Home > articles, blog post, news > John Gregory Lambros

John Gregory Lambros

February 3, 2012

transmitter – “…In comparison to the previous report published on the radiographic cranial examination of Mr. John Lambros, the present report including radiographs numbered 7/17 and 7/27, will discuss additonal opinions on what can be identified and what would most likely appear in the pictures if they were of normal quality. We can find no other explanation for the very poor exposure other than it was a deliberate act to hide the facts. The pictures are wrongly exposed and would normally never be accepted as the basis of a radiological examination. However, despite this, there is a great deal that we can establish. Examination of radiograph 7/17 give us good reason to believe that a transmitter has been inserted in John Lambros sinus and is attached to the frontal lobes. This area is marked with three arrows in the radiograph. In this area can be seen certain faint shadowy formations which correspond to the shape of the transmitter as we know it from previous studies of implanted transmitters. This area is also in a direct line from the opening of the nasal passages. Moreover, in the frontal lobes, just above the previously mentioned area there are large dark spots which have been caused by oxygen deficiency. This area has also been marked with an arrow in the radiograph. Reduced oxygen balance is a normal consequence of radiowaves penetration of biological tissue through the heat-energy and dehydrating effect of the electromagnetic energies. Oxygen deficiency can also cause a change in physiological conditions and has a detrimental effect of health. Finally we can also verify the appearance of what the U.S. doctors refer to as: “… Clusters of punctate radiopaque foreign bodies.” These objects have absolutely no natural origin and are most probably some kind of transmitters. These foreign bodies are also visible in radiograph 7/17 and have been marked with an arrow. It also seems natural to suppose that these objects are the cause of the problem Mr Lambros has at the right side of his face, which we can see from the enclosed photograph as swollen and which also causes him pain judging by what has been referred to us. We would like to recommend that Mr. Lambros undergo a new radiological examination of his skull…” (A Report on the Abuse of Power)

illegally indicted – “…On August 9, 2002, Mr. Lambros mailed a two page letter and eighty one page affidavit (including exhibits) to your office outlining the illegal actions of Judge Renner from 1975 to present. Also, on March 20, 2002, Mr. Lambros mailed an addendum to his August 2001 letter and affidavit to your office. The addendum offered additional information and proof, along with court documents, concerning the conduct of Judge Renner. Both the August 9, 2001 and the March 20, 2002 documents are available for review and downloading via Mr. Lambros’ web site, “BOYCOTT BRAZIL:” http://www.brazilboycott.org. Judge Renner was the U.S. Attorney in 1976 who illegally indicted Mr. Lambros for an assault on federal property that never occurred, and then Mr. Renner falsified sentencing documents in this case to state that Mr. Lambros was indicted, pled guilty to, and was sentenced for murder. On February 10, 1997, Judge Renner used the illegal March 24, 1976 indictment/conviction to increase Mr. Lambros’ current federal sentence and purposely and maliciously misinterpreted the domestic laws of Brazil under which Mr. Lambros was governed, due to Mr. Lambros’ extradition from Brazil to the United States…” (Petition For The United States Senate Committee On The Judiciary To Investigate U.S. Senior Court Judge Robert G. Renner, District of Minnesota, As To His Breach Of Public Trust And Abuse Of Judicial Power.)

opportunity for corruption – “…An intriguing aspect is the gate keeper role, acquired and retained by these two permanent officials without oversight, without accountability and without any reputation for open honest conduct. In fact, the opposite. They have created an uproar outside the Beltway, no one believes Washington anymore. We note in the La Rouche case that Judge Bostetter cited “objective bad faith” i.e., the railroading was not undertaken out of personal malice by Justice officials. The information and advice they give cannot be challenged without time and experience. How could Janet Reno challenge a recommendation to use CS gas when she had probably never heard of CS gas and ignorant of its difference to CN (tear gas)? It was Richard who pushed the use of CS at Waco, and Richard controls DIA which railroaded Lambros and framed Demjanjuk (a U.S. court found Office of Special Investigations under Richard had committed fraud on the court.) We also note with interest that no Attorney General has ever taken the precaution of rotating senior DOJ officials. This is standard procedure when the opportunity for corruption is present. Standard procedure in all well run police departments…” (Gatekeepers For Corruption)

John Gregory Lambros appeals his convictions on two counts of intentionally distributing heroin and one count of conspiracy to distribute heroin,1 claiming insufficiency of evidence, procedural and evidentiary errors at trial, inconsistent verdicts, disregard of a prior plea bargain, and unlawful delay between arrest and indictment. We reject these challenges and affirm. The grand jury indicted Lambros on September 14, 1976, for five counts of intentionally distributing heroin and one count of conspiracy to distribute heroin. On February 15, 1977, a jury found him guilty on two of the distribution counts and the conspiracy count. The evidence established that on May 24, 1976, Drug Enforcement Administration Agent Michael Campion met Mr. Lambros’ codefendant, Myles Standish, at the home of government informant Robert Adams. At that meeting, Standish offered to procure heroin for agent Campion, describing his source as his main source, a long-time friend, and someone who recently had a shoot-out with the police and was going to jail soon. They arranged a sale for early evening at a Red Barn restaurant in St. Paul. Earlier the same day, informant Adams overheard a telephone conversation in which Standish asked a woman named Chrissy to have her husband contact Standish. Twice prior to the sale on May 24, surveillance agents observed Standish visit Lambros’ residence at 1759 Van Buren in St. Paul. After the second visit, Standish drove directly to the Red Barn and sold an ounce of heroin to agent Campion. During the transaction, Standish indicated that the heroin had been “fronted” to him, meaning that he had yet to pay his source. Immediately after the transaction, Standish drove directly to Lambros’ house, stopping momentarily at a dairy store. He stayed at the Lambros house for ten minutes and then left. Shortly afterwards, Lambros departed from the house and visited a retail shop at 1956 University (UNITED STATES v. LAMBROS 564 F.2d 26 (1977) UNITED STATES of America, Appellee,v.John Gregory LAMBROS, Appellant. No. 77-1273. United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit. Submitted August 30, 1977).

RELATED READING:

Advertisements
%d bloggers like this: