags would want to have them eliminated for, properly papered or not? How do they select the boats for boarding? They cannot board them all, and Having direct experience in the NSA, and witnessing this directly I will state with absolute authority tha the NSA tracks all boats out at sea via their marine radios, and gathers the intelligence about where the boats are (they were doing that when I was with them.) The individual radios are identified by the characteristics in the transmitted carrier wave form, ALL transmitters, even of the same make and model, have small distortions in their carrier waves which can be stripped and analyzed like a finger print for positive identification. They really do know who is who out on the ocean, and can DF a boat to within one meter of where it is, within 3 seconds of having a microphone keyed.

 

When this was being done legitimately some time ago, (when I was with the NSA) suspicious boats were apprehended only in U.S. waters, where the Coast Guard rightfully belongs, and not FIVE THOUSAND MILES OUT AT SEA. How times have changed!

 

Nowadays things are different. From the testimony of Nicholas, it is easy to see that the Coast Guard is now a tool of tyranny. The NSA tracks the boats, and the CIA then takes that info, gives the orders to the Coast Guard, which then goes out and gets rid of a doctor with a cure for cancer, a journalist with the goods on a scandal, an engineer who came up with a free energy device, and because the boats ALL GET BURNED UNTIL SUNK, these people vanish without a trace, while "out to sea" and the system of compartmentalized security clearances prevents ANYONE on a Coast Guard vessel from ever knowing what they are really being used for. It's perfect cover for murder, or kidnapping followed by life in a CIA jail somewhere. And the fact that NO ONE has ever had major play on national news after getting their boat burned is proof positive that the Coast Guard is going around and playing a part in exactly that. No boat ever found, the doctor just VANISHED AT SEA. Logic - a wave got him.

 

And if this story really did have a different way to end, New Zealand, Indonesia, China, Russia, Argentina, Britain, WHOEVER, would be constantly prosecuting the U.S. for illegally boarding the boats of their citizens and burning them, and the news wires would be burning as well. I asked him how many boats they burned and it was "several every time out". Several times out per Coast Guard vessel that leaves American waters on a mission.

 

Absolute silence on this issue from everyone, all the nations, proves beyond a doubt that the Coast Guard is a de facto murder weapon, and seeing them out at sea is a rightful thing of dread, Papered or not, if you are significant for any reason and you see those bastards you had better shoot FIRST. Either way you are probably dead and if they lose a few "sailors" they might re-consider their behavior.

 

There is no way for the "Coast Guard" to worm out of this, IT WAS A DIRECT INTERVIEW. A DE FACTO CONFESSION.