Unicorn Ira Einhorn

Urb Brothers - Citizen of Sun

2010-05-01T18:12:00.000-07:00

Stress - From Prelude To Intimacy by Ira Einhorn

2007-06-06T15:50:00.000-07:00

Nayer here. I keep this blog up for Ira. Above is a video reading from his book Prelude To Intimacy, about his years on the run from the US government before his wrongful imprisonment.

All these decades later, there is still no scientific evidence that Ira Einhorn had anything to do with the death of Holly Maddux. There was no evidence of Holly's body in Ira's apartment, only in his multi exterior access back porch. Not a shred of scientific evidence connecting Ira with Holly when she died.

The kangaroo court's actions are those of a corrupt government ruling in favor of big business over the environment one more time. It's like the legal levels of pollution that are contributing to global warming.

Why frame Ira Einhorn? Ira was key to the first Earth Day. His work regarding the environment in the 60's and 70's, legendary. A great thinker of the era. Along comes the decision to make more money on toxic energy, and folks like Einhorn, free energy inventor Bruce DePalma and others had to be silenced, discredited, turned away from informing the masses that our energy is killing us.

'There is money to be made' is the responding mantra.

Free the Unicorn. Ira Einhorn.

The Death of Physics

2007-04-02T16:03:00.000-07:00

“Soon after the publication of Structure, Kuhn received a letter from Ira Einhorn, a 24 year-old English instructor at Temple University, in Philadelphia. ‘A book such as yours,’ Einhorn began, ‘makes one realize that there are still a few bright lights burning in the wasteland of modern Humanistic thought.’ Einhorn’s 4 page letter continued: ‘A few books are leading the men of thought to accept the consequences of the revolution started by Nietzsche and continued by modern art and science – your book must be placed in the forefront.’ Einhorn also offered suggestions for Kuhn’s future investigations.

Kuhn replied that Einhorn’s letter was ‘by all odds the most perceptive response I have yet received to my book, and it helped my morale immeasurably.’

‘For what it is worth,’ Kuhn continued, ‘I thoroughly agree that the concept of ‘paradigm’ needs all sorts of additional work. I began to se vaguely how some of it must be done, but though I firmly intend to get on with it, I have not yet got clear ideas, much less publishable work on the subject. When there is some, I shall do my best to make sure that you see it.’ Kuhn (who was writing to Einhorn from Berkeley) suggested that they get together when he reached the East coast: and they did.”

Keay Davidson, letter, 10/14/2005

Philip Coppens has dealt most directly with an aspect of my life that 1000s of articles have neglected and so-called friends have refused to speak about, for the taint of pariah might rub off.

The cowardice of those refusing to speak even the simple truth of my network activity has made me aware that I live in a country that has lost its soul, for so many have lied or just remained silent out of fear of association, though anyone with an overview of the tangled web of my relationship to most would say: they owed him a few.

But forgetting is foremost in this country devoted to celebrity and TV sports.

Certainly information wants to be free and wants to be circulated, for unlike soap it does not degrade when others use it, for it does not live under the aegis of the second law of thermodynamics, though how it functions and its law are just as opaque today as they were 40 years ago when I realised that information was more powerful than money and set out to prove such an assertion by living a life dedicated to information not money.

By 1979, when the powers that be decided to cut short my experiment, I was surrounded by the most intelligent people on the planet and had access to scads of the wealthy and powerful.

The network I created to service an end: paradigm change, had grown out of all proportion to its original intent: a theory group to aid those working on the data that Uri Geller was generating in the lab.

Work that I had first seen in Andrija Puharich’s Beyond Telepathy. It is a book that heralds a yet to be achieved change. I convinced my Doubleday editor and now dead friend Bill Whitehead to republish it along with Andrija Puharich’s first book: The Sacred Mushroom.

It is the seminal book in a still outré area of human knowledge, now including the quest for consciousness, that physics refuses to acknowledge, continuing to build ever more expensive matter smashers, though the future was offered to the discipline on a plate or should I say a spoon.

That failure has reduced it to a minor layer in the knowledge arena, for the excitement, genius and the money has gone elsewhere and the house of cards called string theory appears to be the Iraq of physics.

I’m an oceanic intuitive able to espy the entire whale from a tooth, but unlike most oceanic intuitives, I hack up my vision with extensive reading and consultation, so when I envisioned the environmental disaster, now unfolding before our eyes, in 1971 I began to think about how to bring about a massive paradigm shift – something I had been discussing with Tom Kuhn since our first meeting.

When Andrija Puharich tumbled into my life with Uri in tow, soon after, I immediately shifted my energies in that direction, much to the consternation of most of my ecological friends who didn’t understand.

I still lectured extensively on ecology but my focus had shifted for I saw that physics and Uri equalled a paradigm change that would rival Copernicus, opening up technological possibilities that would solve our energy/pollution problem.

Andrija and I began spending more time together, talking through many nights; Ossining became a second home. Ed Mitchell had been promised mucho dinero that never materialized, but he did help finance the SRI work that freaked the intelligence community when Uri turned out to be real and to be able to wipe computer screens.

Disinformation took over; a full spectrum of doubters arose as wiping computer screens implied that nukes wouldn’t function.

The entire tale should be told one day, as an object lesson for social change agents.

Suffice it to say that Uri did his very potent demos for enough top people to produce data that should have changed physics, but the doubters also freaked and letters (some begging) were written that if published, even today, would shock.

I always played fair witness, so my desk became a mare’s nest of explosive information, I found hard to believe.

Uri got tired of being disbelieved.

The story was very powerful, so I put Andrija under house arrest, took over the phone and the mail, held visits to a minimum (we were constantly briefing a host of heavies) and put a pen in his hand.

What emerged was a tale that dwarfed the wildest of sci-fi novels for Uri had put Andrija back into contact with forces whose strange effects were an integral part of our context, but to me were secondary to the paradigm change that I saw as totally necessary for species survival. Andrija, however, had been taken over by the need to save the world, so the forces became his focus, even after Bill Whitehead and I cut the book in half. Andrija was adamant, so Bill and I gave in, as it was Andrija’s tale, I had seen much to confirm the phenomenal side of the tale and the public agreed: Uri was an international bestseller.

But scientists freaked and Andrija became a laughing stock as I found out the next time I was in London and went to see Arthur Koestler with whom I had become quite friendly. His upset communicated deeply, making me aware that a phase of the work was over.

The question of why Andrija suddenly sabotaged his life’s work is complex. We had been warned and spied upon – that is not at issue.

It is also clear to me that Andrija had been taken over by a series of experiences that had become his truth and his telling of that truth was as integral to his on-going survival as was Leary’s relationship to LSD or McKenna’s to DMT.

I had seen it with LSD and wit so many who shaved their heads or started to wear orange: it was a conversion experience and had to damp itself out.

Yet upon deep reconsideration of The Stargate Conundrum, there is obviously more to the story.

The network continued in much enhanced form spreading out to 28 countries including a number that were behind the Iron Curtain.

Tesla, mind control, P.K. Dick and psychotronic weapons became my daily bread (not nourishing). I found myself courted by intel from both sides and given explosive information that few were capable of evaluating. Information I shared with almost no-one.

In the midst of all this Holly Maddux disappeared. I mourned for months and got deeper into matters that required more backup than I had.

The Rockefeller circle tried to recruit me directly, but public office was not of interest and I was too busy to give it even a second thought.

Then the Institute of Politics – a Kennedy organization – located at Harvard – offered me a position.

I spent three months meeting the people who run our politics and being courted by the CIA.
I was asked by the Prince of Iran (the shah’s nephew) to run his soon to be established satellite network; I refused for political reasons.

I went off to Yugoslavia and found myself (in retrospect) in the middle of a complex cold war game, though Tesla was my focus.

I was asked to help write and act in a high level soap about the gods. Omni began a major interview. Etc. Then my first life ended.

CONSERVATIVES WITHOUT CONSCIENCE

2007-03-06T09:27:00.001-08:00

BOOK REVIEW
John W. Dean (Penguin, 2006)

Until the November 2006 election, the USA was firmly in the hands of a cabal of secretive republican authoritarian leaders who were systematically destroying what was left of our democratic tradition and acting with such incompetence that most of the planet has totally lost faith in America as a bastion of freedom.

Two men who had deep connections with republican politics, Kevin Philipps (book previously reviewed) and John Dean have written best about the rot and its underlying causes. What dean says in Conservatives Without Conscience is indicative of my feeling, expressed in another blog to accompany this one.

His cogent, calm book based upon his own experience in government and an actual wake up telephone call from Mike Wallace of 60 Minutes that threw Dean back on the public stage as the result of a totally unfactual book that implicated him and his wife as the forces behind Watergate. A book that cost the publishers much money when Dean sued for libel.

The incident brought about a desire to understand how the republican leadership could function in such a fraudulent incompetent manner.

Conservatives Without Conscience is the result of his attempt to understand.

I urge its reading, for in its short compass it explains quite clearly how men whose behavior has little to do with democracy were well on their way to dismantling the very fabric of our governmental structures when the 2006 election short circuited our march towards to fascism. This book helped produce that short circuit.

It’s method of analysis is based upon the psychological research of Bob Altemeyer whose book The Authoritarian Specter (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1996) should be required reading for every voter who wishes to make sure it doesn’t happen here.

I read enormously.

I have been horrified by the incompetent secretive behavior of W. Nerd Bush and friends. I have also been mystified by the failure of the media to complain about and to analyze their anti-American behavior.

Dean has rectified that lack. Read him and then turn to Altmeyer. It will aide any sincere quest to provide a leadership whose intentions are democratic.

The Bush/Cheney nightmare is not over, but Conservatives Without Conscience is indicative of our being close to awakening from the trauma.

It is prophylactic. Use It.

Ira Einhorn

CONSERVATIVES WITHOUT CONSCIENCE

2007-03-06T09:27:00.000-08:00

BOOK REVIEW
CONSERVATIVES WITHOUT CONSCIENCE

John W. Dean (Penguin, 2006)

The incident brought about a desire to understand how the republican leadership could function in such a fraudulent incompetent manner.

Conservatives Without Conscience is the result of his attempt to understand.

I read enormously.

Dean has rectified that lack. Read him and then turn to Altmeyer. It will aide any sincere quest to provide a leadership whose intentions are democratic.

The Bush/Cheney nightmare is not over, but Conservatives Without Conscience is indicative of our being close to awakening from the trauma.

It is prophylactic. Use It.

Ira Einhorn

The Disappearance Of Due Process

2007-01-30T08:41:00.000-08:00

Due process in legal matters is what separates barbarity from civility. It along with the concept of Habeas Corpus form cornerstones upon which our law used to be built.

Then along came W. Nero Bush who has destroyed the American constitution, with much complicity from our elected representatives, during the last 5 years.

What has happened at the national level is echoed in Pennsylvania wherein many innocent men and women are doing hard time for crimes they did not commit and suffering egregious violations of due process as the basic foundations of our law disappear in a concerted effort to strip protection from those fighting for their freedom.

I can illustrate this process from my own case, for it is the one I know best.

My original prosecutor, Barbara Christie, withheld Brady (exculpatory) material from us under discovery, employing a subterfuge to do so.

She took a private report (paid for by the Maddux Family), generated by 2 ex-FBI agents, reduced the size of the pages, thus allowing her to disappear the page numbers and remove 5 sightings of my supposed victim, made six months to a year after the prosecution claimed Holly Maddux was killed. A claim that they maintained for 23 years thus fixing the date in stone.
It took many court hearings to uncover the exculpatory material due to us, BUT, two of the reported sightings (made by two Philadelphia police detectives) were withheld until 2002.

Ms. Christie also refused to allow forensic results to stand on their own merits as twice (the FBI and Toxicon Associates) failed to produce results that supported her contentions. The man skipped over, Dr. Tumosa, to allow the more prestigious outside labs to have their say, did the 3rd round of testing. He achieved some partial results, BUT, the results came from a procedure (a new test he invented) that no honest court of law could accept as the procedure was never published or peer reviewed, which violates both standards that rule in our courts: Frye and Daubert.

I did not kill Holly Maddux, but the continuing due process violations made me aware that I would not receive a fair trial, so I left.

While I was away, the DA handed over 60 volumes of my journals to a writer, Steven Levy, who used stolen material for his own profit while writing a damning one-sided book about me. Of course such tainted evidence should have been excluded from the trial.

The journals had been seized under warrant as evidence; the act of their being given to a journalist for publication is unique in American case law as is the unconstitutional Einhorn Law which DA Lynn Abraham caused to be passed by the Pennsylvania legislature in order to trick the French into sending me back to the USA.

My appointed closet prosecutors, Strutin and Cannon, were loathe to challenge Judge William Mazzola in any way, so they placidly allowed him to forego pre-trial testimony on the Journal Issue as he knew how explosive it was, then failed to challenge the use of the journals on two other very solid grounds: chain of custody and the DA’s allowing pre trial publication of evidence seized under warrant, thus tainting the evidence and exposing the defendant to unprecedented pre-trial publicity generated by the prosecution.

“And what has happened in this case – and I challenge defense counsel or anybody else to site any case ever – and I really do mean that – ever in the state of Pennsylvania – possibly the whole country – that has so personalized and so sensationalized not just the case but a defendant.”

NOTES OF TESTIMONY 9/10/2002, Joel Rosen, prosecutor

My closet prosecutors also failed to challenge Dr. Tumosa’s obviously bogus test.
If they had done correct legal work, most of the prosecution evidenced would have been excluded from the courtroom.

Judge Mazzola also functioned as a prosecutor: while I was testifying Asst. DA Carmen Lineberger held up a 12X4 inch bag with the letters “Bullshit Bag” inscribed on it. That is what my counsel was told. When they complained about this and asked her to be questioned under oath, the judge refused as it was obvious grounds for dismissal.

In my defense, we presented 3 of the people who saw Holly, alive, long after her supposed death. One had died. Then we presented women who had spent nights and weekends with me while the body of the deceased supposedly lay within 10 feet of us, producing a smell that the medical examiner, Halbert Fillinger, described to the jury as being impossible to sustain for 10 minutes. No one smelled anything.

It had to be obvious to the jury that Holly was not killed on the date that the prosecution insisted on, but all of their case upon and that all of our defense was predicted upon. It was also obvious to Judge Mazzola, so in his charge to the jury, changing the indictment, he told them that the date of death was not an essential element of the crime.

This destroyed my defense.

After my conviction, he broke all law and precedent by reseating the jury in its box and invited microphones and TV cameras into the courtroom. Cannon and Strutin were shocked, but I’m a pariah and thus fair game. There is no law that applied to me in Pennsylvania. Anything can be done.

By statute Judge Mazzola was supposed to file his 1925(a) statement “forthwith”. He took 29 months. He assumed the role of a second prosecutor. Strutin and Cannon were silent, so I filed 9 motions. The judge was six months is contempt of court re: 2 court orders to file, when his untimely brief was finally filed it should not have been considered by the Superior Court. In the history of the case both Judge Mazzola and my closet prosecutors lied about the 9 docketed motions I filed.

The superior court decision was politics not law, based upon a tissue of lies and fallacious reasoning. I will parse it in another article.

My case is an emblem of what American behavior has become both inside and outside of court. The following quote from the New York Review Of Books, January 11, 2007 describes rendition in action, rendering American justice oxymoronic. It is what Good Americans are allowing their government to do.

“One of them took my penis in his hand and began to make cuts. He did it once, and they stood still for maybe a minute, watching my reaction. I was in agony, crying, trying desperately to suppress myself, but I was screaming...They must have done this 20 or 30 times, in maybe two hours. There was blood all over.”

Ira Einhorn
January, 2007

ABRUPT CLIMATE CHANGE

2007-01-17T13:13:00.000-08:00

If I am to believe the consensus of the letters and communication that I have received of late from those I most respect, time has run out on us and we are doomed as a civilization.

BUT

Having led and participated in mass movements that changed the rhythms of my society, I cannot accept defeat so easily, though data overwhelms and that data, collected by others, is supported by my daily experience of

ABRUPT CLIMATE CHANGE

happening before my eyes.

It is January 4, 2007 in the mountains of West Central Pennsylvania as I write this.

January here is normally frost, snow, chilling wind and cloud covered sky.

Yet all I have experienced since the end of summer – usually in early September – has been more summer and a perpetual spring that has brought almost no ground frost, no frost to speak of, balmy days, blue blue sky, a six day period after Thanksgiving filled with dandelions, flies, butterflies and bees and now in January mornings filled with bird song, for the birds seem to be nesting and think that spring has come.

These changes are happening much faster than the models predict as the situation we are attempting to map is non-linear, in extreme perturbation and probably broken as the best informed thinker, James Lovelock, has recently declared.

Terrorism, Iraq and the other headlines are minor compared to the threat we are facing, yet we are spending trillions ($1012) on such flea bites and almost nothing on the impending and ever accelerating disaster that threatens.

The failure of leadership defies description.

We need to create a planetary situation room that has a broadcast facility with satellite and internet links that slowly gears up to real-time coverage.

We need to get the best on the planet involved in operation energy transformation.

We need a global Manhattan Project directed toward perfecting new clean energy sources with a practical adjunct that produces new working models of everything that uses energy.

We need thinkers focused on ecological economics, so that we can replace our present system manned by a blind priesthood. We need to replace

MORE

the only value capitalism honors, with a broad measure of personal and ecological well-being.

The concentration on survival, if done with calmness and determination, could provide a new focus for the present madness of consumption that is eating the planet alive.

But, the time is very limited, for the human response to the coming environmental destruction will be far worse than the actual destruction itself.

Once it gets going our civilization and our future will dissolve before our eyes.

We built a bomb in a very short time.

Surely we can mobilize to change our energy use when the threat is greater and the stakes are higher.

Can’t we? Or are my friends correct?

Ira Einhorn
January, 2007

Response To Corrupt Court

2006-12-26T13:40:00.000-08:00

When judicial figures come together under the color of law to lie about it, they demean the very forms that their ritual is supposed to uphold and reinforce.

It would be an honest act to admit what my wife said at the end of my 2002 trial: “There is no justice for Ira Einhorn in Philadelphia.”

By lie and subterfuge, by twisting words and refusing to rule upon an obvious unconstitutional law (The Einhorn Law), the superior Court of Pennsylvania extended the statement that my wife made to Pennsylvania.

The denigration of law, the destruction of our constitution (one of the great documents in human history) under the aegis of executive order has brought international shame to our countries’ name.

Such behavior is now being echoed in local jurisdictions throughout the land.

When judges make a travesty of the law they are tearing apart the fabric of our society, they are making a mockery of those whose blood was shed in the process of creating our precious freedoms and invoking forces of social dissolution that will eventually lead to future bloodshed.

Ira Einhorn

A LETTER TO MY LAWYERS: CEASE AND DESIST

2006-12-13T08:53:00.000-08:00

William T. Cannon
100 S. Broad Street
Suite 1910
Philadelphia, PA 19110

M.S. Strutin
suite 936
One Penn Center
1617 J.F.K. Blvd.
Philadelphia, PA 19103

December 1, 2006

Dear Bill and Mitch:

After much consideration, I have decided not to allow you to go any further with my case.

DO NOT FILE A SUPREME COURT BRIEF.

To have three major issues waved on a case of this import is indicative of how ineffective you have been.

Consciously or unconsciously you have provided the court with a way to avoid ruling on two golden issues:

1. The Einhorn Law.

2. The handing over of my journals (taken and held under warrant) to a journalist.
Your advocacy is a joke in legal circles.

You have not listened.

You have not communicated.

Mitch has returned hundreds of hours of legal research unopened.

To repeat: DO NOT FILE A SUPREME COURT BRIEF.

You have wasted enough of the taxpayer’s money.

Do not waste any more.

This letter will be given wide circulation.

A victim of your in competency,

Ira Einhorn
P.O. Box 1000
Houtzdale, PA 16698-1000

A PRESENT HORROR

2006-12-04T12:26:00.000-08:00

The following brief comment is a response to: “The Megacity: Decoding the Chaos of Lagos,” by George Parker, New Yorker, November 13, 2006

Note: George Parker’s first hand reports from Iraq were a model of informative journalism and an adumbration the debacle that we have brought upon ourselves and the Iraqis. His book The Assassins' Gate: America in Iraq is now in paperback.

I picked up the above titled article while rereading Dante.

Packer’s description of present day Lagos chilled me as much as Dante’s. Contemporary Lagos is indeed hell on earth and Packer’s article is full of descriptions that would not be out of place in Dante’s Inferno.

Worse, however, are the western intellectuals who are now feeding off of Lagos and other megacities without any real on the ground knowledge. A ‘perverse” phenomenon that I wish to note as the problems of a declining America increasingly need the attention and concern that Africa and other parts of the world are now receiving.

Stuart Brand, the founder of the Whole Earth Catalogue is quoted as follows: “Squatter cities are vibrant .. each narrow street is one bustling market.” He seems to think that the horrors that Packer describes is a “cure for third world poverty and an extraordinary profit making opportunity.,” [Packer’s worlds].

I found Brand’s enthusiasm ridiculous in light of Packer’s description from the actual experience of Lagos.

Rem Koolhaas, a leading designer/architect is worse: he and his team were so intimidated by Lagos that they were afraid to leave their car on their first visit. They then rented the president’s helicopter. Things obviously looked better from the air:

“From the air, the apparently burning garbage head turned out to be, in fact, a village, an urban phenomenon with a highly organized community living on it s crust...what seemed from above an accumulation of dysfunctional movements, seemed from above an impressive performance, evidence of how well Lagos might perform if it were the third largest city in the world.” [Rem Koolhaas]

Packer’s comment on this idiocy: “The impulse to look at an “apparently burning garbage heap/’ and see an “urban phenomenon,’ and then make it the raw material of an elaborate aesthetic construct, is not so different from the more common impulse not to look at all.”

An impulse that seems to be rampant in the world as the data from global warming piles up and the wave of destruction that it is ushering in gathers strength.

Think I’m exaggerating; see for yourself.

Google: The Revenge of Gaia by James Lovelock and then perhaps read the book.

FIRST AMENDMENT FREEDOM

2006-12-04T12:22:00.000-08:00

The right to express an opinion is a precious right protected by the first amendment. That amendment and the nine others that form the Bill of Rights was given to our nation very early in its existence by the assiduous work done by James Madison; a man who is finally being given his historical due. Our other rights enumerated in the first ten amendments to the constitution, are slowly being rendered null buy the fear mongering that W and his ilk had been using to destroy our 230 year old experiment in democracy.

These freedoms form the very basis of our way of life, consumption or should I say over-consumption notwithstanding. Our ancestors died to give us those freedoms that Turks, Chinese or some Europeans don’t fully have. The time may come and shortly, alas, when some of us may again have to bleed to protect such rights.

Yet so many of the opinions expressed today are based upon ideology or incorrect facts. Our media and blogs are often filled with sheer bluster producing a clash of opinions that does not produce clarity, but confusion and chaos instead.

Any discussion that leads to greater understanding must be based upon a grasp of the facts that underlie the situation under discussion.

Iraq is a good case in point. It is now costing us $338,000 a minute. It’s final bill will probably reach two trillion dollars. Over 15,000 dead and seriously injured. Many lives disrupted and destroyed. Our reputation in taters. And worse, what we have done to the Iraqis and their environment. Shame is all I can feel as the images flicker in my mind.

All based upon lies and years of using ideology instead of facts to understand the situation in Iraq. We’ve made an unholy mess that will haunt us and the suffering Iraqis for decades.

W and his team must be held to account. The reason for our making such an egregious mistake brought carefully to light, so that such behavior is seen for what it is – contemptuous – and that we can continue to protect that first amendment from that produced the criticism that lead to the election defeat that will allow the democrats to expose the secret decisions that underlie the empirical presidency of W.

It will cause dissension and great opposition.

W wants to hide his mistakes, but they must be exposed if we are to survive as a nation and to find a way to provide some recompense for destroying people and a land that is over 5,000 years old.

Political Prisoner Ira Einhorn - Justice Denied Again

2006-11-20T08:44:00.000-08:00

Political prisoner and environmental hero Ira Einhorn, was framed in 1977 for a murder there is no evidence he committed. He is currently serving a life sentence. Einhorn was subjected to a kangaroo court that convicted him without evidence, only hearsay by people who were not witnesses to how or where Holly Maddux was killed.

There was no blood in her body nor in Einhorn's apartment, where the murder was supposed to have taken place. There is no DNA evidence against him...nothing that connects him to the murder. The body found on his back porch in a locked closet was "missed" on previous police visits to his home where they were searching for evidence. Unlike Julius and Ethel Rosenberg, who were framed for treason, and executed, Einhorn fled to Europe, making the wise choice to live and fight another day. Another day came on Friday, June 13, 1997.

As reported by Philly.com, "In an opinion filed Tuesday [November 14, 2006], a three-judge Superior Court panel unanimously rejected all 10 of Einhorn's legal challenges to his 2002 conviction and life sentence for the murder of Helen "Holly" Maddux, 27. The court ruled that, even if the Philadelphia Common Pleas Court judge made trial errors, they did not prejudice the jury against Einhorn's defense."

The decision is posted.

A frame does not get any bolder than the court refusing to look at the truth, either during the trial or by denying the appeal.

Why frame Einhorn, an environmentalist and free energy advocate from the 60's and 70's? Because his wisdom, was in the way of toxic energy profits.

All conscious Americans should be asking themselves what is the government trying to hide by not allowing a fair and open trial review/appeal for Einhorn. As we’ve discovered, lies as a means of managing the population, i.e. 9/11. WMD's, Iran Contra, LIES, are used to control the country to keep us on polluting energy.

The lie that Einhorn killed Holly Maddux discredited this great environmental activists, and kept American attention right where the toxic energy interests wanted it...that the only choice we have is to use energy that is killing us. The global warming event called Katrina, and other wild weather events are signs of what Einhorn and others said would happen if we did not change our way of living.

To understand the depth of our corrupt toxic energy controlled government, courts included, please read:

Reply Brief

Kangaroo Court

What Smell?

The “evidence” is a sick joke.

For example, there was a lot of noise made during the trial about Einhorn’s diary, where he wrote about killing someone you can’t have being natural. It is at best circumstantial evidence. There are many secret life of Walter Mitty style diaries. It's like porno. Watching it or writing it is not the same as doing it, though I understand some wives (and husbands) would disagree. I may be able to understand if the diary writings were about Maddux, but they were not. His fiction writings were presented as evidence. Holly's body was found in a trunk on his back porch, which was missed during an earlier police search of his apartment.

Einhorn wrote:

“As the 2002 trial made clear, blood would have sprayed everywhere.

NO BLOOD was found in the body, in the fluids inside or outside the trunk or anyplace else in the alleged murder scene.”

When did reality change so that a violent murder leaves no evidence? How does one drain all the blood out of a body in their home and not leave a trace? Why the chemical smell passed off as a decaying human body?

Einhorn, a life dedicated to truth as a means of helping people live in a clean, life supporting environment, was a threat to keeping the American public buying gas and governments using nuclear energy. Alternatives like:

Hemp Bio fuels

Bruce DePalma's N Machine

Water powered vehicles

and others were thrown aside, made illegal, and/or their inventors and supporters were discredited or worse.

Why? GREED! The toxic energy lobby had a mission. Help the American people pretend not to know that the use of polluting energy would create Global Warming. How could the Bush family take over if oil was discredited. Toxic energy is the foundation industry for both the president and the vice president. Dr. Rice is a long term advocate of oil and nuclear energy.

The toxic energy lobby in America is so strong that they can take the entire country to wars for oil, though their products have been proven to cause cancer and other life threatening conditions.

Government for sale goes back in American history from legal slavery to Hearst, Hemp and the Marijuana Tax Act, to modern times of the Abramoff scandal. And no one runs it better than oil, nuclear and coal industries who slay anyone who stands up to them as they pollute the water, air and land.

Einhorn’s unbending environmental stance was in the way of keeping folks addicted to oil. Most of the movement sold out for an annual party (Earth Day) and funding, but Einhorn didn't. He had to be silenced. Death ran the risk of making Einhorn a martyr, giving the people a reason to resolve to get off of the chosen industries.

We are dealing with something much bigger than the case again him. If it were just the case, he would have been out. DNA results release people every day.

The only way special interests can still hold onto Einhorn is a series of court delays and other tactics. I suspect that if it were not for the noise his supporters are making, he would be dead by now.

There is hope as the government’s crimes are catching up with them. Outing a CIA agent (father knows best), 9/11, war for oil and poppies, gutting the Constitution, and now a tribunal of Democrats are assembled and asking questions.

Let freedom and truth ring.

What to do? Please contact the Attorney General for the State of Pennsylvania and ask him to review the case. Copy your communication to the press.

By Mail:Pennsylvania Office of Attorney General, 16th FloorStrawberry Square, Harrisburg, PA 17120, By Phone: 717-787-3391By Fax: 717-787-8242

By on line email form: http://www.attorneygeneral.gov/theoffice.aspx?id=71

FREE THE UNICORN

J. Nayer Hardin
Computer Underground Railroad

2006-10-23T14:33:00.000-07:00

Two New Videos:

CLICK BELOW TO VIEW THE VIDEOS

EUROPE & GHOSTS

and

STRESS

Readings From The Book

Prelude To Intimacy

By
Ira Einhorn

An American Hero
In Jail For A Murder
There Is No Evidence He Committed

Free The Unicorn

Ira Einhorn's Reply Brief

2006-09-15T09:51:00.000-07:00

Ira Einhorn
ES6859, P.O. Box 1000
Houtzdale, PA 16698-1000

The Reply Brief was written over a weekend for the Superior Court of Pennsylvania due to the failure of my attorneys Bill Cannon and M. S. Strutin to file one, in spite of my insistence that they do so.

They then failed to enter it into the records as an addition to the brief they filed on my behalf, in spite of my writing Mr. Cannon four times to do so.

It is part of the record, but will not be part of the Superior Court’s consideration, due to their failure to enter it.

A typical action of ineffectiveness of counsel on their part. I have asked them to leave a number of times and have filed nine other motions, to protect myself and the record, due to their ineffectiveness.

There has been no adequate communication for over two years, though this is the biggest case that either of them will ever have.

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA
EASTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF
PENNSYLVANIA

APPELLEE

VS.

IRA EINHORN
APPELLANT

DOCKET # 3666 EDA – 2002

TRIAL COURT # 7904-1296-1297

REPLY BRIEF

NOW comes the above captioned appellant, Ira Einhorn, pro se, to file an answer to the DA’s Letter Brief, and avers:

HISTORY

1. In previous motions filed with this court I have raised ineffectiveness of counsel issues which were not treated as the court itself stipulated most recently in Com v. Battle, 879 A. 2d 266 (PA. Super 2005)

2. I then asked the court to follow its own procedure.

3. In the meantime the DA filed his Letter Brief on my appeal.

4. As there is a time limit re: response to the Letter Brief and my lawyers are not communicating adequately, I must protect my interests, as I am effectively without counsel and my sixth amendment rights are being violated.

5. I am relying on Com. V. Blystone 617 A. 2d 788 and Battle (as cited above) as I have no assurance that my counsel will file an answer to the Letter Brief, so must do so myself.

6. If I do not do so, the opportunity will be lost.

7. If my counsel, as asked, does not file a reply, I would ask the court to accept my pro se brief as a reply.

“We will accept for filing pro se appellate briefs, but will not review a pro se brief if counseled brief has been filed, either before, simultaneously with or after the pro se....” (Blystone, as above, Page 7)

INTRODUCTION AND CONTEXT

The theme and underlying tone of the picture of the Defendant Ira Einhorn painted by Joel Rosen in two trials and in brief after brief filed by the DA’s office can be encapsulated by regarding the opening paragraph of the Letter Brief wherein Mr. Einhorn is called “an ersatz intellectual” and a statement from his youth about violence is misinterpreted.

Mr. Rosen and Ms. Christie, who is infamous in Philadelphia legal circles for her acts of judicial misconduct, both left the DA’s office in disgrace.

Mr. Rosen who called the Defendant “a bum who xeroxed things” in the in absentia trial and attempted to demean the Defendant in other ways, was joined in this activity by Judge Mazzola who in spite of his ‘public face’ of fairness often acted as a second prosecutor during both the trial and post trial proceedings. His 218 page(!) 1925(a) statement just dotted the ‘i’.

To set the record straight about all of these matters would require a book, so please bear with the condensed form used below to treat of the question of the Defendant’s intellectual stature, Judge Mazzola’s actions, and most important of all the perjury of the witness who ended the testimony at the trial and whose purpose, successful according to the Philadelphia Inquirer, was to destroy the veracity of the Defendant.

The entire trial was predicated on an attempted conflating of the gropings of a youthful mind full of its enormous still unintegrated reading with its later more mature accomplishments as presented below. Close to 15% of the trial testimony dwelt on alleged unreported prior acts. The defense prepared to defend against the Maddux killing and found itself up against two more very different charges.

The person depicted in the testimony of Michael Hoffman was not the same person who discussed for months in 1977 the process of separation with Holly Maddux.

Mr. Hoffman supposedly remembers conversations from over 40 years ago, but totally ‘forgot’ two major instances that indicated his total trust in the Defendant:

1. Leaving his two infant children with the Defendant overnight, while he and his wife attended a Broadway show;

2. Nominating the Defendant to be a professor in residence hired by the students at his college, University of California at Davis. A process that involved flying the Defendant to California and putting him up for five days while he gave lectures and was interviewed for the proposed position.

All of which would have been clearly described in the Defendant’s journals, mainly unavailable to the defense, as noted in the Defendant’s brief to the court, but made freely available to Steven Levy, author of The Unicorn’s Secret, so that he could write a damning book about the Defendant, which formed the basis for all the media to follow.

A basis which the following quote addresses.

An unprecedented act of prosecutorial misconduct: To take over 60 volumes of diaries from a Defendant, under warrant, and then hand them over to a writer. The Defendant’s address book, also seized under warrant, was handed over to Mr. Levy so that he could easily contact the Defendant’s world wide network of friends and associates.

“And what happened in this case – and I challenge defense counsel or anybody else to cite any case ever – and I really do mean that – ever in the state of Pennsylvania – possibly the whole country – that has so personalized and so sensationalized not just the case but a Defendant.”

Prosecutor Joel Rosen, Notes of Testimony.

The years between 1962 or 1965 and 1977 produced large changes in the Defendant and the culture in which the Defendant emerged as a leader, lecturing in venues all over the United States and Canada, spending time in residence at many colleges, doing numerous print interviews and radio and TV shows, organizing major demonstrations including Earth Day which will be discussed below as it involves a witness who perjured himself. The Defendant spent a good deal of his time with the intellectual and business elite not just in Philadelphia, but all over the planet.

Experience changes an individual, especially experience of the type described below. He was a callow youth from 1958-1965. He slowly emerged as a leader.

To call the Defendant an “ersatz intellectual” is to deny the facts of the Defendant’s actual life: To substitute insult for the actual truth. A process that culminated in the perjury described below.

INTELLECTUAL BACKGROUND

The quotes below are taken from Steven Levy, The Unicorn’s Secret (New York, 1990)

“I learned to rely on him absolutely. If he said he’d do something, he’d do it.....

“What is his reputation in the community?

“The finest, as far as I’m aware.

“The economist was followed by the dermatologist consultant, who was followed by the businessman, who was followed by the playwright, who was followed by the restaurateur, who was followed by the minister – a daisy chain that seemed to have no end. So many prominent people were ready to bestow equally vigorous sworn honorifics that the lawyer had them stand up at their seats and acknowledge that their experiences of the Defendant, Ira Einhorn, were congruent with the testimony thus far.

“There simply was not enough time for all their praises.”

From the Prologue, X.

The lawyer was, now U. S. Senator Arlen Specter.

The description was the Defendant’s bail hearing quotes from which continue below.

“It apparently began to dawn on Marutani that the telephone company actually took Einhorn seriously. It had an arrangement with him. It learned from him. ‘And Bell Telephone,’ the judge asked, ‘with all its wealth, never gave him a dime?” (page 37)

Judge William M. Marutani a respected jurist was totally puzzled by the Defendant’s relationship to a branch of what was then the world’s largest corporation. He kept questioning the Bell Telephone Vice President.

“What would be in it for people such as Ira to go to all this trouble?” (page 37)

Ed Mahler, the Bell Telephone V.P. didn’t have an easy answer to that question: “No, it was not money or any such motive that led Ira to set up his unique operation. Ira operated on a different kind of value system. He worked, without pay, for Planet Earth..” (page 37)

Pages 144-146 of the book describe parts of the Defendant’s relationship to the Bell Telephone Company and the rest of the business community, summed up by two quotes:

1. ‘Beard or no beard, the Unicorn became a valuable resource for the phone company.” (page 144)

2. ‘I don’t think in his way Ira was any more of a con man than I am.” Says Thatcher Longstretch, now a City Councilman. ‘I’m a con man, as president of the Chamber of Commerce, I tried to get my members to do things that I thought were good for them. Likewise, Ira’s interest really seemed to be the betterment of the world at large. If that was a con, it was one a person could support wholeheartedly (page 147).

The next quote has to do with a book editor friend at Doubleday Anchor, Bill Whitehead: “In the wake of this was a hunger for knowledge about human consciousness, self-realization and global thought that acknowledged both the Bucky Fuller Systems sensibility and the strange worlds unlocked by psychedelic drugs. Perhaps no one in the United States of America was more in touch with this mode of thought in 1970 than Ira Einhorn, and the two developed not only a warm friendship but a mutual respect that led to a highly unconventional arrangement, as far as the publishing world went.” (page 154)

“Ira became a de facto consulting editor to Anchor Books.” (Page 154)

The next paragraph describes the slew of books I had published in this prestigious series and the lack of any concern for compensation. I will not quote it.

The following paragraph describes the network called by some “the Internet before the Internet existed.’ It was serviced by the Bell Telephone Company.

“By the mid-1970s Ira Einhorn’s network was a certified phenomenon in and of itself. Names appearing on the cover letters of recipients of a given piece might include economist Hazel Henderson, Lehmann Brothers Managing Director Shel Gordon; Seagram Heir Charles Bronfman; futurist Alvin Toffler; Science Adviser to the British Commonwealth Christian De Lait; Corporate Presidents John Haas and George Bartol: Whole Earth catalog publisher Stewart Brand; Physicist Freeman Dyson, David Bohm, Frijtof Capra and Heinz Pagels; Esalen co-founder Mike Murphey; Journalist Alex Cockburn and Jack Anderson, authors Colin Wilson, Robert Theobold and Thomas Kuhn. ‘Adam Smith’ (himself a recipient of certain network mailings under his real name Gerry Goodman) wrote a column about it in New York Magazine, calling it ‘the far-out physics underground’; Smith described an afternoon discussing various mailings with fellow network recipient Arthur Kosetler.

“Einhorn’s network came under study in a 1978 Diebold Corporation study entitled “The Emergence Of Personal Communications Networks Among People Sharing The New Values And Their Possible Use In Sensitizing Operating Management.” It compared the network to the communities of correspondence during the American revolution, and to the invisible colleges of science in Britain that thrived before scientific discussion was legalized in 1663. It claimed that ‘much of our future’ resides in networks like Ira Einhorn’s.” (Page 186)

I’ll close this section of quotes about my ‘ersatz intellectual’ activities with a comment Levy made about a future study: Probes For A Time Of Crisis that I did for George Bartol, Chairman of the Board of Hunt Manufacturing Company:

“Read over a decade later, Einhorn’s observations seem prescient in predicting the business struggles of the 80’s: the report was a blueprint for redefining a corporation, making use of Japanese-style management, in-house entrepreneurial efforts, and a sensitivity toward workers that looked beyond standard management – worker conflicts.” (Pages 200-201)

In addition to the above consider the following list drawn at random from a much larger list compiled for the Defendant’s autobiography:

1. Nominated for a Harvard Junior Fellowship by Thomas S. Kuhn, the most cited intellectual of the 20th Century.

2. Nominated by John Cage for a Guggenheim Fellowship.

3. Appointed as a Fellow at the Institute of Politics at Harvard.

4. Paid $1,000 by the Diebold Corporation to lecture on networker. A lecture that produced a number of corporate offers at the same fee.

5. Appointed by the Governor of Pennsylvania to serve on the year 2000 Commission for the Delaware Valley area.

6. A member of the National Commission, created by the O. T. A. to study the influence of telecommunication upon transportation.

EARTH WEEK

The need to demean, to lie about the Defendant’s past to call the Defendant an ‘ersatz intellectual’ or ‘ a bum who xeroxed things’ is typical of those who have a weak argument. It is an old rhetorical gambit called ad hominem. You don’t have the facts, attack the man.

There is another more straight forward technique: get someone to lie. That is what Joel Rosen managed to do re: the Defendant’s Earth Week activities.

It is what was done throughout the trial. The truth was bent, as the enormous publicity loosed by the prosecutorial misconduct in giving Steven Levy the Defendant’s journals and address book had its inevitable effect: People more than happy to comply with seeing this ‘bum’ get his just due.

In his rebuttal testimony (Vol. 13, Pages 157-168) Dr. Nathan claimed that the Defendant had nothing to do with Earth Week, attended no meetings, was not the emcee of the event and wanted to turn the event into an attack on corporations and a number of other ludicrous statements in light of the actual truth.

I will first present some background, then some quotes from the principles involved. Note that the source for two of the quotes; Ed Furia and Austan Librach are the first two names Doctor Nathanson mentions on Page 163, Vol. 13 of the Notes of Testimony.

The shift of movement energy towards ecology was done consciously. The riots in Chicago in 1968 disturbed a number of counter cultural leaders including the Defendant, so they began to shift energy towards what became Earth Day: The first ecological movement publication was created, Earth Read Out, to which the Defendant contributed; the Defendant began to read all the ecological literature then available, he also began meeting with Professor Ian McHarg.

When the idea for a mass ecological demonstration emerged the Defendant was contacted by a number of people and asked to help create the event as by then he was known nationally as a good organizer. One of these people was Austan Librach. Ian McHarg sent him to me.

“An agreement was forged: Ira would deliver what constituency he had, and work with the Earth Week Committee behind the scenes. On the main celebration, Earth Day itself, he would act as the public Master of Ceremonies.” (Librach in Levy, Page 138.)

Then the business community was dealt with as they were planning to attack Earth Week efforts with a Sunday Supplement insert that the Defendant convinced Thatcher Longstreth was suicidal.

“And there was a feeling that Earth Week was another sort of preparation by students and radicals to create a ferment in the community.” (139)

“Among them was Ira Einhorn, who was turning out to be quite an asset for Earth Week in terms of winning establishment support. ‘He was somebody whom I’d known and regarded as a slightly eccentric wacko, but as I got to see more of him, I learned that he was highly intelligent and had a very valuable thrust on this whole action,’ says Longstreth. ‘He was quite good fun – a personable, entertaining person to have around. And we got to be friends.’

Longstreth argued the Earth Week case to the Chamber, and got them to listen to the organizers, Austan Librach made a strong pitch for business support, but the more memorable presentation was made by Ira Einhorn. “He made a personal request for cooperation before a fairly large group, and he did a perfectly beautiful job,’ Longstreth recalls ‘the major thing about Ira was that in areas of disagreement between the establishment and the flower children, Ira was a pretty good bridge. He wasn’t anti-business at all. He was quite business-oriented himself, and had he chosen to go in that direction, he would have probably been a very successful businessman’.” (page 139)

$s in hand, Ed Furia, with my participation, was hired to be the front man and handle the office. His therapist at the time, Dr. Nathanson, came along for the ride and did not organize or originate anything.

Here is Ed Furia on the Defendant: “ ‘ Ira got on the phone and started calling gurus and famous people in the community , all of whom he knew.’ Ira got commitments from Allen Ginsberg, Alan Watts, Dune author Frank Herbert and Nobel Laureate George Wald .”

The Defendant structured and organized both large events. He was also the emcee for both events. The actual Earth Day event held on Belmont Plateau electrified the city. It was one of the largest gatherings, up to that time, in Philadelphia history.

It was that event, which Philadelphia took the lead in, propagated by TV which lead to the formation of the EPA.

If I can manage to reproduce the picture from the book of the Defendant at Earth Day, it will appear as Exhibit One. The summation captures the gist of the quotes above:

“Ira Einhorn in his glory, hosting the huge Earth Day celebration in April, 1970. Ira was the most visible figure in the massive, nationally televised festival. In the process of working with the Chamber of Commerce to present the event, Einhorn developed contacts that led to his becoming a guru of the business community; eventually Bell Telephone financed his networking efforts.”

(Caption to Earth Week Picture in Levy Book)

Compare the two reports of my Earth Week Activities: one highly researched account done a few years after the event; the other a tissue of lies, perjury in short, that totally skewed the trial for it destroyed the veracity of the Defendant in the eyes f the jury.

THE JUDGE

The third prong of this attack was made by Judge Mazzola.

His closing attack on me is indicative (Vol. 17, Pages 9-11).

The Defendant is an ‘intellectual dilettante’, reads the first and last chapters of books, a ‘pseudo-classicist etc. An entire condensed litany that the pages above expose as bias.

Then to cap the attack he says (Vol. 17, Page 10) that a word I used in the trial psychotronics doesn’t exist, and that the correct word is psychotropic.

The DA uses the word psychotronics in his Letter Brief and it indeed does exist. In fact, at the time of the trial, google.com would have returned over 4,000 hits, 3 of which are long articles about the Defendant (all in the top 20) which deal with the Defendant’s activities and interaction with Phillip K. Dick, a world famous sci-fi writer whose work lies behind Minority Report, Blade Runner and a number of other movies.

His words of derision are pure projection, not based on any evidence – miming a good deal of the trial.

Moments after insulting the Defendant, Judge Mazzola invited the jury back into the box and invited TV cameras and the rest of the media into the court room for extensive celebrations and interviews.

My lawyers looked on in amazement for TV is forbidden in the court room without expressed consent.

The function of a judge is to serve as a referee, to keep the playing field level. Judge Roberts made this clear during his Supreme Court Confirmation hearings.

Judge Mazzola failed to do this in many instances.

A few are part of the issues complained of. Others are noted below.

1. His outright refusal to allow us to put our prosecutorial misconduct claims on record. A clear violation of my due process rights.

2. A bag of dimension 4” by 8” with the printed words: ‘Bullshit Bag’ was on the prosecution table while the Defendant was testifying (Vol. 13, Pages 3-6). The jury may have seen it; it may have been held up during the Defendant’s testimony. Certainly grounds for a mistrial, but Judge Mazzola refused (William Cannon made a motion to that effect) to put Ms. Lineberger under oath so she could be questioned about behavior so detrimental to a fair trial.

3. The judge failed to rule on a mistrial motion, made by the defense, due to a statement made by Mr. Rosen to the press. He took it under advisement and said he would rule later, but never did.

4. His 218 page 1925(a) statement that totally ignored all standard procedures. The DA attempts to apologize (page 12, FN. 2) for the judge’s outburst, but the excuse is feeble. The appeal was delayed for 29 months, producing an ice cold record and greatly harming the defense. I would say, directly that a 218 page 1925(a) statement goes to ‘state of mind’ and that calling it indicative of bias is mild.

5. When the judge finally filed he had been in contempt of court for six months.

Consider Burkett v. Fulcomer, 951 F. 2d 1413: Delay of 18 months between notice of appeal and Affirmation Of Judgment violated due process.

Delay was directly caused by trial Judge’s failure to file opinion for one year.

The Defendant waited 29 months. Almost 40 months ago his 1925(b) statement was filed.

6. In his history of the case, he acts as if my four docketed motions about his untimely actions are non-existent. A lie.

7. In his overblown statement, he praises the Defendant’s lawyers in three instances (pp 5, 173 & 215), hardly the function of a 1925(b) statement. An obvious attempt to protect them against an ineffectiveness of counsel claim.

8. He also asks the court to close out all further appeals and rule negatively on an ineffectiveness claim that had not yet been raised. Bizarre.

“Disqualification of the trial judge is mandated whenever a significant minority of the lay community could reasonable question the court’s impartiality.”

Code of judicial conduct, canon 3, subdivision C.

Or Dunn V. Board of Property, 877 A. 2d 504: “in general, recusal is required whenever there is substantial doubt as to a jurist’s ability to preside over a matter impartially.”

9. The Frye issue was raised by counsel three times (Vol. 3, Page 12; Vol. 3 Page 91, and in a long sidebar, Vol. 7, Pages 89-95) but it is what the judge says on pages 215-216 that must be read to be believed: “...as there is no indication on this record that a Frye hearing was ever requested, let alone considered, except here as an untimely afterthought on appeal. Still, defense counsel cannot be said to be ineffective in that not requesting a Frye hearing was a sound strategy, especially where, as here the Defendant is notorious for trying to manipulate a legal system for which he clearly has nothing but contempt.” (pages 215-216).

This is so blatantly ridiculous that I have to keep rubbing my eyes. Constitutional issues are not dependent on the attitude of the Defendant.

If Frye is waived, counsel is decidedly ineffective, as the allowance of Tumosa’s Testimony, which does not qualify as adequate under any standard and seriously prejudices the defense, claims about cumulative weight of the evidence notwithstanding.

There is much more, but the above ought to indicate that the judge functioned as a second prosecutor. Then not satisfied with that dual role, he now wants to tell the appeals court what to do.

The overview just provided above along with the Rosen quote (page 5) is indicative of the thoroughly one-sided context in which the Defendant was tried. The attempt to rewrite the Defendant’s history, by allowing blatantly outdated alleged prior acts into testimony, overwhelmed the jury by attempting to rewrite history. 1977 became 1965, so that he could be fitted into a category that excluded his growth and development. That which doesn’t fit is erased or twisted. He is a homicidal maniac. End of story.

Let me take one example: “violence always marks the end of a relationship.” To insist that means that every relationship ends in violence is patent nonsense and obviously false.

What the statement refers to is a simple fact: Once violence enters a relationship it indicates a deep communication failure, creates an impassible barrier and indicates the end of a relationship.

A simple statement twisted into a cult of violence, as with the idea we must confront our inner violence. ‘Confront” means regard, observe, not act out.

The Defendant learned much from the egregious incident with Ms. Sabot. He became a public figure who often soothed public hysteria.

If the Defendant had hit Holly Maddux, he would have recorded such incidents, as he hid nothing from his diary. There is only one recorded incident wherein Holly hit Ira with a bunch of keys and he slapped her back.

Holly had skin that would show marks for months, but her closest friends, Barbara Kubiak and Ruth Fink and her two therapists: Bea Klegg and Marion Coopersmith saw nothing. She saw Barbara and Ruth regularly. They saw no marks of violence, as there was none. Holly would not have put up with any violence. If there had been any, she would have left immediately and never returned.

But woodcutters see lumber not trees and prosecutors in the USA in 2006 see only guilt.

Thus the three pronged attack on the Defendant described above re:

Einhorn as ‘ersatz intellectual’, ‘a bum who xeroxed things’, a homicidal maniac.

A non participant in Earth Day though he helped organize it, convinced the business community to fund it and structured and emceed the two main events’

What Judge Mazzola has done under color of law; all flow out of percepts that do not bear up under scrutiny.

The above observations backed up by years of research that went into the Levy book indicate serious procedural violations in the case in front of this court they form the context for a few brief comments on the issues before the court.

ISSUE NO. 1:

ALLEGED INFORMATION FROM PRIOR ACTS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN INTRODUCED:

1. Ms. Resnick and Mr. Einhorn were the same age. Thus the contention that the Defendant was substantially older is nonsense.

2. Powelton Village in 1962 was not on a college campus, so the location of this alleged attack is not part of a pattern.

3. Neither Ms. Resnick nor Ms. Sabot reported the incidents.

4. Neither Ms. Resnick nor Mr. Einhorn were certain about what had actually happened.

5. Neither woman was hurt badly, so to equate what allegedly happened with Ms. Resnick (incident unclear), and Ms. Resnick did not testify, and what the Defendant admits happened with Ms. Sabot with the murder of Holly Maddux is to compare apples and oranges.

6. Ms. Resnick and Mr. Einhorn did not break up over the alleged incident but continued to see each other.

7. The idea of a common scheme, plan or design is a nonsense.

8. Holly Maddux had left a number of times before, often disappearing for months at a time.

9. The couple had agreed to separate. They discussed the terms of the separation for the entire spring of 1977. Ms. Maddux was not moving to Alaska, but across the street. They had agreed to continue seeing each other. She had insisted on going to Europe with Mr. Einhorn. There was no reason to kill her. All this is fully documented in parts of my testimony, my journals and the Levy book.

The introduction of prior acts, 11 or 12 and 15 years old (the DA’s math in attempting to reduce these figures doesn’t work) which as the above demonstrates, do not conform to the idea of any common scheme, were prejudicial rather than probative. The effect through 100’s of pages of the DA’s opening and closing statements the testimonies of Mr. Hoffman and Ms. Sabot and Mr. Einhorn could not help but make an injurious impression of the jury. A few words from Judge Mazzola could not even begin to balance the effect produced by 15% of the record. The introduction of such evidence dominated the trial.

Any objective observer would have thought that the Defendant was being tried for the alleged attacks upon Ms. Resnick and Ms. Sabot. A poem, words dealing with violence surrounding these distant situations were brought up again and again in a succession of hammer blows that had to make a deep impression upon anyone, let alone a jury who had been subjected to a previous barrage of negative publicity. A few words from a judge could not cure such an effect. Supreme Court Justice Jackson made this clear in a number of opinions as does Comm v. Satzberg, 358 PA. Super 39, 516 A 2d 758 (1986) (“Believing the jury could ignore the illegal evidence because of the judge’s instructions is not realistic.”). The overall effect was extremely prejudicial not probative. A judicial error was made. A new trial should be granted.

ISSUE NO 2:

42 PA C. S. A. #9543(C) IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL:

The rhetoric employed in attempting to turn away the challenge to the ‘Ira Einhorn Law’ (how it was described in a recent law book) should not be allowed to obscure the basic issue.

1. Circumstances around the creation of the law demonstrate that the law was created for Mr. Einhorn and Mr. Einhorn alone. Legislative discussion said this quite plainly.

2. Mr. Einhorn had a final decision.

3. Only a court can overturn a final decision.

4. A legislative act can’t overturn a final decision, for to do so is to violate the separation of powers and to trample upon the prerogatives of this court and others.

5. Comm v. Sutley, 378 A. 2d 780 (PA. 1977) and an unbroken line of cases on both the federal and state levels support the simple propositions stated in 2-4 above.
6. There is no contending case and the DA does not cite any. The law is unconstitutional and should be voided.

The aftermath of such an action is governed by very settled law. See U.S. v. Khan, 993 F. 2d 1368 (C. A. 9 (Nev.) 1993) which uses this authority which governs such cases and has for over 100 years U.S. v. Rauscher, 119 U.S. 407, 419-421, FS. Ct. 234, 240-241, 30 L. Ed 425 (1886) (FN 4). This court should void the trial as the law was unconstitutional. The aftermath of such a decision will have to be settled by the Supreme Court of PA or in Federal Court.

Let such an order be made.

ISSUE NO 3.

RE-TRIAL SHOULD HAVE BEEN BARRED

1. The hysteria generated around the Defendant (see Rosen quote, page 5) is a direct outgrowth of Ms. Christie’s behavior. She turned over or allowed access to 10,000 pages of the Defendant’s journal which was seized under warrant when the Defendant was arrested. She also turned over his address book to facilitate access to persons mentioned in the journal.

Sheppard V. Maxwell, 384 U.S. 6, 865. Ct. 1507 (1966) covers Judge Mazzola’s responsibility to deal with such corrosive actions.

The book that resulted from such behavior, The Unicorn’s Secret, cited above, is littered with quotes from the Defendant’s journals. There is no similar egregious action in the case law.

To turn over evidence to a journalist, pre-trial, so that it can be known publicly, poisons any possibility of a fair trial.

The Levy book, republished a number of times, most recently in 2000, poisoned public opinion against the Defendant. It formed the basis for a scurrilous TV mini-series, now on video in many languages all over the planet and at last count 13 TV specials that played again and again, pre-trial, and still play to this date late in February, 2006.

To say that Ms. Christie did not do this with intent to harm is ludicrous. She knew exactly what she was doing, and did similar things in a number of other cases (Com v. Raymond Martoranto and Albert Daidone Nos. 0002 and 0003 E. D. appeal Docket 1998 – knows as the roofer’s case) among others.

Judge Mazzola was also fully aware of what he was doing when he did not allow the record to be developed on this unprecedented issue of prosecutorial misconduct, as mentioned above (page 15, point 1). It is a direct violation of the Defendant’s right to be heard and raises due process issues and the constitutional right to defend oneself.

When a prosecutor’s actions lead to such hysteria (again read the Rosen quote) discussed minimally (see Vol. 1, PP. 37-44) on the basis of 565(!) newspaper articles, the judge can’t just bar the actions which produced such behavior from the court room. To do so is to prejudice the defense gravely.

To grant waiver would be to sanction both Ms. Christie’s egregious actions and the judge’s protection of such actions.

Just for the record; the Defendant’s journals are mentioned on pages: 159, 162, 165, 166, 187, 188, 194, 201, 203, 204, 215, 221, 226, 227, 228, 229, 310, 315, 316, 317, 318, 319, 322, 323-5, 326-327, 332-34, 336, 338, 339, 340-1, 345-6, 351-2, 360.

2. Ms. Christie did not just send the materials to the FBI. When she did not get the results desired she sent the materials to Toxicon Associates. They too, ‘failed’ her. So, she then turned to the man she had skipped over twice who invented a new untested, un peer reviewed procedure to save her case. She shopped around as testimony made clear (see Vo. 7, pages 60-69).

Once again Judge Mazzola did not permit the matter to be discussed in the pre-trial hearing on the matter.

3. Ms. Christie took the ‘Pearce Report’, the original basis of all the prosecution’s evidence, blew it down in size which in the process removed the page numbers. She then removed a number of things (some of which the defense has never seen as far as I can tell.) She removed five exculpatory sightings, two of which, in spite of five court hearings about the matter, testified to by Mr. Gelman, were not given to the defense until 2002. These Brady violations cast a shadow on the in absentia trial and prevented the defense from using one of them in 2002 as the man had died. Both sightings held back until 2002 were made by Philadelphia police detectives.

The Letter Brief’s discussion of these matters is both evasive and disingenuous. It states that this matter relating to discovery was completed by November 7, 1979. That is not true as the exculpatory statements (Brady Material) of both detective Draper and his partner were withheld in spite of five court hearings. As said above, they were withheld during the in absentia trial.

Other things were withheld: that ‘but‘ (October 11, 2002, Vol. 11, page 59) that Norris Gelman was not allowed to finish.

To prevent such obvious violations of due process from being brought to light and discussed, is to make a mockery of the right to defend oneself.

The court should satisfy itself by holding a hearing on these matters as rubber stamping such prosecutorial and judicial behavior is in flagrant disregard of our judicial principles. One can’t create a record when one is not allowed to be heard.

Failing to grant the above, the court has no choice but to declare a mistrial.

ISSUE NO VII:

DR. TUMOSA’S TESTIMONY WAS INADMISSIBLE

The forensics are key to any murder investigation. When Ms. Christie came up empty twice in farmed out testing, she turned to the man, Dr. Tumosa, who had been spurned twice. He then used a novel test which had never been published or peer reviewed. This made his test inadmissible as the Defendant demonstrated in his appeal brief.

Dr. Cordova who was Dr. Tumosa’s former boss made it clear in his testimony (Vol. 10, Pages 137-140) that what Dr. Tumosa did would never pass muster in the forensic community. The four pages are a lesson in admissibility. Dr. Tumosa flunked. He then added (Vol. 10, page 159): “...it’s got to be a validated technique, a technique that has been tested by other people. That’s the bottom line. Either you do it right or you don’t do it at all.”

Strong words, but a life was at stake.

Dr. Arden made it clear (Vol. 12, Pages 63-68) that if Holly Maddux had been killed in the apartment she shared with Mr. Einhorn, blood would have splattered everywhere. No blood was found. He also made it clear (Vol. 12, page 47) that the smell of a decaying animal does not differ from the smell of decaying human remains and that the odor of a human body decaying would remain for a long period of time. (Vol. 12, page 44).

Yet, Einhorn had visitor after visitor (Vol. 12, page 144), some who stayed overnight, one who spent a weekend. They smelled nothing, yet the prosecution insists a body was decaying in a trunk less than ten feet from where the visitors slept.

Holly was also sighted at least five times, months after she was supposedly dead. Could all these people have been wrong?

Thus the ‘mountainous’ weight of the evidence becomes rather shaky. Dr Tumosa’s improper testing took away from the Defendant’s assertion that Ms. Maddux was not killed in the apartment as the testimony of the five sightings, his many guests, the FBI agents, Dr. Cordova and Dr. Arden suggest.

One does not order a third forensic test when the two previous tests give you what you want. The DA needed some forensic good news. What it got was an inadmissible test that never should have been allowed in the court room.

The Defendant deserves a new trial.

ISSUE X:

THE VARIANCE HAS NO JUSTIFICATION

The variance in the date of the murder is not a question of a few days as Ms. Maddux was seen alive by a number of people months after her supposed death. She was seen in two separate banks, once in down town Philadelphia and in the Powelton Neighborhood by two Philadelphia police detectives. All of these sightings were initially withheld by Ms. Christie, as described above (Page 25).

The Defendant also had a number of visitors, one spending the weekend, others sleeping overnight. No one smelled anything, though the prosecutor claims a corpse was decaying under their noses.

The date itself was set in stone by the American promise to the French re: the death penalty.

The evidence re: screams, thumps, smells and leaks would also disappear, as would the faulty common scheme rational.

The prosecution focused on the September 11, 1977 date for twenty-one years.

The defense was totally focused on that date.

For the judge to suddenly declare that the date is not essential was to both undermine the defense and to give an advantage to the prosecution that destroys the concept of a fair trial.

To give an unrequested instruction stating that “the date of the death is not an essential element of the crime” destroyed the defense and turned the trial into a nullity. The date of death was the keystone upon which both the prosecution and the defense built their case. To remove it is to reduce the trial to rubble. The Defendant should be granted a new trial.

Murder is a heinous act. If I were guilty, I would deserve the severe sentence I received, but I AM NOT GUILTY, I DID NOT KILL HOLLY MADDUX. The real murder in this case has been truth and respect for the law and justice.

Respectfully submitted, Ira Einhorn

DISUNITED STATES OF AMERICA

2006-07-13T08:11:00.000-07:00

Controversy over the attacks on 9/11 continues. Despite UNITED 93, a film I found very compelling, there are those who think that crash and whatever hit the Pentagon were both fabrications. Even though there is no question that something hit the twin towers, a lot more people suspect the government had a hand in the collapse of the towers and neighboring WTC 7.

But those numbers pale in comparison to those who distrust the reasons given for attacking Iraq. Was Colin Powell misled or misleading is his presentation to the United Nations? Did the administration honestly think there were WMDs posing a nuclear threat to the region, or were we lied to in an attempt to get us to accept an action we never would have accepted otherwise?

After all, this administration has always operated in secrecy and doubt. Did polling officials in Florida and Ohio rig the results that favored Bush over Gore and then Kerry? Was the Diebold Corporation, which manufactured many of the voting machines, complicit? After all, the president of Diebold “promised” the state of Ohio to Bush.

After election, the administration established a pattern of secrecy. Documents that had been de-classified were re-classified. Wiretaps were ordered and first legitimized with claims of warrants. Then, even the pretense of warrants was dropped. Cheney, with close ties to big oil, formed an energy task force, refusing to release the identities of the participants. We do know that environmentalists, conservationists, and alternative fuel folks did not need to apply. Is it any wonder that the public feels bamboozled by the explanations for soaring fuel costs?

Halliburton, still doling out deferred payment to Cheney, wins no-bid contracts in the Middle East and elsewhere, and even when those contracts are executed with shabby accountability, they are renewed.

Bush told us he is a “compassionate conservative.” His compassion apparently extends only to big business and the rich, the primary beneficiaries of his tax cuts. The poor need not apply. He tried to privatize Social Security in the name of rescuing it, like rescuing a drowning man with a large, heavy rock. The Medicare Prescription Drug program? Tailored to the needs of the pharmaceutical industry, and if you can’t figure it out, you must have Alzheimer’s, for which you need an expensive medication.

It seems like we’ve added a fourth branch of government, i.e., the Great American Lobby, headquartered on K Street, de facto president Jack Abramoff. The speaker of the House resigns in a flurry of charges of corruption. A congressman is caught on tape accepting bribes, the money is found in his freezer, and he has the audacity to complain about the F.B.I.’s intrusion. The Democrats and Republicans alike issue statements denouncing the F.B.I’s intrusion. Is that chutzpah or what?

Actually, that’s small potatoes. We got our knickers in a knot over the awarding of port security to Dubai Ports World, yet nobody even noticed that Treasury Secretary John Snow, under whose aegis the deal was awarded, is a former executive of CSX, a container shipping firm with links to Dubai Ports World and the Carlysle Corporation, which you learned about if you saw FAHRENHEIT 9/11. The revolving door of cronyism between government and industry spins again.

One after another corporation is exposed as running a shell game. The executives at Krispy Kreme were misleading their investors and employees right out of the Enron playbook both of which went belly-up after their executive officers reaped millions. Turns out the high and noble institution, the University of California, has been handing out bonus packages right and left, in blatant violation of its rules and procedures, hoodwinking the Regents, and the President of the University hardly seems ashamed. The lid is about to blow on Fannie Mae, the largest facilitator of mortgage lending in the country. Turns out the Army Corps of Engineers may have bungled the job in rebuilding the levees and floodwalls of New Orleans, not just now but in the past, but of course the Corps denies it. At least the President of the University of California had the decency to admit his wrongdoing. “Taking responsibility” has become rare and as ineffectual as taking umbrage.

Or perhaps taking confession. Instead of taking responsibility for its pedophilic priests and putting them out of the harm’s way of children, the RC Church simply rotated them from one parish to another, all the while denying any wrong-doing, until victims began collecting millions. Then something had to be done.

Before the threat of avian flu appeared to subside, our government had purchased millions of doses of Tamiflu, manufactured by Roche from a formula owned by Gilead. Who was the former chairman of Gilead before he became Secretary of Defense? You got it. Is it any wonder that bird flu is now being spoken of as a hoax?

Same with global warming. I happen to believe it is a reality, but I’m waiting for the next conspiracy theory to allege that the administration is doing it on purpose to facilitate drilling in Alaska.

Last but not least, our sports and entertainment industries. Barry Bonds is booed as he breaks Babe Ruth’s record. Was it skill or steroids? The last two contestants make it to the finals of “American Idol.” Was it votes or manipulation?

I was inspired to compose this essay by rumors circulating about “American Idol.” Did Reuben win over Clay Aiken because the producers suspected Clay might be gay? Are the judges’ comments a not-very-subtle attempt to influence voters? Are the phone lines rigged (like voting machines) to give votes cast for one contestant to another contestant (a notion I would seriously consider if I found out Diebold makes the equipment)?

If you add up all the above aspects of life in which trust is at a minimum, corruption seemingly can’t get any more rampant, and the notion of “truth” is beginning to seem like a cruel joke, the mental state of America is somewhere between utter cynicism and blatant paranoia. The motto seems to be, or seems that it ought to be, “Trust no one.”

When I was growing up, i.e., until day before yesterday, it was during and after WWII. We were “good guys,” fighting for the “right” causes, not just for self-interest (at least until Pearl Harbor). Just about everybody did his or her part to support the war effort. The notion that FDR had links to industries that might be profiting from the war would have been unthinkable, and I don’t recall that notion ever being entertained.

Then it was perhaps Eisenhower’s warnings about the military-industrial complex that brought the sobering awareness that something could begin to stink in the state of Denmark. The film, WHY WE FIGHT, spells out that thesis. In America, we hold history in low regard and scarcely remember our own. If it were otherwise, we would “remember” many periods in our history when government and various industries conspired against “the people.”

The next glass of cold water, as I recall, came when Spiro Agnew was exposed as a sleazy, two-bit crook, and I wondered how in the world Nixon came to pick him. Watergate answered that question for me.

Kennedy was my hero, but I’ll have to admit that my unmitigated admiration took a blow when I learned what a womanizer he was and the first “conspiracy” theory I can remember, that Marilyn Monroe had been offed because she knew too much.

The second conspiracy theory I remember lives on, namely that Lee Harvey Oswald and Jack Ruby were not isolated nut cases, acting alone, that perhaps our president had been assassinated by our government.

And then there were the lies about Viet Nam. As Robert McNamara relates in FOG OF WAR, Gen. Westmoreland once speculated that if we hadn’t “won” the war, he and McNamara would have been tried as war criminals for crimes against humanity. And they all lied, Kennedy, Johnson, and Nixon, asking us not to believe our eyes as we watched the 6:00 news, asking us not to puke when the National Guard shot the students at Kent State.

That’s it, I think, the extent of lying, so prevalent that is has become the expectation. Maybe not even lying, more the Art of the Dodgeful Answer, “I did not have sex with that woman”…unless you count fellatio as sex. Forget “the whole truth and nothing but the truth.” It’s more like “the parts of the truth that make me look good.”

“Integrity” is a quaint term that used to mean something in American society, a term that Webster defines as “steadfast adherence to a strict moral and ethical code.” It’s as though collectively, we have decided to abandon the code of honesty, in our commerce, our government and other higher institutions, even in our sports and entertainment. Not just caveat emptor, buyer beware, but citizen beware. That, my friends, to borrow terms from construction and real estate, is dry rot of the infrastructure of our character. Our piers and joists have been eaten away by the termites and beetles of greed and self-interest, unabated by compassionate enlightenment. Any house like that is bound to fall down, and there is no homeowners insurance for such losses.

SEPARATION OF POWERS

2006-07-10T16:56:00.000-07:00

The issue of the separation of powers and its unconstitutional violation by the passing of the Einhorn Law looms largely in my case.

It is also in the news at present as a result of the FBI’s invasion of the office of a member of the House of Representatives.

Thus it is worth taking some time to explain the concept which lies at the very basis of our form of government.

The modern history of the development of our form of government emerged from the desire to restrain the power of the rule of one, or in or most immediate history: the king. This attempt to restrain the king has a long history in England and reaches a climax with the actual trial and beheading of a king during the mid 17th century.

That action is as exemplary an act as one can find in recent annals of western political thought, for it asserts the right to question authority at the deepest level and must be seen as a precursor to both the American and French Revolutions.

It also stirred up much discussion about the nature and type of government that would be adequate in a society that was slowly leaving the remnants of its feudal ways and entering the industrial revolution.

Two concepts come up again and again in this discussion as it was held among political thinkers during the 17th and 18th century in England and Europe and then those gathered in Philadelphia to turn a confederacy of states into a more perfect union: A great concern to limit the power of the executive, as the ‘tyranny’ of King George was paramount in everyone’s mind; a way to maintain the separation of powers among the executive, legislative and judicial branches of the envisioned government, as a means of providing a check on all three branches by limiting each to a particular limited realm of power.

The debate both before and after the constitutional convention, held during a hot Philadelphia summer, is unequaled in the quality of discussion about how propertied free white men can best live together in freedom and tranquility.

It was a positive movement in spite of its neglect of the majority of people (Blacks, Indians, Women) who shared the space of the discussers.

The principle of the separation of powers was basic to the political construction that our founders created. It has remained so to this day. The principle has been protected again and again by both the federal and Pennsylvania Supreme Court.

The case law is clear: A law that violates the separation of powers is unconstitutional.

The Philadelphia DA’s office knew this when they proposed the Einhorn Law and the Pennsylvania Legislature knew this when they passed the law, but mob rule prevailed as it has prevailed since 9/11 in issue after issue as a frightened polity was stampeded into an egregious war and a Patriot Act that demeans the very basis of what this country has attempted to stand for before W and his neo-con crew took over.

We don’t do torture. We don’t spy on innocent citizens. We don’t massacre civilians. We respect the Geneva Convention.

WE BELIEVE IN A RULE OF LAW

Or we used to until W took over.

The reason for maintaining the separation of powers is easy to maintain on a practical level:

1. I was tried in absentia for reasons that were never explained.

2. My court decision became final.

3. Only a court can overturn a final decision.

4. If the legislature is allowed to do so that would allow someone who has lost a civil suit to go to the legislature and have a law passed that would overturn the losing decision.

5. But then the original winner could have another law passed, and

6. There would never be any closure.

That is why the Einhorn Law is unconstitutional: It attempts to overturn a final judicial decision with a legislative act.

By doing so it tramples all over the separation of powers and grinds judicial prerogatives into the dust.

Any honest judge would react in horror, as has every lawyer who has looked at the situation.

The law is a very formal enterprise. It is based upon precedent and accepted principles. It should be blind in the application of its principles. Ira Einhorn should not be treated differently than anyone else, publicity (most of it factually inaccurate) notwithstanding.

The law not the mob should rule.

Both the law and our legal tradition must be maintained.

The Einhorn Law flaunts these principles and casts distain upon the law just as W and his minions have brought distain to our history by lying about Iraq and fostering a context in which torture, massacre and denial of any due process can take place.

Our system has been placed under great strain by people who have traded expediency for honor, and usurped power that is not theirs.

We must have the courage to rid ourselves of these traitors to our heritage, just as the founders had the courage to rid themselves of King George.

What has been done in our name has demeaned our past; we must not allow it to demean our future.

Ira Einhorn
June, 2006

What Smell? By Ira Einhorn

2006-07-07T09:31:00.000-07:00

In dealing with my case, the media in the United States have rarely reported the ‘facts’ or questioned them. What they have done is parrot the DA, as I dared to challenge a system that has become a political pathway, on the backs of defendants, often innocent, for aspiring DAs.

This short note is an attempt to clarify a particular aspect of my case: the smell that was associated with my apartment building, NOT MY APARTMENT, during the fall of 1977.

I have no idea what the smell was. One hypothesis was that of a dead animal trapped under the floor.

If Holly Maddux had been killed when the DA insisted she was killed for over twenty years and put into a trunk that was then stored in a closet just ten feet from my bed no one would have been able to live in that apartment while the body was decaying, as the smell of a dead body – human or animal – is overwhelming and permeates everything.

Yet, during that time period there were people in my apartment for long periods of time.

I counted eleven people, mentioned in my diary, who spent at least a number of hours with me.

Two women who slept overnight in the apartment, one for a weekend, shortly after the purported death, testified at my trial.

They smelled nothing, as there was no smell.

Holly was seen alive, on at least five separate occasions, months after her supposed death. Information that the DA tried to suppress.

She was supposedly killed in a manner that would have sprayed blood everywhere. No blood was found in the apartment.

No blood was found on her clothes which were conveniently lost.

So the SMELL is a red herring, and the judicial authorities know it to be so, for after hearing all the evidence, Judge Mazzola very pointedly told the jury to ignore the time of death.

An outrageous act given the fact of two decades of DA insistence on the date of death and a defense totally based on such an insistence.

June 2006
Ira Einhorn

American Theocracy - Multitude

2006-07-06T06:52:00.000-07:00

AMERICAN THEOCRACY, KEVIN PHILLIPS, VIKING, 2006, 462 PP.

MULTITUDE: WAR AND DEMOCRACY IN THE AGE OF THE EMPIRE, MICHAEL HARDT AND ANTONIO NEGRI, VIKING (PAPER), 2005, 426 PP

PREFERENCE

Denigration, deterioration, degradation and a whole host of other negative words clearly describe the world I see reflected in most of what I read and experience.

The legal system in which I am entangled has little to do with justice and each day presents me with a new more egregious example of its failure.

Yesterday, I was given more information about one of the cases that I have been following for awhile. A case filled with a lot of judicial and prosecutorial misconduct, ignoring of the basic rules of procedure and finally such contradiction that all I could do was laugh.

The facts are simple in the latest twist: after having a motion for a retrial denied, the defendant made a request for a transcript, so he could file an appeal. The request is pro forma and there is no reason that it should not be granted, but it was, as the hearing contains prima facie evidence of judicial and prosecutorial misconduct.

My friend hollered loudly in a legal matter.

A transcript arrived, but it was doctored and neither certified by the court reporter or signed by the judge.

He hollered some more to the Justice Department and other higher powers. He then received pounds of documents (no certified transcript) that included the judge’s order for the transcript.
The two orders (one denying the order for the transcript, the other granting it) were signed by the judge at exactly the same time and on the same day.

So my friend now has two orders from his judge in his possession that are exactly similar: one granting him what he needs to file his appeal, the other denying it. And of course a useless transcript as it is neither certified nor signed.

Such behavior is emblematic of the behavior I see everyplace I look in American society and what I have experienced under the color of law since my return to the USA in July of 2001.
The legal system is bankrupt and anyone denying that assertion must be classed with those who still deny global warming through the conversions in that area are coming thicker and faster as the glaciers and ice caps melt at ever increasing rates and our daily weather seems to be produced by an erratic roulette wheel rather than by the ‘seasons’ I grew up with.

In May, I have experienced mainly October for most of the month, then 900 heat (rare) for a few days, then a thunderstorm that would have frightened Thor. Anyone who is older and with some semblance of memory knows that the weather is changing before their eyes.

REVIEW

The two books under review both address problems I and the friend mentioned above, face as we struggle to reclaim our lives in a system that has gone mad.

The Phillips book is totally focused on the USA, providing over 450 pages of evidence for his thesis that reflects my preface above. It could easily be entitled: ‘We’ve Lost It’ or ‘The Decline of the USA.’

Anyone reading my letters written during the past 5 years would not be surprised by any of it. I have lived through the recent degradation and described it as honestly as I am able to do.
Phillips concentrates on three areas:

1. The coming oil shock – we re running out of oil, the petroleum age is over, habits run deep and those in charge of our government are deaf, dumb and blind wherein the needed changes are concerned.

2. The religious takeover of the Republican party by born again fundamentalists who, under the aegis of W , have pushed an agenda on the American people that is alien to both our founders and most of our history. An agenda based on ideology that is an inadequate way to handle our problems and that can’t begin to deal with them for biblical hand waving can’t solve complex 21st Century problems.

“Ideology is a lot easier, because you don’t have to know anything or search for anything. You already know the answer to everything. It’s not penetrable by facts.” (page 235, Ex-Secretary of the Treasury, Paul O’Neil)

The main criticism I have of W and his cohort of fumblers has little to do with politics per se. What I object to most is the continual lying, the almost total incompetence and a pride in ignorance that is a horrible model in a society that increasingly requires a lifetime of learning to survive.

Phillips has great expertise in polling and getting people elected. His discussion of religion and voting patterns is packed with data and a must read for anyone concerned with what has happened to the USA.

3. Debt is the third issue which Phillips and a few courageous others think is the most frightening factor in the current American situation. We are now the largest debtor nation in history and so beholden to others that if one debt holder panics and begins selling $s or a big oil nation insists on denominating oil in euros, the slide of the $ could land the nation in the territory of 1923 Germany.

“Debt, directly or indirectly, as decayed the very soul of America.” (265), James Medoff & Andres Harless, The Indebted Society.

We are borrowing close to three billion dollars a day just to survive.

In essence the world produces products and we print $s to buy those products. A scam of gigantic proportions. The USA is now borrowing and spending most of the world’s savings and our own savings are now in negative territory.

Phillips goes into the debt crunch at length. It is the best popular discussion of the matter I have read.

Those who can step back from our present context and overview it dispassionately are rare, as money usually generates immense passion.

The essence of what Phillips is saying about American decline is based on previous models of past imperial and financial powers: Roman, Spanish, Dutch and British.

I’ve read some of the scholarship and agree with what Phillips is saying about how indicative the present state of our economy is: We now make money from money, not products. Finance not manufacturing is in control. In the past that has always indicated decline, end time.

Combine that with American dependence on oil from without, our religious imperial fanaticism and the recipe is a perfect match up with past declines.

W is to Phillips a know-nothing leader who is exacerbating all these trends and literally leading the country off a cliff.

Alas, I agree.

Hardt and Negri are all well aware of the American debacle, but their focus is planetary and what they are selling is hope.

Now without hope, we are lost. No argument about that. As a prisoner, I am doubly aware of that

BUT

That hope requires a tad more facts to function for me and though Hardt and Negri are astute theoreticians and have read through libraries of leading edge material their practical suggestions are very flat.

If you are short on hope, Multitude may juice your mind and help you breathe more easily – a necessary function – but its admitted practical paucity will make the reader aware of just how dire our situation is.

And the elephant in everyone’s living room is not adequately discussed in either book.

The books on global warming and its most dangerous consequence are flooding out. We are back in 1969 waiting for the equivalent of Earth Day to happen, but on a planetary level. That event will focus our minds and subsume the concerns of both Phillips and Hardt and Negri, for what we are headed for will force a rethink of everything we are doing, since the human actions of the past 250 years have set loose a series of changes that will require a reorganization of human life, as the very parameters that define the air bowl in which we live are transmuting before our relatively unaware eyes.

Ira Einhorn
May 2006

Ira Einhorn's Book Available on Amazon.com

2006-07-02T12:00:00.000-07:00

I Am Your Mirror Iraq

2006-06-29T18:58:00.000-07:00

By Ira Einhorn:

‘I am your mirror,’ said Nico, a Buddhist technique that Eliot Weinberger has applied twice now in devastating articles in the London Review of Books: ‘What I Heard About Iraq’, February, 2004 and ‘What I Heard About Iraq In 2005’, 5 January 2006.

In the most recent piece, one is presented with C. 200 short quotes about the Iraqi War from Bush, Cheney, Rice, Rumsfeld and others that indicate such transparent lying that one quickly becomes aware that time and thus memory are no longer a relevant social component.

We are living in the pure present of discourse: “Truth” created by and for the moment, to be discarded and forgotten as soon as the moment is over.

To explain, some would turn to Baudrillard and his idea of simulation wherein the referent for any statement has disappeared and the only things signs refer to are other signs in a continuous round of self enclosed meaning that has no reference to any reality at all.

Others would turn to Guy Debord’s Society Of The Spectacle whose prescience illuminates the more one reflects on what the media in the United States has become.

Those with some historical sense of the first great outbursts of Dada and Surrealism, during and immediately after World War I, will appreciate the slippage, the parataxis, the non-rational, non-temporal sense which the reading of Weinberger quickly invokes. One constantly has to stifle a scream, bridle a mouth stuck in the rictus of laughter or brush a tear aside from a moment of micro-compassion.

Then there is a rush of awareness that the mode of addressing reality, that this brilliant string of quotes illustrates, is akin to the daily reality that is now that of America: A constant breathless, amphetamine jag that barely addresses the moment except to consume more than its fair share of planetary resources as obesity, inattention and despair quicken, New Orleans fades, species die and fires and floods ravage in a January surprise as the president says goodbye to 2005 and welcomes 2006 as if 2005 no longer exists in any way: rip off the calendar page and face a Tabula Rasa, a Lockean new day longing for a fresh untroubled imprint that has nothing of the mess of 2005 about it.

Then, alas, reality somehow managed to elude the best efforts of that ring of fire around the president: a helicopter crashed, Iraqis in large numbers were shredded, Abramoff decided to save his skin and sacrifice our exterminator-in-chief and others like him as “Kenny-Boy’ slowly makes his way towards prison.

And now that 2006 is upon us, the jag must continue though reality is intruding and the forgotten kids are hungry and complaining; the house is dirty and the fridge is empty. It feels as if the reality that Munch prefigured in ‘the scream’ is upon us as I think upon an old long dead friend Bernard Aaronson who did a series of hypnotic experiments that have an uncanny resemblance to our present: while subjects were in a hypnotic state, he altered the space/time parameters of the subjects.

When he removed their past their emotions flat lined and despair set in.

Perhaps an adumbration unless we shut-off the media for a while and learn to focus on what is in front of us again.

Slow down, listen to our breath, eat, even dine instead of fueling up and re-experience the disappearing world that every unnecessary car journey is bringing one moment closer to extinction.

Ira Einhorn
February 2006

Trial Of Ira Einhorn - Kangaroos Everywhere

2006-06-28T12:38:00.000-07:00

This evaluation of his case was written by wrongfully convicted author Ira Einhorn, free energy advocate and environmentalist, from his prison cell, ES6859, P.O. Box 1000, Houtzdale, PA 16698-1000:

“And what has happened in this case – and I challenge defense counsel or anybody else to cite any case ever – and I really do mean that – ever in the State of Pennsylvania – possibly the whole country – that has so personalized and so sensationalized not just the case but a defendant.”

Prosecutor Joel Rosen, Notes Of Testimony.

1. I was arrested in late March of 1979 for the murder of Holly Maddux whose bloodless body was discovered in a trunk in a closet on the back porch of my small apartment.

2. The original prosecutor, Barbara Christie, blew down a report, due to us under normal discovery procedures, so that she could remove the page numbers. This allowed her to disappear certain pages containing exculpatory (Brady) material.

The report, done by two ex-FBI agents, hired by the family of the deceased, formed the basis of my arrest.

A. She removed five sightings of the deceased that took place up to nine months after the prosecution has insisted, for 27 years, that the murder took place.

Two of the sightings made by police detectives who knew me well and were assigned to my neighborhood, for an extensive period of time during the first MOVE disturbance, were withheld from us until 2002, thus were not available during my in absentia trial.

B. She removed a statement by these two FBI agents that began: “If we are going to pin this on Einhorn...”

C. Other material, that for reasons unknown, I have never seen.

3. It required five court hearings to get some of the material mentioned in 1.(A) and (B), but the DA’s office continued to withhold two of the sightings until 2002.

4. The DA’s office did not use the normal procedure for the forensics whose results form the basis for any conviction. First, they sent all the material to the FBI Laboratory; when they came up empty: no blood, no human protein and fingerprints that were neither mine nor that of the deceased, they did not bother to ask to be identified, they sat on the results.

It took a court order to get the results.

5. The same procedure was tried again with Toxicon Associates, the same laboratory that later did the O. J. case. They came up with the same results.

6. So in a quandary, they turned to the local man that they had by-passed twice. He invented a new test: never repeated by anyone, never published and never peer reviewed.

He got a possible positive for protein: this new untested procedure is a violation of the Frye/Daubert standard which governs the admissibility of evidence allowed in court. It never should have been allowed in the court room.

Dr. Tumosa, the man who did the original testing for Toxicon Laboratory, made that clear during the trial: You can’t use an untested procedure when a man’s life is at stake.

But Judge Mazzola wanted a conviction, not justice.

N.B.: The untested fingerprints were conveniently lost, as were the bloodless clothes that the deceased was wearing.

As the 2002 trial made clear, blood would have sprayed everywhere.

NO BLOOD was found in the body, in the fluids inside or outside the trunk or anyplace else in the alleged murder scene.

7. After my first lawyer, now U.S. Senator, Arlen Spector and I parted company, a young lawyer, Norris Gelman, took over the case. He made it clear that I was not about to get a fair trial.

“They are changing the rules as they go along!”

8. Thus I went underground in January of 1981.

9. In the mid 80s, 67 volumes of my diaries, supposedly taken as evidence after my arrest, were turned over illegally to a journalist; he used them to write a totally sensational, damning book about the case. 13 TV specials, innumerable other media tales and a two part TV mini-series – now available on video all over the world – were to follow. All based on material plagiarized from my journals, as for almost twenty years, I spoke to no journalists.

10. The bias in the book was made clear by Stafford Beer and others who were horrified by what the author did with their interviews.

11. In 1993, an unprecedented in absentia murder trial was held. My lawyer was coerced into defending me. I was convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment.

12. By early 1997 my decision was final.

13. In June of 1997, I was discovered in France.

14. In early December of 1997, the French refused to extradite me as a retrial was impossible.

15. In response, under the auspices of the Philadelphia DA’s office, the Pennsylvania legislature passed the Einhorn Law. All jurists who have written about the law, in any serious manner, have declared it unconstitutional as it violates a basic American political/constitutional principle: The separation of powers. (For those readers who have some legal training, 24 Suffolk Transnat’l L. Rev 353 is an extensive discussion of the issue.) A number of legal experts filed affidavits with the French court explaining the above.

The court granted the 2nd extradition request and allowed me to remain free. The politicians, however, initially refused to execute the request as I had enormous political support across the entire spectrum of French political life and they knew that the law was a ploy.

Prime Minister Jospin just let the order molder on his desk.

He gave way only when President Clinton called.

16. The media commotion that Joel Rosen mentioned felt unprecedented as the battle raged. It certainly continued during and after my return to the United States in July of 2001. There were 565 local newspaper articles.

17. On September 28, 2001, I was compared to Osama Bin Laden in a local paper, complete with a picture. A tomato throwing contest sponsored by local media was presided over by the Commissioner Of Police.

Under these circumstances a fair trial in Philadelphia was not possible.

18. Handing evidence, taken with a search warrant, over to a journalist for his own use is unprecedented in the case law I and a number of others have examined. It is such egregious prosecutorial misconduct that it would produce a mistrial or dismissal in an honest court, but Judge Mazzola did not even allow it to be discussed during the pre trial motion about it. He was blatantly protecting the prosecution, as he did throughout the trial. He acted as a second prosecutor throughout the trial.

Some examples follow:

A. He did not permit my wife to testify at the trial. Her absence totally unbalanced the court room.

B. He allowed 15 year old defamatory evidence to be presented. Material that took up the majority of the cross examination of my testimony.

C. While I was testifying about prosecutorial misconduct, he interrupted me to question me about how I had been treated during the trial. A question that was totally out of context and only posed as an attempt to confuse the jury.

D. While I was testifying, the assistant DA held up a 4” by 12” bag which had ‘Bullshit Bag’ inscribed on it. My lawyer insisted she be questioned about the matter (obvious grounds for a mistrial or a dismissal). Judge Mazzola refused.

E. At the end of the trial he insulted me on the basis of a word I had used while testifying. He insisted it didn’t exist in his dictionary. An international society bearing such a name has existed since at least 1975. At the time of the trial google.com produced 4,000 hits with 3 articles about me in the top 20.

F. In violation of Pennsylvania rules of court, he reseated the jury in the box after the trial was concluded and allowed TV into the courtroom. My lawyers could not believe their eyes.

G. His worst and most flagrant act of bias was his telling the jury that they could ignore the time of death when deciding upon my guilt or innocence, thus doing away with the very basis of the trial as both the prosecution and the defense focused most of their arguments upon the date that the prosecution had insisted upon for over two decades.

He effectively did away with my defense.

19. He then delayed my appeal for 28 months.

20. My lawyers refused to act.

21. I filed three pro se motions with the superior court about these delays. Twice the court ordered the judge to file. He finally did after 28 months when he had been in contempt of court for six months.

22. My lawyers ignored the first filing date for over a month; the court could have dismissed the appeal.

23. I have done two years of intense work on the issues, but my lawyers refused to communicate or share a draft of the brief.

24. They did not brief all the issues as I asked.

25. The judge’s 218 page submission (most are a few pages) is an abomination and full of outright lies.

26. Both the judge and my lawyers lie about the history of the case in their respective briefs; both omit my three docketed and responded to motions.

27. Judge Mazzola defends my lawyers a number of times in his brief – hardly his function – and asks the court to close out all further appeals – hardly his prerogative – and rule on matters that were not raised in the appeal.

His bias screams as loudly as Caesar’s wounds.

28. My lawyers continue to refuse all communication.

29. I have filed three pro se motions asking the court to dismiss them and appoint a new lawyer. The court denied my motions and failed to follow their own procedures as laid down in the case law for such matters.

30. I filed a 4th pro se motion reminding them of their own procedures. I await their response.

31. During this recent period: November 05 – February 06, my lawyers have not sent me any of the papers filed with the court relevant to my case.

32. Thus, I have effectively no counsel, a direct violation of my 6th Amendment rights.

33. The DA was given a Final Notice to file his brief by January 24, 06. On January 23, he filed for a continuance, contrary to court order and a motion to correct the record in the case.

34. I could oppose neither motion for my lawyers did not send me a copy and the court has not responded to my requests, both formal and informal, to send me copies of motions filed in my case.

35. On February 14, 2006 the DA filed his brief. I have two weeks to file a rebuttal, but I can’t do so as I have not been sent a copy of the brief.

36. Seven year old TV specials, play again and again, month after month, reiterating my ‘obvious’ guilt based upon facts that my trial blew away.

37. A two part TV mini-series, 50% fantasy, is on video in many languages. It is televised quite often in the USA. Ms. King Kong, Naomi Watts, play my supposed victim.

Above I have described in a series of numbered statements, 27 years of judicial, legislative and media misconduct in my on-going case. Due to spatial limitations, I have been very selective, and made very few comments. As Sgt. Friday said: “Just the facts ma’am.”

I now have a documented case that any prominent lawyer or honest journalist could use as a powerful example of how flimsy our ‘rule of law’ has become.

A case that a law school class could learn from.

An example of how the lower courts have made a mockery of justice and become a shadow of a judicial system I used to take pride in, as I have now looked at numerous cases in which similar shameless behavior has been enacted under the color of law.

Ira Einhorn
2/20/06

P. S: I almost forgot: an untimely civil suit was prosecuted, in absentia. I now owe $1,000,000,000.

I DID NOT KILL HOLLY MADDUX

Why I stand behind Ira Einhorn….by James Sorrells, Ph.D.

2006-05-16T15:36:00.000-07:00

I knew Ira Einhorn in the 1960s. I was working at the Mental Research Institute in Palo Alto, California with some of the finest minds in the fields of communication, psychiatry, and the study of schizophrenia. A friend who was completing his doctoral work in physics at Stanford, an old friend of Ira’s from Philadelphia, introduced me to Ira. At that time, Ira was a conduit of communication among theorists and researchers like Gregory Bateson, Marshall McLuhan, Buckminster Fuller, Alan Watts, the founders of Esalen and Timothy Leary as well as political activists like Jerry Rubin and Abbie Hoffman. In fact, Ira referred to himself as a “planetary enzyme,” producing catalytic reactions through his transmission of information. Ira was trying to make sense of a culture being transformed by LSD, the Beatles and Buddhism. I brought Ira to M.R.I., and the exchange was both fruitful and exciting.

Ira was surely a mentor to our little social network in those days. He was incredibly well-read, and although all of us were well-educated, he opened our eyes to “vistas we never dreamed existed,” to quote Auntie Mame. He also “baby-sat” our experimental “trips” with LSD in our homes and on the Big Sur coast. He was so thoroughly acquainted with LSD and so in control of his own mental processes that he could take twice as much as any of us yet still be able to be a responsible “baby-sitter.” It is noteworthy that all of us had complete trust in Ira to safeguard us when we were very vulnerable.

It is also noteworthy that in literally thousands of hours of interaction in all kinds of settings, I never saw one instance in Ira of jealousy, rage or even anger, “power-tripping,” hostility, or virtually any negative social traits.

That observation and the trust we placed in Ira constitute one component of why I stand behind Ira.

Ira knew a great deal about government research using LSD and other chemical agents, research that was then secret but know has been confirmed. I recently edited Ira’s book, “Prelude to Intimacy,” which he wrote while imprisoned in France before he was extradicted to the U.S. for a second trial, the first having been conducted in absentia, for the murder of Holly Maddux. In his book, Ira talks about various avenues of his research which have never been popular with our government and his contacts in countries, some of which also have never been popular with out government. Ira warned us that, because he “knew too much,” the day might come when he might be assassinated, or more likely, framed for something that would send him to be prison where his death would attract less attention.

The current administration’s eagerness to spy and to imprison, at Guantanamo Bay and other undisclosed locations around the world constitute a second component of why I stand behind Ira. Yes, I do think he “knew too much,” and I have no doubt whatsoever that agencies of our government would think nothing of framing a target.

The third component of why I stand behind Ira is how he was tried. I don’t know for sure if Ira did or did not kill Holly Maddux, but I do know for sure that he was not given a fair trial. It in uncontestably true that the presiding Judge, Judge Mazzola, did not even attempt to conceal his bias against Ira. He literally ridiculed Ira in front of the jury, heaping doubt upon Ira’s credibility. His handling of the trial was a complete and utter debaucle, and on that basis alone, the trial should be thrown out.

Secondly, all evidence used to convict Ira was circumstantial and/or flawed. Ira purportedly bashed Holly’s head in with some sort of blunt instrument, then stuffed her body into a steamer trunk until she and trunk were discovered over a year later on Ira’s porch! Her blood would literally have been gushing. Yet, this was the assertion despite the fact that one single speck of blood could be found in Ira’s apartment or in the trunk.

Third, Ira is one of the most intelligent, cool-headed people I’ve ever known. He managed to maintain false identitities in Ireland, Spain, Sweden, and France for years despite all kinds of efforts to find him (which is related in marvelous fashion in “Prelude to Intimacy”). Yet, allegedly here is a man so stupid that he can’t even dispose of a body, instead crams it into a steamer trunk where it will decompose and smell, not just for a few days but for over a year! Give me a break! His explanation – that someone else killed Holly elsewhere and quite some time later stashed her body in Ira’s trunk in one of his frequent absences – is much more plausible.

To recapitulate, Ira is not the sort of person I judge to be a murderer. Second, the government had means, motive, and opportunity. Third, his trial was a joke, a mockery of justice.

To readers who would like to support his appeal: If Ira were O.J. Simpson, he would be free right now. It takes big bucks to hire lawyers like O.J.’s lawyers and/or lawyers with huevos to take on the Pennsylvania court system and even the legislature, which passed a special “Einhorn law” to overturn a final judgment and thus permit a re-trial, something the state constitution specifically prohibits. If you have big bucks and/or you are or know such an attorney, Ira needs you. Join me in standing behind Ira.

Our Present Peril - Collapse - Ira Einhorn's Book Review

2006-05-02T22:51:00.000-07:00

Our Present Peril
A Review By Ira Einhorn Of:

COLLAPSE:
HOW SOCIETIES CHOOSE TO FAIL OR SUCCEED

Jared Diamond, Viking (2005). 576PP

“...because three-quarters of the world’s population will be living within 50 miles of the seacoast by 2010.”
Jared Diamond

“The earth’s history suggests that with warming of two to three degrees, the new sea level will include not only most of the ice from Greenland and West Antarctica, but a portion of East Antarctica, raising the sea level by 25 meters or eighty feet.”
James Hansen

Comparing these two quotes will make any honest processor of information quickly aware that we are in the midst of “the single biggest challenge facing the planet, the equal in every way to the nuclear threat that transfixed us during the past half-century and a threat we have not even begun to deal with.”

I would say that Bill McKibbens’s quote just above is an understatement. The nuclear threat, involving the relationship of the leadership of two countries, was a minor difficulty given what we are now facing combined with our almost hallucinatory failure to fix our attention on what we are facing
N O W

Not during the lifetime of our children

Not next year, not tomorrow B U T

NOW

As I pick the latest global warming facts off of the bottom of page 6 or 7 of my Trib., I must seriously question the sanity of my species, a concern echoed by McKibben re one of the two books he is reviewing (New York Review Of Books, January 12, 2006: For convenience I have used some of his facts which serve my purpose as well as the facts I’ve gathered of late.)

Think upon:

The increasing slow down of the Gulf Stream.

The Arctic Sea is melting fast: there was 20% less of it this summer: “the feeling is we are reaching a tipping point or threshold beyond which sea ice will not recover.”

Methane which I’m told has twenty times the effect of CO2 is bubbling up from the Russian Tundra in the midst of winter, so that standing H20 could not freeze even during the Russian winter.

Microbiological activity has increased in British soil (growing season is now eleven days longer), so that more carbon is escaping.

Ice in Alaska and Greenland is melting at increasing rates.

Soon we will be able to say two things: remember animals; remember glaciers.

I could go on, but if the above does not convince you, click on something else.

Every data point I have seen of late just reinforces one perception: we are now trapped within an out-of-control planetary experiment whose eventual outcome will please no one, and the closer you live to a sea coast, the less pleased you will be.

We are about to lose a great percentage of the real property that our species has created.

Think of a New Orleans once a month.

Also reflect upon the enormous failure of leadership: the gap between what W said on Jackson Square (playing catch up ball) and the now abandoned poor of New Orleans. A gap not dissimilar to “mission accomplished” and the actual on-going very expensive ($7 billion/month for troop maintenance) egregious horror that is IRAQ on 1/1/06.

We have apparently passed the tipping point in many processes whose accumulated non-linear hell now seems beyond our power to stop.

The genie is out of the bottle.

Pandora’s box is open.

Each data point is singing of chaos to come.

Put all those divas together and you will get a cacophony that no one can even begin to predict.

A series of extremely decoupled systems looking for new points of resonance.

Markets going like yoyos.

Nerves snapping like shoe strings.

Farmers getting 36″ of rain one day and then 2 years of drought.

When? Sooner than we think, if past earth perturbations are any indication, BUT in extreme non-linear systems no one can say much beyond: chaos is coming.

In light of the above, Collapse, an excellent book by Jared Diamond while packed with information about past collapses of individual civilizations (mainly) and avoidance of such (not really his focus) appears almost quaint though his research is large, his honesty is not to be questioned and his heart and soul are in the right place.

Anyone attempting to deal with global warming must have an absolutely global focus. That is not possible given the present political situation on our planet. And the ultimate reason for our dilemma: our present focus on growth in economic activity as the only game worth playing.

Capitalism and the infinite growth that it assumes as its just due does not allow for anything but MORE, for it is a system regulated by a linear variable (picture Sodom’s Bed Of Iron) and increasingly pushed by two unrelenting and maniacal forcing functions: daily stock quotations and shareholders incessant cry for more profit. Behavior that may be locally rational but is globally suicidal, under present conditions.

The system that produced the problems that got us into the mess we are in can’t be expected to solve it, for we would have to totally shift our central planetary focus on getting and spending to something more ethereal to avoid the sheer effect of numbers (there are too many of us now and many more each day). The by product of those numbers who are involved in a frenzy of consumption that is producing the warming effect that is melting the ice, pouring cold H2O into the oceans, and slowing the Gulf Stream is of course effecting everything that lives and breathes on the planet.

The disastrous changes seem locked in given our present momentum, sharply underlined by the accelerating development of China, India and Brazil. Miming the great criminal enterprise of the 20th century: American capitalism, profit, return on investment and everything else be dammed. And no, socialism/communism was not the solution for those systems have even worse ecological records.

The trouble is us Dear Reader, for we are truly what an earlier Diamond book called us: The Third Chimpanzee.

Monkey see, monkey do; what we see among our ‘elite’ is ‘conspicuous consumption’ aptly named by a brilliant relocated American Thorsten Veblen over 100 years ago.

All those SUVs, those gigantic houses, those celebrities with garages full of expensive cars, $10,000,000 parties, bonuses at Christmas that are equal to an honest worker’s lifetime salary – the worst excesses of finance capital – serve as models for our behavior, have diminished us all and are now threatening the basis of our existence.

Diamond seems too smart not to be aware of this, yet his book gives little hint of how deep the crisis is.

From my perspective, it is little better than Greenwash for it refuses to challenge our basic assumption as Americans that we can just continue to consume with some nod to ecology.

It would have been right on the money in the 70s. Welcomed gladly by those of us on the ecological front lines; in 2006 it is fine sociological history, but to me, little help in the quest to find some way out of the horror that grows closer with each published data point, bringing us ever closer to the reality of this Hopi/Zuni statement: “We were here long before you came, and we expect still to be here long after you too are gone.” (143)

1/1/06 Ira Einhorn

P.S.: Those who wish to dig deeper into the crisis need to fully grasp two principles:

1. Sub-Optimization: What the use of profit, exclusively, to run our system is doing to the entire planet.

2. Ross Ashby’s LAW OF REQUISITE VARIETY: An excellent way to begin to understand how a complex system can be modulated and transformed.

Also those who have not: look up the work of Vaclav Smil whose books are each an education in themselves and each seems to require years of work.

I get the same impression from Joyce Carol Oates regarding her novels, short stores, reviews and obvious wide range reading.

Two rare pleasures in this age of intense focus and specialization.

The New Brain - Ira Einhorn's Book Review

2006-05-02T22:30:00.000-07:00

Review By: Ira Einhorn

THE NEW BRAIN
By: Richard Restak (Rodale Press, 2003)

“The dumbing-down, lowest common-denominator dynamic that cable and internet and tabloid culture have brought means that anything that is big and exclusive and legitimate is quickly turned into something trivial, tawdry, and dumded-down. If we had the most consequential scoop of all times about wrongdoing in the Bush Administration, it would quickly turn into “how’s it polling? What are they saying about it on Drudge? What are they saying about it on “Hannity and Colmes”?’ And it would be reduced to its cheapest most ephemeral essence.”

Mark Halperin, New Yorker, October 25, 2004

Richard Restak has written a small book that very deftly and gracefully provides the general reader with easily understandable information from the edge of neuroscience.

Its small package contains information that will eventually dwarf two major public interest issues that have occupied headlines for a while: tobacco and fast food.

Restak’s presentation of the research brings closer to scientific validity the intuitive awareness that many socially concerned people have shared for decades: presentation of violence in the media is a serious problem that effects us all, children in particular.

Restak’s 212 page book contains: a short overview introduction; an opening chapter on the plasticity of the brain; 7 chapters on research that will effect how all of us think about ourselves and live in the world; a concluding overview chapter that talks very directly about both the opportunities that the new knowledge opens up and the ethical dilemmas that our greater knowledge will force us to face.

New tools are now able to monitor the brain in both a safe and non evasive way. The information abstracted by these tools and massaged by computer programs enables researchers to formulate hypotheses and make predictions that are testable.

The correlation between watching violent action on TV and committing acts of violence is now established.

Restak talks with great sensitivity about loss and how TV violence is causing our inability to react to the pain of others. We are becoming desensitized to a whole spectrum of negative behavior.

He shows us what doing 2 or more things at once is producing. Multi-tasking is ineffective and costs us both in time and accuracy. Faster, faster, faster is the theme of an increasingly superficial age (read the head quote to this review slowly and ponder it.) that is characterized by increasing slippage.

He looks at what this frantic pace of processing is doing to our lives and the fact that ADD/ADHD may be classified as diseases, but is actually a lifestyle now being forced on people if they wish to survive.

He provides a number of moving anecdotes about what this lifestyle is doing to personal relationships.

Our frantic rush is overseen and controlled by an economic system that is ruled by one linear variable and can be simply defined as

M O R E

Anyone who has studied systems theory knows that the sad anecdotes that Restak presents are examples of sub optimization: the destructive output of an increasingly mad socioeconomic system that has avoided Ashby’s Law of Requisite Variety.

There are positive fruits to the knowledge gained by the research, but they will be but noise in the system, if we don’t pay attention and be more mindful of the wrong pathway that our system-as-a-whole is now perusing.

Our too concentrated linear economic behavior is rapidly making the planet unlivable. What Restak writes about is reflective of the total situation.

If we fail to heed the mirror he holds up, we are looking at species extinction.
Ira Einhorn, November 2, 2004

In Search of P.D. Ouspensky - Ira Einhorn's Book Review

2006-05-02T22:17:00.000-07:00

Review By: Ira Einhorn

IN SEARCH OF P.D. OUSPENSKY:
THE GENIUS IN THE SHADOW OF GURDJIEFF

Gary Lachman (Quest 2004)

The question of consciousness: What it actually is, how it functions, how we can modulate or raise it, is an enormous present concern that is occupying millions of people in one form or another.

During the 1970’s when I created an international information network out of whole cloth with the aid of one farsighted business executive and the resources of his massive company, the original focus was the ability of Uri Geller to produce effects upon the physical world that the science then accepted not only couldn’t explain, but also was forced to deny.

The core members of that network soon gravitated towards an attempt to explain how consciousness itself could effect the physical world. A discipline, let us call it the physics of consciousness, that one of my close associates, Andrija Puharich, had helped create when he originally published Beyond Telepathy.
The focus on consciousness, as a scientific object not as something to be raised, was rather unique then, and two decades away from the beginning of the present explosion and its focus in the massive Tucson conferences.

The 1960’s occupied itself with the question of how to raise one’s consciousness. It cared not a whit about consciousness as an object of scientific intention, but I cared, for I felt that consciousness must have some relation to the actual state of the body, and that we could learn many things by studying the relationship between specific bodily states and the kind of consciousness they produced. I was thrilled when I first encountered Beyond Telepathy in the mid 60’s, and then the author himself who became a close friend and associate in what we jokingly called the ‘psychic mafia.’ I took the trouble to have Doubleday republish both of his early books, doing an introduction to Beyond Telepathy.

Gurdjieff came to me during the 60’s via an apartment mate who loved Gurdjieff - though I kept reminding him Gurdjieff was dead - and his intense involvement with All and Everything that I am not alone in finding incomprehensible for the most part. With Gurdjieff came Ouspensky and a slew of others. There is nothing comparable in modern consciousness studies that approaches the quality of the literature that has gathered around the Ouspensky-Gurdjieff axis.

I also had a friend - a Leary LSD veteran - who ran the Boston Gurdjieff Group.

I am a reader, so I devoured all the extant literature and continued to do so until about the mid 80s.

Certain concepts developed in the work, as it is called by initiates are very powerful: self-remembering being primary, but the idea of higher centers, the fact of our mechanicalness, the concept of different levels of being coinciding with different types of people, the fact that we are not a unity, but a mixture of many ‘I’s who reign from time to time and quickly forget what they said or worse what they intended to do, and last but not least the idea of a magnetic center leading to real intention and the possibility of actually doing something.

Many of my ‘I’s developed a strong interest in knowing more about both Gurdjieff and Ouspensky.

Gary Lachman’s book has helped to fulfill that desire.

In Search of P.D. Ouspensky: The Genius In The Shadow Of Gurdjieff is as objective and honest a presentation of the life of P.D. Ouspensky as we are apt to get, given the present state of available sources.

The tale is a sad one, both in the sense that Ouspensky got sidetracked by his hypnotic meeting with a powerful sly man: Gurdjieff, and never actually realized the brilliant promise of his early books. An observation strongly reinforced by Lachman’s description of Ouspensky’s sad alcoholic twilight years, and his own sense of Ouspensky having given up his own path for something ‘miraculous’ that was never achieved.

The life path is almost an archetype of the powerful intellectual - juiced by Nietzsche’s intoxicating words about the superman - who is able to formulate concepts that transcend present knowledge and point to a higher reality that is suddenly realized using a substance that immediately puts one face to face with the experienced fact that there are other realms, mainly unmapped though they may be.

But, one comes down as Dick Alpert, now Ram Dass, said to me a number of times during the 60s. Ah, there’s the rub.

That experience, which words do not even begin to convey to the uninitiated and certainly do not satisfy the experiencer (part of the reason why language held such a fascination for so many philosophers, artists and writers during the 20th Century), lead many on a quest to permanently achieve the state of consciousness that the use of a substance or technique has allowed them to glimpse.

William James pulled back from this not to be future and continued his work, producing in the process The Varieties Of Religious Experience which has few, if any equals for those interested in consciousness.

Ouspensky didn’t, meeting the sad end Lachman describes with such empathy.

The real question that the book raises is that of quality control. In the older traditions the relations between teacher and student are carefully governed. The students are certified by teachers who have been carefully prepared in a long tradition in which certain states of awareness are recognized by the teachers under whom they are studying. The work takes years and usually, certainly in the most successful traditions, the many forms of Buddhism for instance, involves years of patient mediation whose effect can be somewhat understood by reading the literature, but only can be fully judged by a teacher who has explored the full range of described states and has reached a permanent state of realization that is transmitted by their embodiment and the practice that produced that embodiment.

After 45 years of investigating these areas, both historically in the culture of the recent west and in the historical traditions of Buddhism and other master disciplines, I feel deeply that most talk about consciousness is sheer nonsense. Anyone who is serious must seek a situation described in the paragraph above.

To do otherwise is to risk the fate so aptly described in Gary Lachman’s book.

Ira Einhorn
Jan/Feb 2005

The End Of Faith - Ira Einhorn's Book Review

2006-04-30T13:17:00.000-07:00

Review By: Ira Einhorn

THE END OF FAITH

By: Sam Harris, Norton, Paperback Edition, 2005

When I lived in Ireland (1981-1986) my closest male associate was a former terrorist leader who had been trained by the Syrians and as a result had been on call for a number of years, if needed on a mission.

There are very few males in a life richly adorned with friendship with whom I have bonded more deeply. After Eugene moved out of Dublin, I opened my apartment to him as a second home, and he came to treat it that way. When I fell into difficulties toward the end of my Irish stay, I was given duplicate identity papers and for ten years became an identity duplicate of my friend. Our mutual trust was absolute. We talked about everything connected to our past situations. That is everything but religion, though Eugene had not seen the inside of a church for decades, the idea of Marquis De Sade practiced for over 1,500 years by the church in its own form had captured him at a deep level. Give me a child for his first 8 years said De Sade and I will return to you a libertine for life. The church had the same philosophy in respect to producing Catholics. Thus I quickly learned to avoid all discussion of religion while I was in Eire.

Knowing about his background, I was deeply surprised to realize that Eugene did not fully grasp the nature of suicide terrorism in spite of his often having gone out on missions that would result in the death of others and certainly could have resulted in his own death.

He attended all my seminars. In those seminars I discussed suicide bombing as it emerged. I soon realized that it was so alien to Western minds, at least those I was in contact with, that a new political weapon had emerged on the planet. A weapon that in less than 20 years has brought the West to its knees and if people like Sam Harris have their way, Spengler’s book title: The Decline of the West, will become prophecy.

The moral weakness that I have experienced since my forced return to this country in July of 2001 had made me metaphysically ill quite often. The feeling has accelerated as the response to 9/11 progressively produces an amnesia with respect to the asserted values of the United States.

John Le Carre’ conveyed it so well in his books about the cold war; if fighting an enemy becomes miming, one soon looses all sense of value and self; the exercise becomes a game without values.

Most of The End of Faith is a necessary book written by one of the few younger Americans who seems to have escaped some of the noxious fog that has enveloped the USA during the past 25 years. A fog produced by what Harris is railing about. A fog that is leading us to ecocide, a concept we must grasp and focus upon if anything is to be saved from what is coming.

The context in which we live, breathe and eat our daily bread is rapidly deteriorating. The linear projections about global warming that lull us into just continuing to walk into some distant destruction have changed into a hurried last call accompanied by all sorts of data that indicate that the system is broken, and that we now live in the world of the non-linear which no one can predict and few will like or benefit from. It is as if we have left the friendly local train that was comfortably carrying us to hell and have boarded the ecocide express.
That makes the 4% of the spaceship, who create 27-30% of the pollution, into the enemies of the rest of the planet, into killers if you will and whether they intend to be killers or not is besides the point.

I bring up the issue of intention due to the fact that Harris uses it to beat Noam Chomsky over the head with arguments that could only make sense if one was unaware of just how destructive American ‘good intentions’ have been, but he isn’t. His footnotes are filled with the American horrors that enable one to see what a destructive force my homeland has been from its inception up till the present, and Noam has been the most tireless chronicler of recent horrors: The most accurate, the most unrelenting during the years when 60’s hope turned into a backlash of puritanical despair that has led the republic into hyper-consumption (now using, by some estimates up to 80% of the savings of the entire planet) and a spreading condition of personal obesity that has one recent wag describing Americans in the following manner:. “It’s a place where people are so fat it’s as if they had decided to become their own air-bag system.” (Edward St. Aubyn)
Harris is well trained in philosophy, so the distinctions he uses to berate Chomsky give the game away when one slightly shifts the focus.
It seems as if our intentions in bombing Iraqi citizens are OK, as we don’t mean to kill them. They just happened to be in the way as we tried to kill soldiers defending their homeland, disruptive terrorists, Italians driving too fast, Iraqis who can’t understand English…the list is endless.

But we do know what depleted uranium does, we do know what phosphorus does to human bodies, as we should have known what would happen to unguarded museums. How do our intentions look when we widen the focus?
And the real question! Why are we there? Harris does not deal with this question at all, so his talk about ‘collateral damage’ accompanying our ‘good’ intentions is twaddle as a famous Harvard Professor used to say. Once you throw that large pinch of salt into the cooking pot, so much of his use of intentions collapses and we are left with some hard collateral damage facts and Noam’s naked lunch presentation of them: not good eating for those who would claim the moral high ground.

And there is more and worse: ‘ethics of “collateral damage”’ which has Sam Harris justifying the torture of innocents, if there is a chance that good information might result.

I have studied torture, extensively; I spent 6 months writing a chapter of a novel on it (I will post that chapter on this site as soon as I can locate it.) I abhor it; the thought that my country is practicing it and that an intelligent well educated American man such as Sam Harris can advocate it makes me very sad, for it indicates that our loss of who we are and what we stand for has been greater than I thought.

If you read deeply into torture material as I have, you soon learn that torture rarely produces usable information, for obvious reasons: if I begin applying a blow torch to your face or do some other egregious thing to you, you will talk after awhile, but what you tell me may be sheer nonsense, as had been confirmed to me by people who have first hand experience.

Those we seek to track by such obtained information have elaborate contingency plans in the event of the capture of someone who has pertinent information.
The proof in the pudding: Where’s Osama?

Do you want to encourage behavior demonstrated by Ms. English and her cohorts or the CIA operative described in Jane Mayer’s recent New Yorker article who unknowingly killed his victim (his face was hooded, so the torturer did not see it turn blue: the man was suspended by his arms (held behind him) from a window frame), or provide torture entertainment for bored off duty cooks as described in many recent articles?

Behavior spreads. Once you begin acting as if conventions and treaties are toilet paper, you create an immoral force field that could destroy an army and a nation.

No one can be proud of Abu Ghraid.

No one can be proud of torturing innocent people on the hope that someone in the group of the victims will produce some useful piece of information, and the kicker is that totally innocent people have been tortured to death.

How does this standup to our browbeating China, Turkey or one of the ‘stans’ about human rights or John Bolton’s contempt for members of UN human right’s organizations.

The blow back is enormous and has just begun, and I’m not even thinking about what the rendition scandal is set to produce. When one claims to live on high ground, one’s light has to be very clear. Alas, it has dimmed and the claims about what we stand for ring hollow in too many well disposed ears.

It puts our captive soldiers in great danger. What we do to others, can and will be done to us. Will over 200 years of struggle to abolish torture suddenly be sidetracked by American fears and over reaction?

And last but not least is John McCain who has lived out the captive’s nightmare, certainly he should be trusted on this issue more than W., the Veep or Rumsfeld, who have not served a day in combat between them. His large majority vote in the Senate, in spite of our Veep’s vehemence and W’s threat of a veto is good confirmation for all of the above, as I more than defer to Senator McCain on this issue, I bow down to him.

To torture someone is to effectively destroy a life. Abusers have mainly been abused. A pattern is created. We can only hope the same thing is not true for the tortured, but their lives are marked and human trust is destroyed.

Without basic trust, there is no adequate life.

All of that said, I find parts of The End of Faith quite refreshing and essential, though his total reliance on rationality seems misplaced given the recent history of our species when weighed against his attack on faith.

The book’s real weakness is his attempt to speak in universal terms, but of course that is the nature of rationalism: it pretends to speak for us all as if it were a universal language that we all speak and use in exactly the same way.
Recent cross cultural work has demonstrated that this is just not so even in terms of basic perception: we do not even see the same thing when presented with common perceptual objects.

Given that wobbly pivot, how can we expect to reach agreement on matters that are deeply engrained in our tribal mores and have been so since Neolithic times.
The agreement or should I say truce that rules math is rare, and what Godel has wrought is missing from his book.

Modern physics in non-coherent, general relativity and quantum mechanics do not belong to a conceptual greater whole. The struggle to create a quantum gravity that might unify all four fundamental forces has come to naught. 96% or so of the universe is among the missing, called either dark energy or dark matter, but do not ask me what it is for no one has the slightest idea. It is akin to what Newton said about gravity: “It might as well be an angel’s wing.”

The either-- banished by late 19th century physics - is threatening re-entry; string theory (choose your version) seems un-testable.

Thus coherence and rationality seem weak tools to employ against our entire cultural history. Our present world view smells more of chaos than cosmos.
Yet Harris is correct. We must use the tools we have, though his over-emphasis on rationality and coherence speak as much about personal need as they do about universal norms.

And there’s the rub.

The book cries out for more personal description and statement.

Why the extreme overreaction to 9/11 and Noam Chomsky?

Why did so many of our elected officials so quickly give up our precious blood won freedom to the aegis of an unread law?

9/11 could not have been totally unexpected. I do not have access to the president’s daily intelligence briefing, but long before I was forced to leave France, July of 2001, I told my wife that a major terrorist attack would soon hit the United States. I could feel it in my blood. Her letter about 9/11, received soon after that date, expressed deep shock at the event and wonder about my prediction.

Was Sam Harris totally shocked? Is he a Jew? Does he fear for the future of Israel, for though The End of Faith has a covering surface of rational criticism, it is written out of a deep emotional distaste for Islam whose main enemy is the Jewish state: Israel.

I bring this up as a Jew who sees the fundamentalists in Israel as the trigger for the destruction of Israel. Unless their rabid extremism is severely bridled and a just peace made which includes their extraction from the West Bank, I see the destruction of Israel within the next 20 years. In addition, any threat to use nuclear weapons against Iran just brings that day closer.

We live in a world that grows more dangerous with each passing day. Given the forces now unleashed, there is no way to fully protect any country from attack. It is just impossible to anticipate and protect against every contingency.

But we must grow up a bit and put things in prospective.

The World Trade Center action is rapidly becoming a mortal blow, due to our reaction. If we are so weak that the loss of less than 3,000 people forces us to give up over 200 years of precious freedom and move in the direction of a Garrison state, then we are lost.

If we could have the courage to continue living without allowing the struggle to destroy our values, the strength drawn from such action would be incalculable and infectious.

Listen to Joseph Lelyveld in his review of the book that James Yee published on his surreal treatment by the military:

“The idea that Camp Delta had been infiltrated by Al-Qaeda was far-fetched from the start, but the prison was on a war footing since the day it was set up, patrolled as if attack from the sea, by the non-existent Al-Qaeda Navy were a real possibility; infiltration from within was not the least plausible threat imagined by the command in training exercises designed to keep the prison’s guards on constant alert.”

Did 9/11 suddenly make Sam Harris aware of Islam as a danger?
The growth of his ideas would inform us all, for we all are going to have to dig deeper to survive.

I have studied and taught the Bible. I spent years studying the history of Christianity and Judaism. I have read in the Koran, so have come across the inflammatory passages that Harris quotes. I totally agree that organized religion and the deference shown to it is a cruel joke. I’m appalled that our president claims to speak to God and bases major decisions upon such purported conversations.

I have studied early Christianity, the Inquisition and the Cathar Horror. I have read lots of books on the witch craze.

I know that religion is responsible for more deaths than anything else in human history, that Christians killed more of their own in the 100 years after they became the official Roman religion than the Romans killed of them in the preceding 300 years.

I abhor organized religion though some of my finest friends have been church functionaries and I was part of a bishop’s kitchen cabinet for 7 years.
I am now in jail. I am surrounded by those who clutch the Bible and the Koran. It is their comfort. I don’t see rationalism replacing that comfort.
So, although I agree with Sam Harris and thank him for his courage in beginning an awesome task, I do not see any hope in that pathway.

I fully agree with his assessment of New Age nonsense. What junk people are eating. But Chesterton warned us. When major belief is lost, people don’t replace it with nothing, but rather anything at all. Belief similar to nature abhors a vacuum.

Faith based 12 step programs form the basis for all rehabilitation in Pennsylvania prisons. The parole recidivism rate is 93%. The programs are a prison hype for gaining federal funds. A scam, but so much of American life seems like a scam at present, and the tone is set at the top.

When the president lies, when the president breaks the law, we all suffer, no matter what the intention.

Think about all those statements about the linkage between Al Qaeda and the former Iraqi leader. There is no linkage. The president and the vice president are both liars: the effects of their continual lying has poisoned the entire context in which we are forced to function. We are all victims of such lies.

The heart of The End of Faith is to be found in the following quote (page 221):
“It seems to me that the nature of consciousness will trump all these developments. Whatever experience awaits us – either with the help of technology or after death – experience itself is a matter of consciousness and its content. Discover that consciousness inherently transcends its contents, discover that it already enjoys the well-being that the self would otherwise seek, and you have transcended the logic of experience. No doubt experience will always have the potential to change us, but it appears these changes will still be a matter of what we can be conscious of in the next moment, not of what consciousness is in itself.”

I totally agree.

All this part swapping, brain downloading, computer merging is an avoidance of sitting quietly in a room and getting on with the task of clearing away the accumulated dross that would allow us to stop over consumption and learn to live within our planetary means.

And yes Buddhism holds the key to this further stage in human evolution, for the west is indeed a child when faced with the inner knowledge that Buddhism has gathered. Our philosophers seem puerile in comparison, but ‘happiness’ [the word Harris uses] seems a bad choice describing the enlightenment that a well trained and achieved master can point us in the direction of.

There are no guarantees. Our time may be short. The ecological disaster grows apace. Enlightenment can’t be forced, but Harris has made one thing very clear: religion is a dangerous mess of pottage whose disappearance would release enormous new bound human energy.

If that energy could sit quietly and meditate, we would have a fighting chance at survival.

Terrorism is a meek energy by comparison with the forces of consumption: Osama will kill thousands, perhaps destroy a city or two, render some areas uninhabitable, but the ecological changes now underway threaten to collapse the entire structure of our civilization.

Science benefits from feedback and open discussion, but it can provide no means for explaining something as basic as the 2 slit experiment in quantum mechanics. Quantum mechanics works, but I would not call it coherent or rational.

The criticism of rationalism itself made by Lukács, Horkheimer, Adorno and Benjamin is not easy to counter.

In addition the view of science held by Kuhn or Feyerabend certainly runs counter to the Harris program as put forward in this book.

And then there is the data from the new branch of psychology that explodes the Harris program totally. Evolutionary psychology had made a loud and overly reductive case about those we tend to love and support. They turn out to be those who carry our genes into the future and they are a very limited group of people, not the totality of our fellow earthlings, so one of the most recent of data sets generated ‘rationally’ indicates that what Harris wishes for is just not on.
But if he would exam his fear and anger re: 9/11, religion and Islam in particular, we all might learn something. The outcome has to do with introspection and honesty and little to do with ‘rationality’ which is one tool among many, just as science is one form, not the form of knowing.

While I was writing this review, a friend told me about a recent debate at the Kennedy School at Harvard in a building I know well, as I spent a semester there in residence. I have not read the transcript of this debate between Alan Dershowitz and Noam Chomsky, but was told that Dershowitz called Noam a Nazi and an anti-Semite. To label a Jew a Nazi and an anti-Semite, particularly a man who is recognized outside the USA as the world’s leading intellectual, is indicative of how far ideology, as distinct from truth has bled into our world.
I have great respect for Noam’s courage and intellectual persistence. He has refused to be quiet in the face of years of pariah-hood. He has walked this singular pathway without flinching. Such courage is very rare; he now has a vast audience, planetary recognition and respect. The mud that Dershowitz is slinging will only besmirch his own reputation.

I can also empathize with Alan Dershowitz, and more to the point of his present book review: Sam Harris. Both are obviously freaked by what they see happening to things they love; both are willing to defend what they see threatened by any means available: name calling, “collateral damage” (read Torture and Death of Innocents) and a twisting of rationality into an ideological club for hammering at anything that threatens.

At the point we cease to understand each other and feel frustrated, action should cease, for any action that flows from frustration is counter-productive and violative of both self and other. At that conjuncture we can go to war or deeper into the self.

Publicly we are at that point almost all the time in the United States. We insult à la Rush Limbaugh instead of talking. We have lost all sense of manners and mutual respect. We ‘dis’ instead of honoring each other. We outer ourselves constantly in a manic need to assert our disappearing identities. We seem to have lost all sense of what an inner life could be. American culture feels so superficial; a micron thin mélange of TV sports and celebrity watching that is so disdainful of life’s precious beauty and wonder. A continuous orgy of consumption that sets me to musing upon army ants, the feeding frenzy of sharks or a fox let loose in a chicken house.

And the dis-ease is spreading!

That is why I find Harris of interest, not for what he says in this book, but for what he hints at.

Zen And The Brain: Toward An Understanding Of Meditation (Cambridge, MIT Press: 1998) by J. H. Austin is the most important book I have read in the last two decades for it is both a personal report of the quest for enlightenment – what Harris is on about in the quote above from page 221 – and an exhaustive attempt to reflect upon the experience in light of scientific study of the mind and consciousness. A bridge of survival that I hope is greatly increased by the explosion of Buddhism in the United States, the presence of the Dalai Lama in our midst, and the work of Francisco Varela and others.

Martin Rees, Our Final Hour seems to be correct: We don’t have much time. We are looking in the eye of species extinction. Whether we do it through ecocide or nuking the planet into oblivion is irrelevant.

The following quote from a catalogue announcing the 100th birthday celebration of Albert Hofmann, Basel, Switzerland (13 to 15 January, 2006) describes the situation with great clarity: “Earth is about 4.6 billion years old. Let’s cut this time-span down to 46 years for a better understanding. GAIA’s early years rest in the mists of history, it wasn’t before it turned 42 that it started to bloom. After about 44 years dinosaurs inhabited the planet. Some eight months ago the first mammals evolved, and during last week the first hominids entered the scene; modern man exists for only four hours. Some sixty minute ago he took up agriculture, and a minute ago the industrial revolution began. During these very last sixty seconds man managed to turn Gaia into a garbage dump, to exterminate thousands of plants and animal species, to kill an uncountable number of its own kind, to loot the planet’s resources, to pollute soil, air and water and to leave nuclear and other waste for future generations.

“Within the next few seconds all of us will decide whether we are going to make life on our home planet impossible, or develop a consciousness that allows us a future existence with Gaia.”

There are three pathways which we can now follow:

1. Muddle through by somehow not pulling the triggers on all those drawn ‘guns’. This seems doubtful as technology continues to develop and quicken, giving a small group or even one person the power to destroy entire cities (9/11 awakened or exponentiated this fear in Sam Harris).

2. Develop a new energy technology that is both totally scalable and portable. It must also be renewable (not add to present level of bads no matter how measured).

This requires the establishment of a multi-disciplinary review panel and many levels of proposal sorting, so that something that seems impossible does not get discarded before being honestly tested.

It requires total commitment of resources and the willingness to set up 5-10 diverse research structures.

It requires whatever money is necessary, agreements to share and pay back, etc.
It requires total openness, so the best can freely use the internet for knowledgeable criticism.

I’m talking about a technology worth at least 1015 in $, so the stakes are high and the planetary best should be involved.

3. Submit the claim of enlightenment to the same process as I described in 2 above. Let us take the Harris quote seriously and try to organize the knowledge, so that many find the context which allows the logic of experience to be transcended, a seeding of such minds throughout the planet may provide enough leaven/levity for us to rise above the instinctual identifications that are presently killing us.

Ira Einhorn Dec. 20, 2005

P.S.: We have entered a new historical era as a result of structural changes that everyone talks about but does not focus enough upon.

The two major concerns that all past large polities focused upon were currency, the ‘coin of the realm’, and weaponry. Their control was an absolute need of the rulership no matter what name it bore.

Recent events have changed that situation as George Soros and others have made obvious; Americans may one day find out about this lack of control of their currency when they awaken one morning to a $ worth very little.

When I jokingly asked in a public lecture during the mid 60s what we would do when 42nd Street got the bomb, my intuition was anticipating our present acute paranoia (not totally uncalled for) about suitcase nuclear weapons and other horrors (chemical and biological) that are now more available than our ‘protectors’ let on about.

The ‘king’ now lives in a bubble, but he no longer is in effective control. We are in a totally new situation and past reflexes will be of no avail.

P.P.S.: Reflect for a moment upon one aspect of our madness. We are spending $7,000,000,000 a month on just our soldiers in Iraq; the total cost of the war will probably top out at over one trillion $. Tax reduction during the last five years under W. will come to trillions more.

Yet we can’t spare some relatively small change to set up energy projects that could realistically save the planet. In that light ‘rationalism’, no matter how defined, is a very distant dream.

Ira Einhorn - Press Release - Spring '06

2006-04-23T14:54:00.000-07:00

Below you will find a cursory enumeration of the due process and other violations connected to my legal case. These violations are being ignored in the same manner that the media initially ignored the holes in the Bush Administration’s case for war in Iraq.

They are part of the same failure: group think and the unwillingness to do adequate investigative work. Such behavior is indicative of a declining nation and a sad inability to admit mistakes and correct them.

The behavior of the lower courts is a disgrace to our nation; it dishonors those who gave their lives for our now disappearing freedom.

These claims are all substantiated by documentation available to anyone who wishes more information.

We are in the midst of a great crisis that threatens our future. The networking that I am skilled at could help us solve our problems.

Please help free me, so that I can continue my work without fetters.

“And what has happened in this case – and I challenge defense counsel or anybody else to cite any case ever – and I really do mean that – ever in the state of Pennsylvania – possibly the whole country – that has so personalized and so sensationalized not just the case but a defendant.”

Asst. DA Joel Rosen in the notes of testimony

1. The original prosecutor, Barbara Christie, blew down a report, due to the defense under discovery, done by two ex-FBI agents hired by the family of the victim. This action enabled her to disappear certain pages containing Brady (exculpatory) material.

A. She removed reports of five sightings of Holly Maddux, six months after the prosecution alleges she was murdered. An allegation they have maintained for 27 years.

B. She removed a statement by these two men that began: “if we are going to pin this on Einhorn...”

C. Other material, for reasons unknown, I have not seen.

2. It required 5 court hearings to obtain some of the material mentioned in 1(A) and 1(B) above, but the DA’s office continued to withhold two sightings by Philadelphia detectives until 2002, thus it was not available for my in absentia trial (1993). By that time one of the detectives had died.

3. The DA’s office did not use the normal procedure for the forensics. They sent all the material to the FBI laboratory. When they came up empty: no blood, no human protein in the case and fingerprints that were neither mine nor that of the deceased, that they did not bother to ask the FBI to identify, they sat on the results.

It took a court order for us to get those results.

4. The same procedure was tried again with Toxicon Associates, the same laboratory that later did the O. J. case. They came up with the same results that we had to fight to obtain.

5. So they turned to the local man they had twice bypassed. He invented a new test, never repeated by anyone, never published and never peer reviewed.

He got a presumptive positive for protein; his new untested procedure is an obvious violation of the Frye/Danubert standard and never should have been allowed in the courtroom. Dr. Tumosa, the man who did the original testing for Toxicon Labs made that clear in the courtroom: You can’t use an untested procedure when a man’s life is at stake. But Judge Mazzola wanted a conviction not justice.

6. In the mid 80’s, 67 volumes of my diaries, supposedly seized as evidence, were turned over illegally to a journalist, who used them to write a damning sensational book about the case. 13 television specials, innumerable other media tales and a 2 part TV mini-series – now available on video all over the world – were to follow. All based on material plagiarized from my journals, as for 20 years I spoke to no journalists.

7. In 1993, an unprecedented in absentia murder trial was held. My Lawyer, Norris Gelman, was coerced into defending me.

8. By early 1997 my decision was final.

9. In June of 1997, I was discovered in France.

10. When the French refused to extradite me, the PA. Legislature passed an obviously unconstitutional law (it violates one of our basic tenets: The Separation Of Powers) that the French still balked at, as the jurists who wrote the PA law books filed many briefs stating that the Einhorn Law was unconstitutional, but political pressure prevailed.

11. In 1999, a civil suit against me (filed in an untimely manner) went to court. I now owe, with interest, over $1,000,000,000.

12. The media commotion pre-trial included 565 local newspaper articles and a widely publicized tomato throwing contest, presided over by the Commissioner of Police.

13. On September 28, 2001, I was compared to Osama Bin Laden in a local paper, complete with pictures.

14. Judge Mazzola refused all pre-trial discussion of the journal issue.

15. He acted as a second prosecutor throughout the trial:

A. He did not permit my wife to testify at the trial.

B. He allowed 15 year old defamatory evidence to be presented. Material that took up the majority of my cross examination.

C. He asked me to comment on my treatment in his courtroom while I was testifying.

D. While I was testifying the Assistant D.A. held up a 4” by 12” bag which had “Bullshit Bag” inscribed on it. My lawyer insisted she be questioned about the matter. Judge Mazzola refused.

E. He insulted me at the end of the trial on the basis of a word that I had used, insisting that the word didn’t exist in his dictionary. An international society bearing such a name has existed since 1975. Google.com provided 4,000 hits at the time with 3 articles about me in the top 20.

F. In violation of PA Rules Of Court, he reseated the jury in the box after the trial and allowed TV in the courtroom.

G. However his worst and most flagrant act of bias was his telling the jury that they could ignore the time of death when deciding upon the verdict, thus destroying the very basis of the trial.

16. He then delayed my appeal for two years.

17. My lawyers refused to act.

18. I filed 4 pro se motions, re those delays. Twice the court ordered the judge to file. He finally did after he had been in contempt of court for 6 months.

19. My lawyers ignored the filing date of my appeal for over a month. The court could have dismissed the appeal.

20. They did not brief the issues in the way that I asked.

21. The judges’ 218 page submission (most are a few pages) is an abomination and full of outright lies.

22. Both the judge and my lawyers lied about the history of the case in their respective briefs; both omit my 4 docketed pro se motions.

23. Judge Mazzola defends my lawyers a number of times in his brief – hardly his function – and asks the court to close out all further appeals – hardly his prerogative – and rule on matters not raised.

His bias screams as loudly as Caesar’s wounds.

24. My lawyers continue to refuse communication.

25. The court has been asked to dismiss them; they have, so far, refused to do so.

26. I have effectively, at present, no counsel; a direct violation of my sixth amendment right to counsel.

27. Old TV specials and the TV mini-series, years out of date, broadcast their lies monthly.

28. Similar to Diogenes, I seek an honest broker, but with information instead of a lantern.

Ira Einhorn ES6859
P.O. Box 1000
Houtzdale, PA 16698-1000

P.S.: My recently published book, Prelude To Intimacy, is available at Amazon.com, Barnes and Noble, in Borders Bookstores and the on line publisher Lulu .

My case information and other writings are slowly being posted .

Ira Einhorn's Book Review - Crossing the Rubicon

2005-11-18T08:45:00.000-08:00

Ira Einhorn’s Book Review

Crossing The Rubicon : The Decline of the American Empire at the End of the Age of Oil
by: Michael C. Ruppert (New Society Publishers, 2004)

“Codenamed Operation Northwoods, the plan, which had the written approval of the chairman and every member of the joint chiefs of staff, called for innocent people to be shot on American Streets; for boats carrying refugees fleeing Cuba to be sunk on the high seas; for a wave of violent terrorism to be launched in Washington, D.C., Miami and elsewhere. People would be framed for bombings they did not commit; planes would be hijacked, using phony evidence, all of it would be blamed on Castro, thus giving Lekinitzer and his cabal the excuse, as well as the public and international backing they needed to launch their war.”
Body of Secrets, James Bamford, Page 82

“The nation’s most senior military leadership was proposing to launch a war, which would no doubt kill many American servicemen, based solely on a fabric of lies.”
Ibid. Page 71

I am an alien, a foreign body which has been re-implanted into a body politic that I left in January of 1981 out of disgust at the treatment accorded to me by the judicial system. I am in no way anti-American, though I much prefer, after living for 20 years in five European countries, the life style of Europe to that of the United States.

I find United States’ influence on present world events to be pernicious. I find the imperial mode to be totally counter to the ideas of those American signers of the Declaration of Independence who risked their necks to establish freedom at the outer edge of European civilization. I find the religion of the market, as it is so often preached, to be a hypocrisy whose spread in any way to a presently more civilized Europe, to be a total disaster. The imperialism of the dollar is a scam run by a group who are precipitously destroying the very basis of our future. A group which represents our basest instincts and whose symbolic behavior is orchestrating the worst as representative of the American people, alas turning the possible hatred of us into everyday reality.

I find the self-centered religiosity that is daily making American air harder to breathe, a travesty of the truth that many around me carried into their daily lives of struggle during the 60s and early 70s. It was about helping others, bearing witness for those wronged; it was behavioral not linguistic and it still had some rude connections to that much fought over being who died on a cross almost 2,000 years ago. It had to do with sacrifice, love, compassion and mercy; it had nothing to do with the nonsense of property consciousness, tele-evangelism or just saying no. It was positive, affirmative, communal. It did not elevate the ‘free market’ over every other value.

Imperial fortress America seems filled with obese workaholics who consume more pornographic than Hollywood movies, whose culture, consisting of TV sports and celebrity, is micron thin and about as sustaining as the fast food that requires teen age stomachs, in increasing numbers, to be ligated.

Its electronic media are filled with voices whose tone belies any possibility of conversation or debate. People scream imprecations at each other. Public space, so precious to our heritage, has become a wasteland. The severely compromised Mr. Powell the closest thing we have to a statesman.

So many Americans now seem proud to be ignorant; an ignorance furthered by PC and universities too concerned with social adaptation rather than the difficulties and stresses inherent in a good education and confirmed by our woefully inadequate placing in international testing.

Our economy, in spite of all the noise, is now being run by people whose presence has always heralded the last stage of a particular historical development in capitalism, indicating a shift in power that the present decline of the $ symbolizes. Financial instruments now dominate our economy, not productivity. The failure of one hedge fund (LTCM), threatened our entire global system, not the failure of any particular enterprise that actually produces a product. Financial instruments that make money from what is essentially a system more akin to a casino than a productive economy, rule our world, destroy the economies of entire countries, threaten the future of our progeny and have quickly made us the cynosure of hate on the planet.

This process of decline was well underway before 9/11. 9/11 quickened the pace and allowed a gang with a plan to immediately use the opportunity that Michael Ruppert demonstrates as being self-generated, to sew fear in the land, move much closer to fascism (in this sense a merger of the state, corporations and the media) and to totally compromise the stated intentions of our founders.

The plot to use 9/11 as a flash point for obliterating freedom and seizing areas key to future energy supplies, due to the problem of peak oil, was carried out by a select few but has been colluded with, after the fact,. by most public figures and major media.

Most people appear to be frightened or asleep: focused on a hang nail when the house is burning. The unwillingness of so many to reflect upon the combination of 1984 and Kafka, that has become daily life in the United States, a sad comment on our commitment to our supposed ideals.

Our young men and women lack basics as they try to do daily tasks in the most dangerous place on earth while Donald Rumsfeld hand waves and supports a redundant satellite system that would cost $9.5 billion. The lack of concern shown by this man for both the American military and the Iraqi people boggles the mind. Over 2,000 of “ours” dead, 15,000 wounded; the combined Iraqi figures easily top 100,000 in an insurgency mess that the elections have not settled, but rather, under present conditions, will only exacerbate.

In a long deeply researched heart felt book that is suffused with the courage and honesty that few bring to any task, Mike Ruppert has culminated seven years of publishing his now highly regarded newsletter, FROM THE WILDERNESS, with Crossing The Rubicon.

Ruppert‘s book is a long, detailed, fact filled account that provides the ABC’s of the avoidance of certain problems that a small group of people have been working on since the late 60s when it was discovered that the CIA was deeply implicated in the drug trade. I provided such information to the Attorney General of Pennsylvania through an old school mate acting as a back channel. The back channel soon told me that a face to face meeting was requested, thus beginning more than a decade of my providing information and eating lunch and dinner with some of those - mostly men - who were supposedly running the show, but often having to do so with information that was inadequate.

I was fueled by my generalist education, encouraged by a brilliant professor of Victorian literature who became for a period of 5 years my closest companion, and 3 years of intense study of the 9/11 of the 60s: the assassination of J.F.K.

When I combined the two above pursuits with an intense study of ecology and its impact upon economics, I soon realized that the entire structure of our society was predicated upon a fallacy on infinite growth that would bring about a collapse of our entire system during my lifetime.

This awareness was deeply reinforced by a year long one-on-one seminar that I shared with a young financial genius – Shel Gordon – who was in temporary retirement after selling his investment business for many multiples of $10 million, real money in those days.

The fallacy of all present economic thought soon became apparent to this keen mind in the light of Georgescu-Roegen’s light years ahead of time book on the relationship between the second law of thermodynamics (entropy) and the economic process.

A book that exposed two basic economic fallacies: the idea of infinite growth and its correlative fallacy; the writing of equation after equation without consideration of any boundary conditions, something that no physicist would ever do.

The masking of this fallacy, seemingly an abstract problem in economics, is the key to the behavior that ex-detective Ruppert is investigating and thus a major thread in all the important events of our time:

1. We live in a finite, bounded space with limited resources.

2. Our major energy source - oil - is running out.

Ruppert’s Chapter One is a brilliant Tour De Force on this theme: the end of petroleum man. Peak oil as the major issue.

Sadly the rest follows as the night the day, through 674 pages and over 1,000 footnotes.

An almost total refusal of entrenched interests to think through their habitual behavior in the face of rapidly changing conditions.

A shift, as mentioned above, demonstrated in Giovanni Arrighi’s The Long Twentieth Century and Peter Gowan’s The Globalization Gamble, from productive to finance capital, an omen, as such past historical shifts demonstrate, of a loss of power.

And, serving as a backdrop to all this, the much denied fact of global warming, best envisioned in January 2005’s Scientific American wherein one can watch through a long lens the disappearance of all that arctic ice; entire great world cities, island nations, a good deal of South Florida will be under water during the lifetime of the grandchildren of some of us old folks.

So much of the panic filled horrific behavior meticulously described by this book is indicative of a ruling class unconsciously aware of the great threat to its existence as so much of our enormous efforts to save endangered species is a projective covering of the sense that we might be doomed.

And our fears will come to fruition if we don’t find a way to derail the madness that chapter after chapter of Crossing the Rubicon details.

The book is structured as a presentation to the jury, you, the American people.

It is one man’s massive gathering of the evidence that hundreds of 9/11 researchers have labored to collect. It is a group effort focused through the intense lenses of one American who refuses to eat the lies served up by the major media.

It is a NO! in thunder backed by hundreds of thousands of research hours.

It is a collective shout that must be read and acted upon if we are to have any chance of casting off the oppression that has the American Spirit in chains.

The research is meticulous; the questions asked are questions that should have been answered by the very public dog and pony shows that Bush and Co. reluctantly permitted. Questions that still reverberate as I write.

Our “leadership” is in public denial, for it is complicit in so many ways with the on-going failure to deal with global warming, peak oil, the fall of the dollar and most significantly, 9/11.

The jury is out. The evidence is strong and convincing.

Can our system rise to its greatest challenge: facing the facts of a researcher/prosecutor whose massive evidence says that our very own Vice President - Dick Cheney - mastermined 9/11, creating the context for our invasions of both Afghanistan and Iraq.

As an alien, as someone removed from American life for over 20 years, I can more clearly see the multiple illnesses affecting the body politic.

Illnesses that only sunshine can begin to cure. This book is part of the sunshine.

It is written at great risk: “one can only live deeply immersed in evil and crime for so long without paying a price.” (Page, 392)

It is a great risk to read it, for it is very convincing and once convinced you will not be able to go on with things as usual, for the book forces anyone, who still lives in terms of an ideal, to consecrate themselves to seeing its truth confronted in public, for without such confrontation we are dead in the water as a nation.

Ira Einhorn

Disclaimer: The foreword to the book was written by a very close friend who has had much influence on the author. I have, also, due to her good offices, received every issue of FTW (FromTheWilderness). Thus I have experienced the recent seven year development of Michael Ruppert’s ideas as they occurred.

Ira Einhorn's Review of The New Pearl Harbor

2005-11-17T09:18:00.000-08:00

^{The New Pearl Harbor
David Ray Griffin
Olive Branch Press 2004

Americans appear to have an attention span that is relevant to the flicker on MTV.

Remember ENRON?

I grew up in a slower time when focus and concentration was the rule and multi-tasking, which research has shown to be counterproductive, was unheard of let alone desired.

The assassination of J.F.K. brought my American bred innocence to an end. I spent two years (1964-1965) working with an international team of researchers, helping to develop the unwanted facts that made it clear that our young president was gunned down by a group of men, as part of a conspiracy that included parts of our own intelligence community.

The researchers I worked with focused on forensic minutia, failing, at least in the beginning, to focus on the larger picture; the context of politics and economics that led to Kennedy’s death.

Facts are important; they are essential to proving any assertion or raising questions about incorrect assertions. And facts you will get in The New Pearl Harbor, but as the title’s reference to Pearl Harbor indicates: today’s researchers are not neglecting the broader context.

9/11 was a great crime. It was done for reasons that the title indicates: to provide the rationale for previously planned invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq. Invasions that the American people would not have approved without the anger fuelled by 9/11.

We have a tradition of such events: The Maine, Tonkin Bay, Pearl Harbor, and now 9/11.

9/11 allowed previously desired invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq to go ahead. Invasions that have to do with “Peak Oil” (we are running out of oil: the petroleum age is coming to an end; America is positioning itself to grab what it can). There is also the small matter of this year’s opium harvest: $7,000,000,000. Money which is often laundered through the New York Stock Exchange.

9/11 allowed for the hurried passage of the Patriot Act, elevating national security above all of our constitutional due process and other rights; rights that our fore-fathers spent their blood to achieve. It made toilet paper of the Constitution.

It created a large pork barrel called Homeland Security which has a Nazi ring to it, and in an emergency is allowed to end all of our disappearing freedoms. The rather dim leader of this department of fear created a color alert system that has nothing to do with the natural spectrum. His pronouncements have been ludicrous. He acted like a character out of Alice in Wonderland who has produced mainly fear and confusion. And alas, laughter with his famous duct tape suggestion.

We also have an endless war on terrorism that a misinformed and heavily stressed-out populace has allowed itself to be taken in by, thus allowing an incompetent presidential administration to continue the war in Iraq, the killing of our young and the bankruptcy of our future.

All of the above and more is a direct outcome of 9/11; a traumatic event that has so many eager to give up precious liberty to guarantee an elusive security that is nowhere to be found. Such cowardice is despicable, portending ills for us all.

“Waving the American flag became a substitute for critical and independent thought, and slogans such as 'united we stand' were used as blankets to smother whatever critical impulses existed.” (Richard Falk, Foreword, P. IX)

Thus 9/11 deserves a scrutiny equal to the Kennedy assassination.

But now is not 1964. A major technology has intervened: the Internet.

It allows teams of people to communicate effortlessly and often. It allows new facts to be quickly shared, checked out and discarded when found to be wanting.

It allows official lies to be quickly brought into the sunshine. It is a marvelous new form of the Rousseauian General Will when utilized in an open, sharing manner. It provides a means by which the perps can be flushed out before the issues go cold.

The New Pearl Harbor is a worthy contribution to this task.

Anyone who looks at some of the basic facts has to be suspicious:

1. The President sat and read to school children for 20 minutes, though he knew, for quite a while, that the nation was under attack, and that he was therefore in danger. A danger that he evaded for the rest of the day.

2. The hole in the Pentagon could not have been made by a Boeing 757.

3. The Pentagon is the most protected building in the world. How did anything get by that protection?

4. Why were planes not scrambled to shoot down at least two of the hijacked planes?

5. How did steel frame buildings suddenly collapse from fire?

6. All indications are that buildings 1, 2 & 7 were brought down by carefully placed explosives.

7. Why was the forensic evidence - the steel members - immediately sold and shipped out of the country? 9/11 was a crime scene. Those steel beams were evidence.

These are a few of the basic questions that Griffin raises and discusses. Questions that patriotic hand waving or loose talk about conspiracy theory can’t dispel.

They are questions that official reports avoid.

In addition, there are a number of individuals within the intelligence and law enforcement communities who are being gagged, for they have information that would upset the applecart.

The book, now in its second edition, is just 200 pages.

It is clear and to the point.

It makes a devastating case in a calm and logical way.

Griffin has been a professor of philosophy of religion at the Claremont School of Theology in California for over 30 years. He is the author and editor of over 20 books.

His book is essential reading for anyone troubled by the present direction of the USA: over 50% of the nation according to the polls.

If The New Pearl Harbor convinces you that 9/11 must not be allowed to be buried, you are then ready to read Mike Ruppert’s Crossing the Rubicon, which details the context in which 9/11 operated, in much greater detail, and points a long finger in the direction of those responsible.

The leader of these men was re-elected for mainly moral reasons. What irony.}

Judge Told Jury To Ignore The Murder Date

2005-10-24T10:53:00.000-07:00

From Ira Einhorn

October 17, 2005

That I did not kill Holly Maddux on September 11, 1977, as alleged by the prosecution for twenty-three years and steadfastly maintained through two trials, was demonstrated so strongly by the defense at my trial that Judge Mazzola was forced by his obvious bias to tell the jury to ignore the date, though the date was integral to what both the prosecution and the defense did at the trial.

His actions at the end of my trial as demonstrated in the enclosed two pages {Section Two} taken from my Superior Court Appeal, made a mockery of the trial and violated the very nature of Due Process, the foundation of American Law.

His “aside” (there are no asides in law) deprived me of a defense, for he changed what I was charged with after the trial was over, rendering the entire process a ludicrous and expensive farce.

His shameful behavior intensified by his ignorant attack on me at the end of the trial is in direct violation of the principles enunciated by Chief Justice Roberts in his confirmation hearing who made one thing clear: A judge at a trial must remain a referee no matter what his personal feelings.

Judge Mazzola was not a referee, but a second prosecutor during the entire trial bending over backwards to accommodate the prosecution by making conscious judicial error after judicial error that did away with any possibility of a fair trial.

His behavior was reprehensible.

What journalist has the courage to call his kangaroo court into question?

What Journalist has the courage to bring Mazzola’s actions into the cleansing light of the sun?

SECTION II

X. APPELLANT IS ENTITLED TO A NEW TRIAL AS A RESULT OF THE TRIAL COURT’S ERROR IN INSTRUCTING THE JURY THAT IN ASSESSING APPELLANT’S GUILT, IT WAS NOT BOUND BY THE DATE OF THE KILLING OF THE VICTIM THAT WAS ALLEGED IN THE INFORMATION, SEPTEMBER 11, 1977

The trial court erred when it instructed the jury that in assessing appellant’s guilt, it was not bound by the date of the killing of the victim that was alleged in the Information, September 11, 1977. As a result, appellant is entitled to a new trial.

The trial court instructed the jury as follows:

“As an aside, I would also advise you that you are not necessarily bound by the date alleged in the indictment in this case. The date of the death is not an essential element of the crime.

You may find the defendant guilty if you are satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that he committed the crime charged even though you’re not satisfied that it occurred precisely on the specific date mentioned on the bill of indictment.” (NT 10/16/02 p. 184).

Appellant submits that the trial court erred when it instructed the jury that in assessing appellant’s guilt, it was not bound by the date of the killing of the victim that was alleged in the Information, September 11, 1977.

In Commonwealth v. Groff, 378 Pa/ Super. 353, 548 A.2d 1237 (1988), citing Commonwealth v. Devlin, 460 Pa 508, 333 A.2d 888 (1975), “the prosecution must fix the date when an alleged offense occurred with reasonable certainty.” The doctrine that the Commonwealth is allowed a reasonable measure of flexibility applies only in cases in which an assault on a child is involved. Id.

A variance in the date of the offense charged is fatal where it misleads the defendant at a trial, involves an element of surprise prejudicial to the defendant’s efforts to prepare his defense, precludes the defendant from anticipating the prosecution’s proof or impairs a substantial right. See Commonwealth v. Ohle, 503 Pa. 566, 470 A.2d 61 (1983), quoting Commonwealth v. Pope, 455 Pa. 384, 317 A.2d 887 (1974).

Herein, during appellant’s first trial, which was held in absentia, and his second trial the Commonwealth never wavered in its claim that Ms. Maddux was killed on September 11, 1977. Appellant’s defense against the charges was premised upon the fact that the commonwealth alleged that the killing occurred on September 11, 1977. Appellant presented a number of witnesses, including people who stayed in his apartment soon after the day on which the victim was killed, and people who saw the victim months after the date of the offense charged based upon the Commonwealth’s firm allegation that the victim met her death on September 11, 1977 (N.T. 10/9/02 p. 67-76, 97-110, 122, 145-156, 161-162, 165-167, 171-186). Had appellant known that the trial court intended to instruct the jury in this manner, he either would not have presented these witnesses or would have presented additional witnesses to cover a broader period of time.

The trial court’s instruction had the impact of significantly defeating or diminishing appellant’s defense. In view of the Commonwealth’s continued claim with regard to the date of death, it was not entitled to a jury instruction that had the effect of varying the date on which the victim met her death.

Under these circumstances, the trial court erred when it instructed the jury that in assessing appellant’s guilt, it was not bound by the date of the killing of the victim that was alleged in the Information, September 11, 1977. Accordingly, appellant is entitled to a new trial.

Free The Unicorn

2005-10-24T10:22:00.000-07:00

This blog is dedicated to freeing the Unicorn, Ira Einhorn who is serving time after being on the run, charged with killing Holly Maddux.

Currently, Ira is denied video and internet access to get the truth out about the frame. Not even CBS can get an interview with him, but the media is free to run government versions of the story.

With no witnesses to the murder, no blood evidence found in the body, the trunk, nor the apartment where the murder was said to be committed, and the judge telling the jury “As an aside, I would also advise you that you are not necessarily bound by the date alleged in the indictment in this case. The date of the death is not an essential element of the crime.” , it reads like a frame to me.

The role of the Computer Underground Railroad is to help folks get free using computers and other technology. What we learn here, may help free others from the bonds of Prison, Inc.

Please continue to pray for all innocent people in jail.

Prelude To Intimacy - Writing Samples

2005-10-22T11:36:00.000-07:00

EXCERPTS FROM PRELUDE TO INTIMACY

BY IRA EINHORN

AVAILABLE AS A HARD COPY OR AN EBOOK

Who Am I - Pages 19-20.
Impact of the 60’s - Pages 53-55.
Networking - Page 16.
Healing - Pages 62-63.
American Society - Page 63 - 64.
Culture - Page 75.
Europe and Ghosts - Pages 100-101.
Prison Life - Page 81.
Reading - Page 88.
Creativity - Page 90.
Stress - Page 96-98.
Vulnerability - Pages 107-108.
Computers - Page 172.
End Notes.
For more information contact:
James Sorrells

Who Am I - Pages 19-20

According to Jungian typology, I am an intuitive/feeling person. I’m not conscious of “thinking” all that much. Rather, most of the time my mind is clear, and I act intuitively without much conscious thought or deliberation. Things emerge for me, often instantly, rather than being mulled over, for I live fully in my body. I also grasp things as a whole. Hence, I am blessed to be able to work on very complex problems, even in areas of human endeavor in which I have little factual knowledge. On the other hand, for me the more factual knowledge the better. I have always literally devoured books and as much high-level information as I could get my hands on. Whereas I love complexity and complex problems, I have always lived simply and love the unencumbered. For me, there is no contradiction between my intellectual interests and how I choose to live my life. In fact, one supports the other.
When the paranoia of my situation would arise, it came from an emotional, visceral response of fear and danger which would then obsessively plague my normally clear mind for a time. Those emotions would play and replay their neuro-endocrinological dance, usually damping out after a day or two. At that point, the incident would be finished, and I could return to my normal, two drinks above par, life, no less enjoyable in Europe than in the U.S., at least on a basic level. But, I have never lived on a basic level.

Impact of the 60’s - Pages 53-55

The sixties were still fresh in everyone’s mind, and most of the people I had associated with in Eire had had some taste, however small, of possibilities loosed by the experiences of that time. The smell of change had been in the air, and many had experienced what they considered to be a superior way of living together. A mode of life we associated with a change in consciousness, a sense that the discreet boundaries of the reigning framework somehow limited awareness and the behavior that flows from awareness, i.e., virtually everything. Sounds abstract but it isn’t. Just think of the difference between waking up with a smile on your face or a scowl, the feelings evoked by bright sunlight versus dark, heavy clouds, the way the world looks when you are elated in contrast to the way it looks when you are depressed.
When I worked with business executives to any depth, I would explain these differences with the implication that if they lost their temper during the course of the day, it was best to write off the next couple of hours. Anyone truly in touch with themselves knows that decisions are not a process of the mind, alone. The body is deeply involved in all important decisions, and the increasing denial of this truth in the developed world is part of our increasingly pathological behavior. In spite of the goodies – consumer products – that surround us in ever-larger amounts, it is obvious to more and more people that our way of life is both destructive and without meaning. Disease patterns, drug use, and the utilization of mind-altering prescription drugs are examples, but the escalating, dysfunctional behavior of young people (murder, suicide, drug use, etc.) is the clearest indicator of the problem; the younger you are, the less protection you have against your environment. It takes a while to learn how to suppress what is actually happening; the young are always the best indicators of the future.
The awareness of the importance of the body in decision-making is known to anyone who has studied or practiced eastern philosophies or who has utilized any of the arts emerging from the human potential movement; recent work at the edge of western thought is confirming such ideas. Doubters should turn to Damasio’s[i] Descartes’ Error: Emotion, Reason, and the Human Brain (1994). The mind is a latecomer to the evolutionary process, the neo-cortex in particular, and floats upon a vast pool of embodied knowledge that we are now ignoring at our peril. The brain is a part of a biological system of daunting complexity, a player in a complex game. To think of it – or us – as a whole as merely complex computers is to practice destructive reductionism. The failures of AI (artificial intelligence) to live up to claims and expectations should make us aware of how easy it is to mistake our projections and metaphors for reality. But, let us not throw out the baby with the bath water. Clearly defined logical problems, a very small subset of what human beings face, are best solved by known mental techniques. Deep Blue’s recent victory over Garry Kasparov[ii] is a perfect example. The problem is the over-reaching of the brain into areas where it is not sovereign – the hubris of thought, not the use of it.[iii]
The issue can be understood under the rubric of context, whether we are dealing with personal mental states manifest as a smile or a scowl or external surrounds like the sun or clouds. We have all had numerous experiences in which changes in context produced dramatic changes in behavior, however temporary.[iv] Discussions on issues like these led me to form a seminar on the history of the context that presently determines or at least influences life in the western world.

Networking - Page 16

My life in England was a very rich mix of different milieus in a heady brew of 60s explosion and English hospitality, a whirl that often began with mid-morning tea and ended with a 3:00 a.m. Chinese dinner with Heathcote Williams[v], John Michell[vi], and Francis Huxley[vii]. Wales (Stafford Beer[viii], George Andrews[ix] and others), Cornwall (Colin Wilson[x]), and Bath (Peter Gabriel[xi]) were integral parts of the circuit at various times. And, I rarely was in London without seeing Arthur Koestler[xii] for a long session of drinking and marvelous conversation.
When one’s roots and interconnections are cut away, a black hole can await. I had run a huge network for years that had provided information of all sorts to an international group of scientists, scholars, writers, political activists, and corporate leaders. It was financed - it may surprise some - by Bell of Pennsylvania, and it evolved from my work with Andrija Puharich[xiii] and Uri Geller[xiv] on psycho-kinesis and consciousness. The network grew to include people in 25 countries on both sides of the Iron Curtain, people with instant planetary recognition among the cognoscenti. Information flowed to me, and I redirected it, aided by Pennsylvania Bell for the duplication and mailing.[xv] When something happened in many “edge” disciplines, I heard about it, quickly. I was not only in the flow, I was the conduit for much of the flow.

Healing - Pages 62-63

All of this aided my adaptation, a process I went through a number of times, and one does learn, painful though it might be. As Nietzsche wrote, “That which does not kill me will make me strong.” A kernel of truth in that statement but one that does not fully cover the situation. I have indeed become very strong, but the fractures lie within and must be healed if the being is to remain whole.
This healing is a slow practice that few understand and that requires the help of another. It is a work of continual repetition, a return to the site of the trauma which is sutured onto those childhood tropisms that dwell deep in the realm of the pre-verbal, the chora, after a term employed by Julie Kristeva, a French psychoanalyst, feminist, and author of many books. It is difficult to describe for it is a process that is ongoing. It became possible for me only when I had a life partner.

American Society - Page 63 - 64

How arcane, you might say, how recondite, how beside the point, but think of what is going on in American life and increasingly throughout the world where the market-oriented consumer society is rooting out all the old world patterns and destroying every rhythm that resists. Norman Mailer’s words ring clear: “We live in a time that is interrupting the mood of everything alive.”
Consider this: 90% of American families are described as being dysfunctional; over 50% of marriages fail; the incidence and prevalence of stress-related illnesses are growing exponentially; job security is a dream of the past; sexuality, one of the major forms of release available to contemporary city-dwellers, who are cut off from trees, grass, and bird-song, is now fraught with peril and ringed round with the odor of death; child abuse is endemic; pedophilia is on the rampage; destructive substances are available anywhere and everywhere there is money to pay for them; teenage crime is a growth industry (think on the sad case of Malcolm X’s grandson), and perhaps worst of all, teenage suicide, a devastating response to this spreading illness of infinite consumption, grows by leaps and bounds.
A long list that adds up to total fragmentation and a continually increasing stress on every one of us no matter how rich we may be and how protected we feel. That is the problem that clearly links my struggles to the common experience, extreme though my situation may seem. The problems of stress and the affect of sundering and fragmentation on a system is non-linear; it lives in the world of Thom[xvi], Prigogine[xvii], or the Santa Fe Institute[xviii], i.e., complexity theory, rather than the linear world of Newton or Lagrange. Like the climate, the change can be sudden. The climate in not just going to change in the far-distant future, it is changing before my very eyes as I write. The operative terms are catastrophe (in a mathematical sense)[xix], strange attractors[xx], and far-from-equilibrium systems.
The problems I have wrestled with for one-third of my life are increasingly the daily problems faced by everyone, but please do not misunderstand me: this is not a how-to book but rather a report from the frontier, like my fifth novel, a snapshot of an emerging world. This is the world we are all living in, though few are as yet willing to admit the extent of the problem, and most reach for partial, non-achievable, utopian solutions or retreat into “quietism, cynicism or despair,” to quote a letter from Martin Jay[xxi], professor of history at the University of California, Berkeley to my erstwhile alias, Eugene Mallon.

Culture - Page 75

Culture is the organic process of a lived life: it grows us and we grow it. It is not a suit of clothes that one can change at will. Living with a woman who grew up in a totally different culture than mine, whose language of the heart is not English, has only reinforced that awareness for we spent twenty-four hours a day together and did so with short breaks for almost ten years. That is more time together than most marital partners spend in their lifetimes. I know about cultural differences and expectations from the experience we shared as deeply as any two could manage, breaking down walls of difference that separate even the most devoted lovers.
Most of what we do in life is not thought about but is rather a by-product of the culture that creates us. Like mother’s milk, we take it in without thinking yet still find ourselves at times stymied by the small tropisms out of which a life is fashioned. It did not stop Annika and me, but what work it required, what patience! Who today will take the time? Who is allowed the time? It should not come as a surprise that many are beginning to talk about a post-emotional society and that more and more people, who supposedly love each other, treat their loved ones as replaceable throwaways, to be used up and disposed of. Most of the women friends that Annika met in France merely tolerate their mates. No one has spoken of love to her. How very sad.

Europe and Ghosts - Pages 100-101

I had finally become a person to talk to rather than a Svengali of sex, for which I was thankful. I knew it was just the beginning, however, for what we had done together, with all its attendant past associations, had to be parsed, worked through, brought out into the light of day. Otherwise, buried memory festers and spreads malignancy throughout the being, a problem that was to become a large part of my life’s work. After a number of years in Europe, I realized that most of Europe was full of hungry ghosts, unresolved memories of the horrors of the Holocaust that weighed heavily on everyone, slowing draining the life away.
The corpse of the Holocaust needs to be disinterred, autopsied, and given a decent burial, an impossible task for over forty years because the trauma was too large to face, and the focus on the Cold War eclipsed all else. Now, it is surfacing slowly, perhaps too little, too late. European leaders are too busy pretending about a United Europe to pay attention to the real problem: unresolved memories of traumatic proportions. They are as out of touch with the problem as was President Chirac in the recent election that brought an extreme rightist to great prominence.
Europe is paralyzed, and American hegemony is not the entire reason for the problem. I spent six years studying the Holocaust and repressed memory. I wrote a novel about it called Cantor Dust. I have also spent ten years with a woman who is wrestling with the same problem on a personal level, so the problem became mine and slowly absorbed all my time, resist though I might. The terrain is relatively unmapped, and the work is the most difficult I’ve ever encountered, but the effects of not dealing with the problem are everywhere in this Europe without a soul. During 1996-97, I spent much time with a Holocaust survivor, a man whose life was an emblem of the problem that few really understand, an awareness that my reading of some of the vast literature made all too clear. I had just begun an intensely focused study of the psychological roots of the problem and had written 40 pages of a new novel when Friday, June 13, 1997 erupted into my life.

Prison Life - Page 81

What a metaphor of our times: a TV in virtually every “cell,” but no light to read by! In addition, if I am extradited I will spend the rest of my life in an American prison. I repeat: In spite of these circumstances I am a happy man for I love and am loved at a level I had not thought possible, and I have lived out that love with a wonderful woman in an almost ten-year struggle against our respective backgrounds.

Reading - Page 88

Reading is life’s blood for me. It nourishes me like food, extends my range, and allows me to experience emotions in a quiet room that when encountered later, I can better deal with. I am not that concerned with its ontological status for I know how to use it and do. I enjoy a good critical argument, but I prefer a good poem or novel. I find the imaginative act more important than the critical act and know that Melville or Proust or Joyce will still be read when Derrida is a distant memory; it is the lasting I’m concerned with when I teach and when I read: it says something about value and depth.

Creativity - Page 90

Yet granted that understanding of limits, I must say that the creative life is always pushing against the limits, exploring the edges, conquering new territory. That seems to be the function of creativity: opening up new possibilities that others will later structure into more coherent wholes. It is a form of a gift to the whole for once the light bulb is imagined, it is the property of all of us – to use and forget that it was invented at a discrete time and place by someone, for that is how we are: very forgetful.
Creativity is a blessing, but it is also a burden for it creates a restlessness that tends to disrupt the smooth surface of ordinary life that the majority seems to settle into whenever the opportunity allows.

Stress - Page 96-98

Stress may now be an academic discipline, complete with all the accoutrements that go with it: endowed chairs, journals, conferences, etc. But when I began to study stress, it was still a battle over the work of Hans Seyle[xxii], whose research led me back to Claude Bernard[xxiii], Hughlings Jackson[xxiv], W.B. Cannon[xxv], Kurt Goldstein’s[xxvi] work on the organism as a whole, Arthur Koestler’s[xxvii] brilliant overview in Insight and Outlook, and a small library of other books. I developed a basic theory that I presented to many audiences, and I often used methods of presentation that induced what I was speaking about, methods based on my study of Artaud and Brecht.[xxviii] One such talk at a well-known, elite psychiatric institute produced a near riot and led to hours of discussion, much admittance of guilt, and finally to a commitment to run a drug counseling center that was being created in the building in which I lived, just fifty feet from my apartment![xxix]
Stress is the key concept necessary to the understanding of modern life; it lies at the basis of a whole series of family-related illnesses and is a large factor in alcoholism and drug addiction. Stress is itself addictive as I first noticed when people who spent most of their time in the city visited any of my summer retreats: they couldn’t stand the peace and quiet for it enabled or forced them to listen to themselves (their bodies) as stimulus replacement for the constant drone of the city. What they heard was often devastating. The same effect can often be observed in high-strung people when they receive a massage. Stress is so endemic in contemporary life that its absence may be noted and missed.
Pollution is a form of environmental stress, just as stress is a form of body pollution. Stress can be thought about in terms of information that the body can’t handle while pollution is material the environment can’t reabsorb within the context of its functioning cycles. They both produce pathologies in terms of “normal” functioning. Sufficient overload of either will produce a bodily distress, such as certain types of cancer or a change in the environment, even a climatic change. Most contemporary behavioral pathologies have a high stress component as part of their syndrome.
The fear of stillness and silence that seems to be spreading is an obvious stress response as is the incessant listening to TV news. When you live for a period of years as I have, without media, you became intensely aware of how stressed most people are, how unable to sit quietly or live without noise.
Techniques for stress reduction have become a growth industry.
Embracing stress and using overload consciously is one way of producing psychic breakthroughs, but it is not to be recommended for it is extremely dangerous and rarely successful, yet that was what I was in the midst of with my exquisite nymph. Some deep trauma was playing itself out again and again, obsessively as trauma will, and my willingness, my allowing, had become part of a process that was hard to grasp, like trying to swallow the ocean.
The process continued as before, and the tenderness increased as did the warmth both inside and outside of bed. An opening was occurring, a crack in the mirror that was certainly related to the altered state and the sexual frenzy…but don’t ask me how. Most people will find what I am describing hard to believe, but I am a veteran of the 60s, and I have spent an enormous amount of time exploring the various realms of human consciousness with an armada of tools, including the most powerful psychedelics then available. I am used to daylong excursions into psychic spaces that would frighten most people to death. A group of us worked on and off for a while with DMT, a psychedelic that zips you out of your body in a microsecond. I’ve learned how to sit quietly and observe in the midst of some very strange states. I have also had extensive experience with hypnotism, out of body (OOB) experiences, eidetic imagery, tantric Buddhism, and a number of other esoteric techniques. I worked closely for a number of years with Andrija Puharich who spent his life studying such states and the powers attendant upon them. My local neighborhood in Philadelphia, Powelton Village, was often a dumping ground for very disturbed former psychiatric in-patients, ambulatory schizophrenics, a number of whom I spent much time with.

Vulnerability - Pages 107-108

Vulnerability is something that most men of my generation – I was born in 1940 – have a difficult time recognizing, let alone expressing out loud. We were taught to suppress it, present a strong face, tough it out, etc. To change such deeply engrained character traits is not an intellectual decision but the deep emotional work of a decade. Work that involved great struggle for I was opposing a long tradition, reinforced by millennia of the religious tradition from which I issued. To admit deep need and vulnerability to a woman was an emotional experience of great intensity, one that opened up deeper possibilities for both of us and led us into depths that few ever touch for real love and sharing is out of style nowadays. The busy life that most people now lead fosters functional relationships of mutual tolerance rather than love. A sad substitute for the intimate involvement that is possible with another.
But that was the experience of a more mature man. In 1985 I was still leading my American life though I lived in Eire, in reduced circumstances to be sure. The forces of habit run deep for they are burned deep into the physiology, an integral part of the body’s structure. It is as difficult to change a deeply engrained habit as it is to change one’s voice or one’s gait. It can be done, but the work is enormous and few succeed. Think about all those years lying on the psychoanalytic couch with success in some cases to be sure, but rare and after years of intense work. We are creatures of habit! Change is more difficult than the superficial psychobabble of the last thirty years would lead us to imagine. Possible, but very difficult.

Computers - Page 172

Then, miracle of miracles, my newfound friend took me to a computer shop in the next town and before I knew it, I was keying in my novel on a small word-processing computer. I got up early every morning with the goal of keying in one chapter. Since I am not a touch typist, it took time, but I had time. In eight weeks it was done. I now had a completed novel, stored on a computer no less, and the rest of my life to live. The writing had been a way forward, a new path to follow. Deep inner work was to replace what I had lost, a focus for my enormous energy and omnivorous reading, but that was only one point of support. I needed two others, a place to live and someone to share it with. I began to formulate a wish on that long train ride back to London, a wish that soon became the beginning of a new reality.

End Notes
[i] Antonio Damasio is a distinguished professor of neuroscience whose central thesis is that mind and body are not and cannot be sharply separated. Cartesian dualism is thus fundamentally in error.
[ii] Garry Kasparov was the reigning World Chess Champion when he was beaten by IBM’s Deep Blue Supercomputer in 1997.
[iii] Werner Erhard and est taught that the mind is great for analyzing data but lousy for making choices.
[iv] Editor: In communication theory, what Einhorn calls “context” is called “meta-communication,” i.e., communication about the communication. “What are you doing?” takes on an entirely different meaning when barked loudly by a policeman with his gun drawn than when whispered softly by a mother to her small child. Or, face the rear of a crowded elevator, or stand close to the only other occupant in an otherwise empty one. The reaction of the other passenger(s) will tell you that you have violated a rule of context. Quite often it is the “how, where, and who” and not the “what” of the stimulus that determines the response. See Paul Watzlawick (et al.), Pragmatics of Human Communication, 1967.
[v] Heathcote Williams is a popular British cinema and television actor and writer, credited with 31 roles and three motion-picture screenplays since 1970.
[vi] John Michell is arguably the best known New Age thinker in England and the author of many books, including “View Over Atlantis.”
[vii] Francis Huxley, anthropolgist, is the son of Sir Julian Huxley, biologist, and nephew of Aldous Huxley. He did early research on LSD with Humphrey Osmond in Canada and was on the faculty of the International R.D. Laing Institute in Switzerland. Laing was a radical Scottish psychiatrist.
[viii] Stafford Beer (1927-2002) was a world-famous professor of cybernetics (feedback loops in social systems), holistic management, and organizational transformation, a painter, and a poet. His work influenced the social economy of Chile under Allende and contemporary musicians such as Brian Eno.
[ix] George Andrews’ most noted work is “The Book of Grass: An anthology of Indian hemp.” (1967)
[x] Colin Wilson (b. 1930) is a truly renaissance thinker and writer, the founder of New Existentialism, with interests in and works about mysticism (“The Occult”), criminology, split-brain research, “peak experiences,” literary criticism, science fiction, and archaeology.
[xi] Peter Gabriel (b. 1950) is a prominent and popular British musician, founder of the rock group “Genesis,” a collaborator with Indian and Middle-Eastern musicians, and composer of the sound-track for LAST TEMPTATION OF CHRIST. He founded the “Witness” program to provide video camcorders to human rights activists in order to film abuses.
[xii] Arthur Koestler (1905-1983) was a novelist, a political activist, social philosopher, and popular writer. His most famous work is “Darkness at Noon,” a novel about purges in the Soviet Union under Stalin.
[xiii] Andrija Puharich (1918-1983) has been called the father of the New Age movement. A physiologist by academic training, he studied the Brazilian healer, Arigo, and worked at the Stanford Research Institute, NYU, and his own research center in Maine with Buckminster Fuller, Aldous Huxley, and Uri Geller in attempts to bridge the gap between parapsychology and medicine, including the use of Extremely Low Frequency (ELF) magnetic waves. He claimed to have powered his motor home across the U.S. with a device to split water molecules.
[xiv] Uri Geller (b. 1946) is Hungarian/Austrian, born in Israel. He was studied at the Stanford Research Institute for his putative ability to alter physical properties (bend spoons, influence computers and Geiger counters) using his mental/psychic abilities.
[xv] This network initially began under the aegis of Moses Hallett with the blessing of Bill Cashel, then President of the Pennsylvania Bell Telephone Company and later Vice-Chairman of A.T.&T.
[xvi] “René Thom (1923-2002) was a French professor of mathematics who was known for his development of catastrophe theory, a mathematical treatment of continuous action producing a discontinuous result.” From the website: http://www.groups.disc.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Mathematicians/Thom.html
[xvii] Ilya Prigogine was awarded the Nobel Prize in chemistry in 1977 for his contributions to non-equilibrium thermodynamics, particularly the theory of dissipative structures. He was born in Moscow, Russia on January 25, 1917. From the website: http://order.ph.utexas.edu/people/Prigogine.htm
[xviii] “The Santa Fe Institute is devoted to creating a new kind of scientific research community, one emphasizing multidisciplinary collaboration in pursuit of understanding the common themes that arise in natural, artificial, and social systems. This unique scientific enterprise attempts to uncover the mechanisms that underlie the deep simplicity present in our complex world.” From www.santafe.edu
[xix] See footnote 7 above.
[xx] “Strange attractors” refer to three-dimensional abstract models that are generated by polynomial equations in the area of physics known as “chaos theory.” Try http://ccrma-www.stanford.edu/~stilti/ for starters. The reader may also be interested in “fractals,” which bear some similarity.
[xxi] Martin Jay wrote The Dialectical Imagination in 1996 about the Frankfurt School and the Institute of Social Research (1923-1950). He is a leading exponent of Adorno (see Part 9, footnote 7.)
[xxii] Hans Selye (1907-1982) was a Czech-born endocrinologist who devoted his professional career to the study of stress. Selye’s work also demonstrated that illness often occurs in syndromes rather than distinct, unrelated symptoms.
[xxiii] Claude Bernard (1813-1878) was a French physiologist who was one of the first to apply scientific methodology to medicine.
[xxiv] John Hughlings Jackson (1835-1911) was an English neurologist whose major contribution was the diagnosis and understanding of epilepsy.
[xxv] W.B. Cannon was an American physiologist who advanced an understanding of emotional responses as the response of the sympathetic nervous system to “emergency” situations, “fight or flight.” His The Wisdom of the Body (1938) introduced the notion of homeostasis as regards physiological processes.
[xxvi] Kurt Goldstein (1878-1965) was a German-Jewish physician and psychiatrist. He advocated an organismic approach to illness in which symptoms are seen as a catastrophic reaction when situational stressors become overwhelming.
[xxvii] See Part 1, footnote 9.
[xxviii] See Part 9, footnotes 1,2, and 3.
[xxix] Ira bombarded the audience with an overload of psychiatric information that resulted in a violent response, directed toward Ira. He then explained what he had deliberately done and asked for their help.

Ira Einhorn's New Book, Prelude To Intimacy

2005-10-22T09:24:00.000-07:00

SUMMARY

The new book, Prelude To Intimacy, by jailed activist and dynamic thinker Ira Einhorn is about his life on the run, his insights into modern times and a rebuttal against the bogus case presented against him twice (the Einhorn Law). There are no witnesses to the murder and no blood evidence.

PRESS RELEASE

Prelude to Intimacy by Ira Einhorn is the activist and dynamic thinker’s account of his life underground from the time he fled the United States in 1981 until he met his wife in 1987, written from his prison cell in Gradinan, north of Bordeaux, in just 18 days. The book is full of the immediacy of his feeling that he would shortly be returned to the United States.

In a letter to readers about Prelude to Intimacy, Einhorn emphatically states, “I did NOT kill Holly Maddux,” and in the book's Epilogue he presents a compelling case that he’s telling the truth.

Though Maddux’s body was “found” in a trunk in Einhorn’s closet, there was no blood in the body or the trunk, and no traces of blood whatsoever could be found in his apartment, despite the fact that she was allegedly bludgeoned there. There were no witnesses to the murder, nor of him transporting the body, nor any real proof that Einhorn killed the woman he loved. All the evidence, weak as it was, was circumstantial. Statements that Maddux had been seen after she was supposed to have been killed were suppressed.

Usually, if the evidence does not fit, the jury must acquit. Yet despite glaring holes in the government’s case, Einhorn is serving a life sentence without the possibility of parole. He is also without web access.

Einhorn's friend from the 60s and Prelude…editor and annotator, James Sorrells, Ph.D., writes: "Ira told his many friends in the 1960s that some day he might be framed for something and/or killed because he knew too much about the intrigues of the CIA, FBI, and Defense Department.” Sorrells owns 100% of the book and Einhorn receives no profits from this work.

Einhorn’s case went back to court on appeal Friday, September 23, 2005.

Framed? Look close, then report what you see.

Stay tuned for updates: www.computerhealth.org/einhorn.htm

For additional writing samples from the book:
http://www.computerhealth.org/einhornwritingsamples.htm

On Einhorn's Case:
http://hstrial-nnortelli.homestead.com/Einhorn4.html

For Press Release Updates:
http://www.computerhealth.org/einhornpressrelease.htm

To purchase a hard or ebook copy of Prelude To Intimacy:
http://www.lulu.com/content/162719

Preview editions of the ebook are available as Adobe .pdf upon email request.

For press interviews contact:
James Sorrells, Ph.D. redemp@sonic.net
707-869-1146