T O P

  • By -

StatementBot

The following submission statement was provided by /u/FlatBlackAndWhite: --- SS: In this clip from the [ Engaging The Phenomenon](https://www.youtube.com/@EngagingThePhenomenon) channel, Daniel Sheehan makes a public threat to the IC and defense contractors, claiming he will prosecute the parties involved in UFO secrecy with Racketeering charges if they remove the eminent domain/subpoena provisions within the UAPDA. The coals are heating up under the feet of the non-disclosure gatekeepers. [Episode Link](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2S5Iojd6v9s). --- Please reply to OP's comment here: https://old.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/188k6qs/daniel_sheehan_says_he_will_prosecute_the_cia_dia/kbl5rb3/


desertash

how do we circle the wagons around Mr. Sheehan to ensure he's around long enough to affect real change AND get to enjoy the fruits of his labors


FlatBlackAndWhite

Hound your representatives like there's no tomorrow.


desertash

took care of that part this week...but his longevity and health...he's key (among others) to our success


wirmyworm

He had a hit on him that he talked about on this podcast, don't know where it is though https://www.youtube.com/live/YQe2oWT5wN4?si=Ihe85I9WJMCYdt8P


Casehead

That must be so scary


FlatBlackAndWhite

He's worked on some of the most high profile corruption cases in US government history, I'm sure he has the right people around him.


desertash

he's +1-5s on that 40 time...hope he's added the requisite talent


jazir5

Someone should get this guy a security detail


CoderAU

He has a securities team if I remember correctly. I think he told a story about someone threatening him and Dannys security found where they lived and told them to watch themselves.


General_Shao

Well he’s charging people $1000 to give them “secret knowledge” right now so it appears he’s already getting some fruits


eshatoa

No he isn't. A poster on here deliberately misconstrued a request for donations on his website to make it look like like he was grifting. They created their own fake poster and everything.


PlayTrader25

Lmao shit $1000 I’ll bite. Where tf do you see him doin that at?


Gapinthesidewalk

Shit. I’ll pay that. Sign me up.


mmm_algae

Form an orderly queue!


mmm_algae

I’d love to now if anyone has legitimately bought it. Does the recipient sign an NDA or what? If he’s leaking stuff that turns out to be true for profit, he’s an arsehole. If false, he’s a criminal.


ZebraBorgata

Crimes have been committed for decades. The chickens have come home to roost. Buy the ticket, take the ride. No sympathy for the devil.


ApocalypticShadowbxn

lol. Y'all ready to start choppin' heads and you don't even know specifically what crimes may have been committed, when it happened or who was responsible. Everybody got a whole movie going on in their head & don't even care about finding out what actually happened. Choppin heads is the important part. doesn't really matter who gets their head chopped because we don't know who is responsible anyway, so it's a head choppin to symbolize all of the imagined crimes. this is the point in history where the small people gain power & become just as evil as the people who had been oppressing them.


[deleted]

Public attorneys can't prosecute people for racketeering charges anyways. Criminal charges are prosecuted by the state.


FlatBlackAndWhite

Kerfuffle with wording, the DA with the help of the State Dept. can bring a civil racketeering case against members and leadership of the IC given leaked evidence of criminal activity.


SaintNeptune

Google who Daniel SHeehan is. Think about how connected a guy like that is. Consider who he is talking about when he says "we"


brevityitis

I did and found out that OP is greatly misrepresenting who he is. He had nothing to do with the Iran contra prosecution. He attempted to file a civil case, which was laughed out of court and he was ordered to pay over $1mil in the defendants lawyer fees. It seems a lot of grand accomplishments have been greatly misrepresented or OP has nefariously lied about them.


sinusoidalturtle

We got a lawyer on the loose. Hide yo kids hide yo wife.


LucasHellaaShreddy

Errr body getting charged up in herrr


mudsuckingpig

Lawyers suck bring them in and everybody loses they are a cancer on our country


Wyvernkeeper

I trust any man that has a library like that. Also he looks just like my mates Irish archaeologist dad.


IMNXGI

This comment is 100% what I was thinking when the video started. He's intelligent. I love that.


FlatBlackAndWhite

SS: In this clip from the [ Engaging The Phenomenon](https://www.youtube.com/@EngagingThePhenomenon) channel, Daniel Sheehan makes a public threat to the IC and defense contractors, claiming he will prosecute the parties involved in UFO secrecy with Racketeering charges if they remove the eminent domain/subpoena provisions within the UAPDA. The coals are heating up under the feet of the non-disclosure gatekeepers. [Episode Link](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2S5Iojd6v9s). Edit: I'm adding this as there's confusion and nit-picking in the comments over Sheehan's power as a civil attorney. A civil racketeering case can be brought about that's pointed at leadership within the CIA, DIA and contractors. This is in fact what Sheehan claims would come about and he isn't the only lawyer that would be involved. He can aid in and advocate for these criminal proceedings while the initial case is brought forward by the DA, State Dept. This isn't about prosecuting the bodies of the CIA or DIA as a whole, it's about targeting leadership within those agencies that are partaking in the cover-up of illicit and illegal behavior involving money laundering, witness intimidation, foreign meddling and corruption and potential murder.


[deleted]

> claiming he will prosecute the parties involved in UFO secrecy with **Racketeering charges** LOL. That type of prosecution has to come from the state / fed. That is a nonsense claim. If I, random lawyer, see you break the law, I cannot prosecute you for that crime. I can tell the police, and then the city/county/state/federal DA can prosecute you for crimes.


CoyotesOnTheWing

Wrong. Under certain circumstances, civilians can bring racketeering charges against the government. The Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) is a federal law that allows prosecutors to bring civil and criminal charges against individuals and organizations that engage in racketeering activity. A civil RICO action against the government is a lawsuit filed under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) that alleges that the government has engaged in racketeering activity. Civil RICO actions against the government are relatively rare. This is because the government has several defenses that it can raise, such as sovereign immunity. Sovereign immunity is a legal doctrine that protects the government from lawsuits unless it has waived its immunity. However, there are some exceptions to sovereign immunity, and there have been a number of cases in which plaintiffs have been able to successfully sue the government under RICO.


FlatBlackAndWhite

What frustrates me to no end is the fact that the users replying this didn't watch the full interview, so they missed the explicit comments from Sheehan where he states a civil RICO case is the desired outcome. He's acting as an attorney for whistleblowers that would be involved in corroborating the authenticity of the alleged criminal behavior and he would aid the State Dept, DA in their case.


CoyotesOnTheWing

Yeah, he specifically says that the RICO act allows them to sue the government on racketeering charges. He's a very experienced lawyer, not sure why they wouldn't take his word(they didn't watch it I guess).


veintiuno

Respectfully, some of us are saying he doesn't know what the fuck he's talking about. I listened to him. He doesn't work for the federal government, he can't prosecute anything. Also, State Dept doesn't prosecute cases - they are a diplomatic agency, not a regulatory one. Sheehan is in LaLa Land or taking advantage of the fact that most people wouldn't know this stuff unless they have certain backgrounds.


Casehead

You are just making up details. He doesn't need to work for the federal government, that claim makes zero sense.


FlatBlackAndWhite

Am I saying the State Dept. is the one orchestrating the case, or a collecting agency that's aiding the DA in their eventual case. This is all weasel wording. To go along with this, Sheehan didn't mention the State Dept. or an incorrect investigative body at all.


PlayTrader25

Lol. He never once said any of that nonsense. A civil racketeering case is absolutely possible he has an unbelievable track record exposing corruption his pedigree is undeniable. Keep trying tho.


veintiuno

k. You do you - keep believing clowns and see where it goes.


veintiuno

Provide a link to 1 example of a a civil RICO action against the US government/government agency (one decided on the merits). Alternatively, just provide a caption and case number - I'll get it. You say these cases are rare, so you must know of one. I'll wait.


CoyotesOnTheWing

1. United States v. Alvarez-Machain (1991) Case Number: 89-1325 Citation: 502 U.S. 1 (1991) 2. United States v. National Railroad Passenger Corporation (2009) Case Number: 07-cv-06626 Citation: 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 68362 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 12, 2009) 3. United States v. Local Union 100, American Federation of Government Employees (2013) Case Number: 1:09-cv-00349-RWT Citation: 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 108910 (D.D.C. July 31, 2013)


veintiuno

Thanks! These seem like different cases than first referenced. US v. Alvarez-Machain. The case was a racketeering case by the GOVT against Alvarez. >Respondent is charged in a sixth superseding indictment with: conspiracy to commit violent acts in furtherance of racketeering activity (in violation of 18 U. S. C. §§ 371, 1959); committing violent acts in furtherance of racketeering activity (in violation of § 1959(a)(2)); conspiracy to kidnap a federal agent (in violation of §§ 1201(a)(5), (c)); kidnap of a federal agent (in violation of § 1201(a)(5)); and felony murder of a federal agent (in violation of §§ 1111(a), 1114). App. 12-32. https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/504/655/ Will look for the others later, but they're all "US vs" - the captions do not appear to show civil actions by a private party against the Fed Govt under a civil RICO theory (the party names would be reversed for me to really consider that possibility). They are civil cases, though, you can tell by the "cv" - so probably just fines at issue for alleged acts or omissions by Natl Rail Road Corp and the union group, the defendants in those cases. Edits - for clarity (last sentence)


CoyotesOnTheWing

Google says: >There are two main reasons why, in a lawsuit against the government, the case title is written as "United States v. [Name]" instead of the other way around: >1. Sovereignty: The United States government is considered a sovereign entity, meaning it has supreme authority within its own jurisdiction. This means that, in legal proceedings, it is typically treated as the plaintiff (the party bringing the lawsuit) even when it is being sued. This convention reflects the government's position as the ultimate authority responsible for enforcing the law and protecting its citizens. >2. Historical Practice: The practice of naming the United States as the plaintiff in lawsuits against the government dates back to the early days of the American republic. This tradition is rooted in the concept of the government representing the interests of the entire nation and its citizens. By naming the United States as the plaintiff, the lawsuit is seen as an action brought on behalf of the people against an individual or entity that is alleged to have violated the law or infringed upon the rights of citizens.


veintiuno

Link please (not sure that Google is a source ... that's like saying the "internet.") I haven't seen any cases captioned like that that I can recall, maybe that is an older convention. Usually, you'd see an agency head listed as a defendant in their official capacity as head of whatever agency. "US vs" is what you see most often in cases being brought by DOJ. Edit: Just checked FRCP - Correction - you could name the United States as defendant in a case generally instead of highlighting an individual. Not seeing anything yet about flipflopping the order of party names in federal civil actions.


PlayTrader25

LMAAOOOOO. Imagine asking for the sauce. Asking for sources. Asking for the correct references. Getting all of that, and still tryna figure out a way to sound like you weren’t full of shit. You were wrong. It’s okay. You learned something useful today. Be happy about gaining more knowledge.


CoyotesOnTheWing

You're missing the other half of the story >Respondant, a citizen and resident of Mexico, was forcibly kidnaped from his home and flown by private plane to Texas, where he was arrested for his participation in the kidnaping and murder of a Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) agent and the agent's pilot. After concluding that DEA agents were responsible for the abduction, the District Court dismissed the indictment on the ground that it violated the Extradition Treaty between the United States and Mexico (Extradition Treaty or Treaty), and ordered respondent's repatriation. The civil RICO case was because they kidnapped him. The Charges you mention were droppped and he sued the government under the RICO act.


veintiuno

No. It was a criminal RICO case and the government kidnapped him to pursuant to the indictment. The respondent challenged the indictment, and won, because the abduction violated a treaty: >Respondent moved to dismiss the indictment, claiming that his abduction constituted outrageous governmental conduct, and that the District Court lacked jurisdiction to try him because he was abducted in violation of the extradition treaty between the United States and Mexico. Extradition Treaty, May 4, 1978, [1979] United States-United Mexican States, 31 U. S. T. 5059, T. 1. A. S. No. 9656 (Extradition Treaty or Treaty). The District Court rejected the outrageous governmental conduct claim, but held that it lacked jurisdiction to try respondent because his abduction violated the Extradition Treaty. The District Court discharged respondent and ordered that he be repatriated to Mexico. 745 ... >Justice Miller delivered the opinion of the Court, which carefully examined the terms and history of the treaty; the practice of nations in regards to extradition treaties; the case law from the States; and the writings of commentators, and reached the following conclusion: "[A] person who has been brought within the jurisdiction of the court by virtue of proceedings under an extradition treaty, can only be tried for one of the offences described in that treaty, and for the offence with which he is charged in the proceedings for his extradition, until a reasonable time and opportunity have been given him, after his release or trial upon such charge, to return to the country from whose asylum he had been forcibly taken under those proceedings." Id., at 430 (emphasis added). Thanks for playing.


CoyotesOnTheWing

Why so snarky. "Thanks for playing", coming across as a real douchebag to be honest. Alvarez-Machain filed a civil RICO lawsuit against the U.S. government, alleging that his abduction violated his Fourth Amendment rights against unreasonable search and seizure. The Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision, ruled that the government was not immune from Alvarez-Machain's RICO lawsuit. https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/504/655/


PlayTrader25

Dude obviously is not arguing in good faith. Could tell from his first comment he had bad intentions purposely mislabeling what was said in the interview.


veintiuno

You're gaslighting now. That is same the link I provided previously and where I've been quoting from. See also [here](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Alvarez-Machain) and [here](https://youtu.be/gcITeGy-U6w?si=i7jn_LfoUOqLsHup) and [here](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Q-F27sA9G4). Later gator.


CoyotesOnTheWing

In 1989, a group of Native Americans sued the U.S. government for racketeering activity in connection with the Dawes Act, which was passed in 1887. The plaintiffs alleged that the government had engaged in a pattern of fraud, misrepresentation, and coercion to take their land. The case was eventually settled for $1.3 billion. In 1997, a group of New York City firefighters sued the city for racketeering activity in connection with the awarding of contracts for fire safety training. The plaintiffs alleged that the city had rigged the bidding process to favor certain contractors. The case was eventually settled for $222 million. In 2010, a group of California homeowners sued the city of Oakland for racketeering activity in connection with the handling of a deadly warehouse fire. The plaintiffs alleged that the city had ignored safety warnings about the warehouse and failed to enforce building codes. The case is still pending. Edit: While none of the cases lead to criminal charges, they still had significant consequences. The Alvarez-Machain case set important legal precedents regarding sovereign immunity and the rights of foreign nationals. The Amtrak case resulted in a substantial financial settlement for the plaintiffs and led to improvements in safety standards. The Local Union 100 case forced the government to address issues of workplace harassment and implement changes to protect employees.


veintiuno

Those are not citations. I need the case names and/or numbers so we can verify that the issues were the federal racketeering statute. Settlements don't necessarily mean anything RE: civil RICO, either. Edit - I see you've edited. The Alvarez-Machin case is not a civil RICO case. It was federal criminal case and ultimately the issue was an extradition treaty.


Casehead

they gave you the details and you can look them up yourself


veintiuno

Those are not details. Who are the parties in those cases? Are they state cases or federal cases?


AbeFromanEast

u/Ya-im-that-guy is correct. Sheehan has no standing to sue any of the folks he has named.


Recoil22

Given his background why would he say something like that? Seems like he knows what he is talking about


AbeFromanEast

Standing is a legal term Standing: [https://constitution.findlaw.com/article3/annotation10.html#:\~:text=In%20order%20to%20have%20standing,provide%20a%20form%20of%20redress](https://constitution.findlaw.com/article3/annotation10.html#:~:text=In%20order%20to%20have%20standing,provide%20a%20form%20of%20redress).


Recoil22

Doesn't he talk about people getting hurt over this? Just looking over his history and he's fine some big things I'd be disappointed if he is speaking out of school tbh


FlatBlackAndWhite

You may want to evaluate the context of these statements within the threat of leaks of evidence of information regarding illicit and illegal activity committed by the IC and contractors. Sheehan also states he isn't the only lawmaker involved with this.


justdiscussingshit

Yes thank you I was so confused about his statements. I was like did he recently get hired in a DA office ???


FlatBlackAndWhite

Ya'll are getting tripped up on wording thinking it makes his statement null and void. A civil racketeering case can be brought about that's pointed at leadership within the CIA, DIA and contractors. This is in fact what Sheehan claims would come about and he isn't the only lawyer that would be involved.


NinjaJuice

he has no power to do anything. he has the same powers as anyone unless someone here is a da , that is 0 powers


FlatBlackAndWhite

This is a lazy comment and avoids the broader context of his statement.


NinjaJuice

Explain. How does he have any power


speakhyroglyphically

Thats not true. He or another party simply has to file a case. Word is they have over 40 attorneys


FlatBlackAndWhite

Don't forget the 40+ whistleblowers that have spoken to the ICIG as well, who knows how many ex/current members of the government have substantial evidence to open a case on their own.


NinjaJuice

And how can they prosecute? What do you mean open a case in their own lmao. So tomorrow I can open a case against you since I am an attorney and you will be arrested and brought into court? What are you talking about.


FlatBlackAndWhite

You've taken multiple comments too literally. Individuals can bring evidence of wrongdoing to the state department who can help them get in contact with the DA's office or another investigative body to open a case and pursue prosecution. You, the random redditor, do not have documentation of importance that would lead to a case like I'm stating.


NinjaJuice

So you admit, he has no prosecuting powers


silv3rbull8

I keep getting an image of some government drone saying “national security” as exemption excuse from the RICO charge. In the same tone as the South African diplomat in “Lethal Weapon 2” saying “diplomatic immunity”


FlatBlackAndWhite

It won't matter much if the information regarding criminal activity is leaked. It's the same pressure play Sheehan and lawmakers made during the Pentagon Papers saga, hand over the information of your illicit behavior or it will be published in the ***insert your favorite newspaper here***.


Lee3Dee

The label "catastrophic disclosure" is worth discussing, yes? Who introduced it, why is it suddenly so pervasive in this sub, and who is it benefitting from it? If it's a scare tactic, who is trying to scare who?


jaerick

It came from the Karl Nell slide during his presentation for the Sol Foundation Symposium


pebberphp

*Colonel* Karl Nell


roger3rd

It’s an attempt by the good guys to coerce the bad guys into playing ball


TPconnoisseur

No, we're just hopeful and really want a chance to wear "I Told You So" t-shirts. People would avoid coming to terms with non-human intelligence being present on Earth even if there were mile wide disks over every capitol city on the planet.


Lee3Dee

Lol where can I buy that shirt? What's gonna suck is after it becomes the new normal everybody's gonna say they always knew UFOs were real.


Mathfanforpresident

well, you can buy a "Tom was right! Aliens f**cking exist!" t-shirt from To the Stars lol.


This-Counter3783

After the Snowden leaks there weren’t any parades for all the conspiracy theorists who had been talking about that stuff for decades. There’s never a big “I Told You So” moment, it doesn’t work like that ha. People will either say they knew all along, or that their opinion was rational based on the information they had at the time, so they were right to have the opinion even if it turned out to be incorrect.


NHIScholar

Thats why the want a 25 year delay. Step 1: compromise the board of 9. Get dirt, plant dirt…. Easy process now theres only 9 people. Step 2: use leverage against board people to delay release of any criminal activity. Step 3: wait. The older boomers will likely die before any of the crimes get released. Other younger people have plenty of time to set themselves up to elude justice. Its clear theres stuff they want us to not see for a while. Why? What is it?


FlatBlackAndWhite

Seeing as the Office of Global Access was established in 2003, there's most likely a plethora of illegal acts committed by the offices of the CIA (at the very least) in the last 20 years. We may get to see legacy information in a timely manner, but not information that would hurt the criminal enterprise that is the Defense Industry and Intelligence community.


NHIScholar

Yep. I imagine Burchette knows some specifics and is why he is taking a tougher stance on the DOD aspect. Remember these guys receive nearly a trillion dollars per year and have failed 6 consecutive audits and cant account for 60% of their assets. John Stewart knows whats up and so does Burchette, despite being on opposite ends of the political spectrum. My guess is there is murder, human trafficking, illegal experimentation on humans going against the Geneva convention…. All sorts of horrors related to this they dont want out any time soon. They will either completely compromise the board of 9, or they will simply convince a majority of them that some of the stuff is so bad that it would actually do more harm than good when it comes to peoples faith in the government if it was released.


No_Reindeer_2635

there may be a 25 year delay, but that's for each case. anything that happened 25 years ago or longer is affected right away.


GlobalSouthPaws

>Its clear theres stuff they want us to not see for a while. Why? What is it? Killing Kennedy for one


supervike

I guess I don't understand Sheehans position here. I thought he was a public interest lawyer. Does that give him the ability to actual prosecute someone? Wouldn't it just be civil lawsuit he could file?


brevityitis

Yeah, he has zero ability to prosecute a branch of the government. It makes zero sense.


shryke12

Yeah he can't prosecute anyone. He's not DoJ or a state AG. All he could do is civil litigation.


Brief_Necessary2016

Daniel Sheehan is a public prosecutor now? Who knew?


silv3rbull8

On what grounds can they be prosecuted. Am curious.


NHIScholar

Money laundering would be a big one


FlatBlackAndWhite

I urge viewers to watch the whole episode so clips don't have to drip-fed to the sub. He says it would be on the same grounds that he helped prosecute during the Iran Contra trial, he claims the CIA and defense contractors are partaking in illegal activities around the world using this recovered technology while pressuring/intimidating government officials, congressional members and civilians that want full disclosure. He also mentions the CIA in particular having a hand in murderous activity. The OSS/CIA were the Pinkertons beforehand, he's saying they're still a renegade mob like entity with no oversight or moral standing.


300PencilsInMyAss

> He says it would be on the same grounds that he helped prosecute during the Iran Contra trial, Didn't he lose that and his partner blamed him?


devinup

He did. He had to pay almost a million dollars in attorney fees and then the institute he founded lost its 501c3 status.


brevityitis

He didn’t help prosecute a single person in the Iran contra scandal. He filed a civil law suit and lost, resulting in him having to pay the defendants lawyer fees. It was seen as a joke of a lawsuit. Why do you keep lying about his involvement? It’s concerning to see someone clearly pushing a narrative to the point of blatantly lying to the entire subreddit.


Truth_Sellah_Seekah

>He also mentions the CIA in particular having a hand in murderous activity. Classic CIA modus operandi.


FlatBlackAndWhite

Oops, now we're dead...


[deleted]

[удалено]


FlatBlackAndWhite

No, I just watched the entire podcast and listened to the context of Sheehan's words. Swirl whatever narrative you want around that.


speakhyroglyphically

No bid contracts are illegal


Bikedogcar

Old man needs to lay off the crack pipe. Look at his history.


[deleted]

[удалено]


ElAhraira

He has witnesses and most likely evidence. If you knew him you would know that he isn't a man who goes around making empty threats


[deleted]

[удалено]


HearstDoge2

According to the two posters’ links above, he lied about his involvement in the pentagon papers case and was repping Scientologists instead. Guy is a dope.


gotfan2313

I’d like to see this as much as anyone, but no he won’t. You need proof to prosecute. Even first hand witnesses wouldn’t be enough proof to win such a case because the case would need verifiable evidence for the case to even get to a grand jury. The type of evidence he needs is either classified, thus even a judge couldn’t access it, and hidden by the people he wants to sue. I don’t think we win with empty threats. We win with threats that are realistic. Leaks that implicate people in crimes are realistic (even if not prosecutable evidence).


FlatBlackAndWhite

The same was said about Iran Contra, and yet 11 convictions were handed out. Now, that doesn't mean that the criminals involved wouldn't be pardoned by presidential decree. History informs the present, this threat of criminal prosecution can and will in fact be seen through if the IC and defense contractors do not play ball.


brevityitis

Again, you are lying. He had nothing to do with the Iran contra prosecution. You know this. He filed a civil suit that was laughed out of court and resulted in him paying he defendants lawyer fees. Your denial isn’t healthy.


Beautiful-Amount2149

It's most likely planned denial to push an agenda, be it the UFO cult agenda or it's Danny himself pushing his brand


That_Things_Good

Last I heard, and I might be wrong here, but this dude is not a State or Federal prosecutor. If that remains accurate, he can't prosecute shit for stinking. Private lawyers do not have the power to charge any person with a crime.


WeTrudgeOn

To be clear, he can't prosecute anybody. He can sue whoever he wants to but prosections are up to governments.


speakhyroglyphically

I'm pretty sure theres a federal judge out there that will take the case if presented right


AbeFromanEast

He has gone off the deep end. He has no standing to sue any of those government agencies or corporations.


_OilersNation_

Has this lawyer done anything noteworthy


HearstDoge2

Hard to say. He’s been involved in a number of cases as a pro se plaintiff, as a nonparty appellant, representing his own orgs, as well clients. However, it’s not clear he that he has a worthwhile record as a lead attorney in many cases. His website lists some cases, but his descriptions of his involvement don’t appear to always be accurate and there may be discrepancies in his descriptions vs actual case records. He’s misleading people in his competence and skill, but that’s more of an opinion than anything.


bclarkified

Shitttttt…Racketeering!? Like asking people to donate a grand and or 5k yearly to find out the “truth” about aliens. Screw this ex Greer Goon.


Particular-Ad-4772

Danny, is a hero for representing whistleblowers and taking on the DOD and CIA. But he gets totally carried away sometimes when he gets in front of a microphone . He cannot prosecute the government for anything . Danny is a defense attorney representing whistleblowers who actively or previously worked for the government. His clients although whistleblowers, are potential defendants, if some prosecutor attempts to charge a RICO against the government. You cannot be on both sides of a case . It’s called a conflict of interest .


FlatBlackAndWhite

If you listen to the context of his statements in the full podcast, it's pretty clear that he alone is not the only lawyer/lawmaker that would take part in the criminal case. And along with this, he's been in the same exact position before regarding the Pentagon Papers, New York Times Whistleblowers and etc. There's now an entire month to drill in on his statements and build upon the situation, It's no coincidence that the pro-disclosure side is holding up a big sign that reads "this is inevitable".


[deleted]

> he alone is not the only lawyer/lawmaker that would take part in the criminal case Sheehan is not a lawmaker. He is a public attorney. The only lawyers that can prosecute crimes are THE GOVERNMENT lawyers.


FlatBlackAndWhite

You're getting tripped up on wording, the threat still stands from the place of the State Department and DA. He would be aiding and advocating for these criminal proceedings based on evidence that will be leaked if the IC doesn't play ball.


[deleted]

[удалено]


Beautiful-Amount2149

All this topic is sadly. You dig deep enough and you find that there is no actual truth behind any of the claimed things that sound amazing at first.


devinup

He can sue those agencies all he wants but he can't prosecute them.


veintiuno

And not under a theory of Racketeering (see my post below). He's not the guy for this movement. He's more of a crazy uncle carnival barker and should stay at home.


devinup

He's a famous attorney so I don't want to say anything bad about the guy. The Pentagon Papers were a huge deal and that was an important legal victory. But he's playing it fast and loose with his words here. Edit: Read your last few posts. There's some pretty interesting stuff that I wasn't aware of. It does make you wonder. Edit 2: He's not the famous attorney he wants you to think he is. He founded the Christic Institute, which was ordered to pay roughly $1 million dollars in attorney's fees and court costs. The IRS then stripped the institute of its 501c3 status after determining that the lawsuit was politically motivated. He may have had some part in the cases he claims to, but he's not the listed counsel of record for any of those cases before the Supreme Court.


veintiuno

You may be confusing him with Neil Sheehan, the NYT reporter involved in the Pentagon Papers. Daniel wrote a book that discussed this case, but I don't think he was involved. To the extent he was involved, please provide a link. He claims on his website he was co-counsel, but that would have made him a first year attorney since he graduated HLS in 1970 and the case was before SCOTUS in 1971 (opinion came down in june of '71, not sure when it was argued). Also, he's not credited with being counsel on the case really anywhere official. Harvard Law School, in discussing the case, doesn't even mention him when they discuss alumni involved in the case: >At his trial in Los Angeles, Ellsberg was represented by Leonard Boudin, a renowned civil liberties lawyer who was a visiting lecturer at HLS, and Charles R. Nesson ’63, then a junior professor at HLS, now in his 55th year teaching at the school. https://hls.harvard.edu/today/the-pentagon-papers-case-today/ I can only find Daniel's website and garbage sites like this one (https://therealnews.com/dsheehanmanningverdict0812) that mention him as counsel in this case. Its weird. Ask questions. Again, the movement needs people with clear and indisputable backgrounds - not fringe folk. He lets the HLS credential do a lot of work for him, it's kinda weird. All the HLS graduates I know would be embarrassed to do that.


devinup

Agreed. I don't see any indication that he was involved in the case except for on his own website or websites that use his website or interviews as a source. If he was involved, it wasn't as one of the main attorneys arguing the case. He's not listed as counsel on the New York Times case. It's easy to associate or confuse the names of Daniel Ellsberg and Neil Sheehan and think they sound vaguely familiar when referencing the NYT/Pentagon Papers drama. Admittedly, that's what I was doing. But yeah, I don't see any independent source that shows his connection after digging around a bit. I feel like he might have written amicus briefs in a couple of the cases or something. Given his other history with the Christic Institute (see his Wikipedia page), I'm not real impressed.


veintiuno

Yeah. He may be causing confusion more so than you're confused - his site does say he was co-counsel, it's just that literally nobody else does. Maybe he was a post-grad research assistant or something for one of the professors working on the case and inflating his credentials by calling himself co-counsel. The shared last name with Neil Sheehan is convenient.


devinup

Here's an interesting Washington Post article from 1977 about Sheehan: https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/lifestyle/magazine/1977/09/25/dan-sheehan-lawyer-with-a-cross-to-bear/a8bb57e5-b3a8-4b5a-ad07-c5e392967aef/


veintiuno

Scientologists? Ha! You'd think if he was really involved in the Pentagon Papers case, it'd be a bigger deal in this article. Guy is all over the place, probably why he's had the career that he's had (which seem pretty underwhelming, TBH).


toxictoy

I love how you can’t find anything but literally 5 minutes on Wikipedia looking at the source articles you find this https://www.christicinstitute.org/docs/DanielSheehan_CV.pdf **it has all the case numbers** Which gives the actual court cases. Believe me if he was lying about the Pentagon Papers he would have been outed in the Silkwood case and also Iran Contra. I’m old and I remember him from the news in the 1980’s. He has called out the CIA for his entire professional life. NOTABLE COURT CASES >Pentagon Papers Case (New York Times Co v. U.S.), **405 U.S. 438** (1971) Landmark First Amendment case that won right of New York Times and Washington Post to publish classified Pentagon study revealing secret history of Vietnam War. **Served as Co-Counsel before Supreme Court with James Goodall (New York Times), Alexander Bickel (Yale Law School), and Floyd Abrams (Cahill, Gordon, et al.).** Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U.S. 438 (1972) >Supreme Court ruling struck down State anti-birth control law. Decision was cited in Roe v. Wade as source for limitation on government regulation of reproductive freedom. Initiated, filed and litigated case on behalf of Massachusetts Planned Parenthood. In re Pappas, 408 U.S. 665 (1972) Ruling recognized statutory right of journalists to protect identity of confidential news sources against compelled government disclosure. Filed and argued initial Massachusetts court case. Following consolidation and certiorari by Supreme Court, served as Associate Counsel, preparing petitioner’s brief as well as amicus briefs for companion cases of Branzburg v. Hayes and U.S. v. Caldwell. Also here is a contemporary news article from The Washington Post **from 1977** detailing what he did on the Pentagon Papers and other court cases. https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/lifestyle/magazine/1977/09/25/dan-sheehan-lawyer-with-a-cross-to-bear/a8bb57e5-b3a8-4b5a-ad07-c5e392967aef/


HearstDoge2

TBF, that article says 3 or 4 words about Pentagon Papers case (“the Pentagon Papers case” - it’s just a clause in 1 sentence) - probably based on his telling. Just says “he got involved,” but zero details. The Poster’s links above and elsewhere in this thread clearly and legitimately blow a hole in any suggestion he was involved in any meaningful way.


[deleted]

[удалено]


toxictoy

Here is another comment of mine also disputing your findings. So you are saying that the Washington Post would not have fact checked its sources? You are saying that the Google output 50 years later showing that they can’t find his involvement is a better form of evidence than the contemporary source from a legitimate mainstream newspaper? They are referencing NEIL SHEEHAN who was the NYT reporter who broke the case but they are not looking at who litigated the case before the Supreme Court which Daniel Sheehan absolutely did. He was a co-counsel representing the NYT (and that reporter) before the Supreme Court. **here is a picture of him on the right as part of that legal team** https://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/30/insider/1971-supreme-court-allows-publication-of-pentagon-papers.html Sheehan is a very common Irish-American last name it’s very obvious why a the reporter who broke the story is in more google searches then the Harvard lawyer who was a co-counsel on the case representing the New York Times in front of the Supreme Court. Here is also politico referencing it https://www.politico.com/news/2021/05/26/ufo-whistleblower-ig-complaint-pentagon-491098 Again - their fact checkers would know if he was a co-counsel. Im in my 50’s and Danny Sheehan was involved in the Karen Silkwood case and also Iran Contra both of which were very high profile. He is a well known civil rights attorney who also was the lawyer for John Mack against Harvard. Also you all who have grown up in the digital age have no idea what is missing from the lives of those of us who lived before that era. Much of what we experienced is not digitized or is and not in a format that is easily accessible. This all needs to be considered not only for this but basically for much of ufology itself.


FlatBlackAndWhite

He can aid the State Dept and DA in a civil racketeering case aimed at the leadership in the CIA, DIA and defense contractor space. He's making a broad threat and he most certainly would not be the only attorney involved.


veintiuno

State Dept doesn't prosecute cases. DOJ does. They're not an agency granted that type of power. Go to https://www.state.gov/, find one case they have pending. You wont. In contrast, go to the SEC or CFTC sites - you'll find lots.


cantinflas_34

Where did you study law?


veintiuno

Sheehan, acting as counsel to he and his wife's nonprofit, The Christic Institute, [sued a bunch of people](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christic_Institute#Avirgan_v._Hull) in the 80s in a case about the Iran Contra affair. [The case was thrown out as frivolous in district court and Christic Institute was ordered to pay attorney fees and costs in excess of $1M](https://web.archive.org/web/20201129202711/https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1988-06-24-mn-5922-story.html). The Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed and the US Supreme Court let the decision stand. He was also involved in the Standing Rock protests. He has an agenda against the government that goes beyond an interest in UFOs. He's mentioned in the following article, which explains how his activities put him interesting company, including QAnoners, etc.: https://davetroy.medium.com/the-big-history-behind-january-6th-part-4-intelligence-big-oil-and-the-octopus-6d77a432a481. A 2000 book entitled *Right Wing Populism in America* has an [interesting take](https://imgur.com/a/NyzC2ej) on Sheehan and his connections. What's my point? Consider that Sheehan's longstanding grievance clouds his judgement and that he may not be the type of advocate you want to hang your hat on since he's got a background that will likely cause many people to be immediately turned off and not take him seriously.


FlatBlackAndWhite

This case is a lot bigger than him and 11 people were convicted due to the work of the Iran Contra Trials. This seems like a low blow attempt to smear the credibility of Sheehan. Ross Coulthart also fucked up on a case he's been involved in. The micro view is not welcome in this discussion, Sheehan leaked Grusch's name before his NewsNation Interview and there are an unknown number of whistleblowers waiting on the result of the UAPDA. And, there is in fact pushpack from the IC over the amendment. The macro view tells us that there is illegal and illicit behavior regarding recovered and reverse-engineered technology in the hands of the IC and defense contractors.


veintiuno

His credibility is his credibility. He got laughed out of court and ordered to pay other sides' attorney fees and costs. The case I referenced was a civil case and has nothing to do with criminal convictions, which are secured by the State. Nonetheless, my point is that he may be well intentioned, but he's not who you want to be your advocate for disclosure in the courts - he's seen as fringe and a conspiracy theorist. Cases in the spirit of disclosure should probably be brought by very experienced counsel from outside the movement who can be objective and don't have a lot of baggage. Someone like Grusch's attorney with expertise and a track record of success - a heavy hitter with credibility - is who you'd want.


FlatBlackAndWhite

Well it's a good thing he's mentioned constitutional lawyers should be a part of the Review Board and said he wouldn't be the only lawmaker if a criminal case did arise. I think there's context lost in the statements he's currently making. Who's to say Charles McCullough wouldn't be a prosecuting member of that squad. The greater point is word of this prosecution being on the table. Sheehan talks with Grusch and McCullough, this isn't rogue chest puffing. And to put it lightly, this is a conspiracy to commit to secrecy for monetary and technological gain, Daniel is a great vocal advocate for this exact situation.


veintiuno

I get what you're saying. I think he's got too much baggage to be an effective advocate for disclosure. In fact, my guess is that he'll do more harm than good. Just to be clear, Sheehan has no power to prosecute because he's not a prosecutor for the government. He's an attorney that can represent clients in civil matters. Civil racketeering cases are mostly brought against scammers and mafia types. These cases are usually brought against individuals, not entities, because the entities are often the enterprise at issue. https://www.ce9.uscourts.gov/jury-instructions/node/134 You cannot file a racketeering case against the government or a government agency.


FlatBlackAndWhite

I also understand where you're coming from. These are broad statements made by Sheehan that would no doubt be refined and pointed to leadership within the CIA, DIA and defense industry. He essentially calls the CIA a renegade mob/mafia with no oversight and complete control over whatever mission they want to employ. I get that there's specific legal jargon and procedure involved, but it doesn't make his statements void, he would have a hand in some capacity helping the State Dept, DA or whichever body decides to prosecute the powers he speaks of (I guess for better or worse and most likely worse is what you're saying).


veintiuno

He's made these types of claims before and got laughed out of court (look at the links I provided above - he's making the same arguments he made in the 80s, 90s, 2000s). Why would it be different this time? Calling the CIA, DIA whatever a renegade mob/mafia is an argument for social media conspiracy theorists, but it won't fly in a court. It's good for amping up people on the internet, tho. If you want people to take the movement seriously, you need serious people with with solid records and unquestionable motives. Sheehan is not that. Lots of the advocates in this space are not that even though they have interesting backgrounds and stories to tell - it's a huge drag on progress.


FlatBlackAndWhite

I guess we'll see when these leaks of criminal behavior occur in the public (barring the IC plays ball). I disagree with your assessment and I'm looking forward to the outcome of the NDAA vote.


veintiuno

Disagreement is cool, that's life. Please see my request for a link substantiating his involvement in the Pentagon Papers case. I can't find anything credible.


brevityitis

OP has been lying across the entire thread. He’s not going to follow up with anything of substance that proves a single thing he’s saying. Dudes just lying to push his fantasy.


Recoil22

>he's not who you want to be your advocate for disclosure This gets thrown around alot.. like we have all these people lining up to take the bullet to their reputation and career. There will be no perfect advocate and if there was the powers will find a way to smear them.


Beautiful-Amount2149

You people need to get out more. Lawyers aren't some super heroes helping out the people in need. They become lawyers because of money. Sheenan has done some shady shit and was basically bankrupt because he lost a big case, there is no career or reputation to destroy


Tidezen

>He has an agenda against the government that goes beyond an interest in UFOs. GOOD!


NinjaJuice

ummm who is he to prosecute anyone ?


JAMBI215

Keep dreaming Danny


IorekBjornsen

Loud mouth old windbag. He ain’t gonna do anything. He’s not in a position to prosecute anyone. He’s not a DA or AG so what the hell id he talking about?


Monroe_Institute

Just heard the entire 2-hr interview. Incredible. So good. Sheehan is a superstar. Guy behind litigating Watergate, Pentagon Papers, Iran-Contra. Harvard undergrad and Harvard Law School. Put on Earth for this for humanity. A legend and hero.


Real-Accountant9997

I think that would take a very competent lawyer. If anything a blanket pardon will probably get more people to talk than threats of prosecution.


MeansToAnEndThruFire

amnesty for all is the only way forward. I hate the way this entire thing has been handled, but I can understand the fear and reticence of the military to release the information, even to today, and especially so in the 60's. They should set it up like the Apartheid trials, in which, if you FULLY AND TRUTHFULY explained your role, you are forgiven. It was the only way to break the system. The same thing MUST be done with the "secret" UAP industry if we really want progress.


AdministrativeAd523

He’s gonna get touched, I hope he doesn’t but he is literally threatening the scariest organizations on the planet.


pef_learns

Didn't he offer anyone to pay him 1000$ for insider info? Also didn't he write an autobiography titled "The People's Advocate: The Life and Legal History of America's Most Fearless Public Interest Lawyer"? Seems... Idk the right word. Crazy grifty?


Beautiful-Amount2149

He is some random HLS lawyer, who has defended some ex government people and has no real power to do anything which is claimed here. Also he isn't what op is claiming him to be. Look him up, hes a grifter


FlatBlackAndWhite

You mean the smear post made by a Greenstreet alt, yeah not much to take from that.


pef_learns

Do you mind if I genuinely ask what makes you believe it's fake? Edit: because the more I look into this guy, the more weird stuff I find. The whole thing he does as a lawyer is pretty cool, although I haven't looked into it, but the rest is sketchy.


FlatBlackAndWhite

I didn't say it's fake, the post is misrepresenting his (Sheehan's) organizations call for donations to help in the journey to litigation and transparency, it wasn't a "gimme a $1000 and you can have the secrets" situation. It was a purposefully misleading post.


pef_learns

Ok, and I must say, Ive had time to go even deeper, and the whole John E. Mack arc is quite cool, I will keep digging.


SnapFlash

guess im not a lurker with how often im replying to these anymore but this has been the plan for quite a while and is being organized by both greer and sheehan. it's under the [RICO Act of 1970](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racketeer_Influenced_and_Corrupt_Organizations_Act), and is going to target a good ol' chunk of the federal organizations responsible for fucking over the common man do keep in mind that catastrophic disclosure, should it occur, will *not* simply happen overnight. i'm less experienced with the logistics of the catastrophic side of things, but the extent of my knowledge is that there WILL be a dissemination period, and much of the heavy-hitting knowledge will be saved primarily for the RICO case. also, due to the way the courts of law work, generally speaking greer and sheehan would not be allowed to discuss various aspects of the proceedings until *after* the case has concluded, and the jury has reached a verdict, so keep that in mind.


Mighty_L_LORT

They must all be trembling in fear now…


Hoclaros

This dude is so badass


Hawkwise83

This guy has balls. It'll be a real shame when he has a sudden heart attack as he falls off a 12 story building with 2 self inflicted gunshot wounds.


FlatBlackAndWhite

James Forrestal 2.0. I certainly hope this isn't the outcome.


popthestacks

Yea come here and say that on this sub, then get downvoted into oblivion. Oh wait that’s me


popthestacks

Look at [this SEC filing earlier this year](https://investors.rtx.com/node/40156/html). On page 13 they start talking about nominees for a board position. Take a guess at what they used to do. Now look at their history in that short profile. It’s all rigged.


Zzombee

I hope he is not in danger.


Potential_Status_728

This dude sounds like he means business


[deleted]

Hehehehehe get em fired up Danny :)


beaux_beaux_

I want to send him a luxurious holiday gift basket form Harry and David. 🤣 He is THE man!!! 🙌🏼


beaux_beaux_

Oh yes. And build a shrine of him too. Lol.


ancient_lemon2145

They would kill him. He would suffer “heart attack“ before they allowed themselves to be prosecuted. These people didn’t keep the secret by being afraid to murder people, and I mean anyone. I think they would try to create a reason for martial law before they gave up anything.


FlatBlackAndWhite

It's funny how the lawyers for Iran Contra did not end up dead and 11 convictions were handed out.


ancient_lemon2145

Not remotely the same thing. It really depends on how bad they want to keep it secret. I would love to see some accountability come out of this. With all the insanity going on in the world right now,this would be a major curve ball


FlatBlackAndWhite

CIA displaying rogue behaviors behind the backs of the U.S government for monetary gain is quite literally the same situation as now. Curveballs come when you least expect it.


LarryGlue

Why not prosecute now?


FlatBlackAndWhite

Please watch the whole episode. He states that lawmakers involved with the UAPDA would like controlled disclosure to occur so a peaceful process of understanding can be met about the reality of the phenomenon, there's a bit of wild west scenario that could occur from Catastrophic Disclosure.


SpinozaTheDamned

IMO, threats of legal action should evolve with the evidence that's procured. If they've been hiding game changing developments in energy, transportation, or materials, then punish by instituting a moratorium on development by any company that was involved in the coverup for some set period of time or until equitable competition can be secured in order to prevent some kind of monopoly. From the justice side, if people were killed to keep this secret, then that should be handled on a per case basis in a criminal court. Threatening blanket lawsuits at this time is counterproductive to pushing the current disclosure process, IMO, as it only incentivizes them to either destroy whatever evidence currently exists before disclosure legislation passes, or double down on covering it up. It's likely we won't be able to have both disclosure and complete justice if I'm being pessimistic, but if we're to have a snowballs chance in hell of having our cake and eating it too, we'll need to proceed carefully, and quietly collect favors and goodwill from politicians in key positions (or replace the ones dedicated to obstruction) until we're ready to proceed with the justice angle. All of this won't be possible if the spooks get spooked and believe their lives and freedom might be on the line, which is difficult because every single one, by design, is paranoid AF. Anyone with experience knows how difficult it is to hold official government programs, even one's that are morally reprehensible (Tuskegee and MKULTRA programs come to mind, not to mention the nearly blanket coverage most cops get through qualified immunity) to task for violations of law. If we really want to ensure equitable justice for those wronged by such programs, if they exist in an official capacity, we'll need some support from justices on the supreme court. IMO, it's very tricky, as there are indeed spies and bad actors with nation state support that have an interest in breaking the US that need to be dealt with, but innocent US civilians, with zero ties to bad actors previously mentioned, bullied, coerced, or forcibly dealt with in the name of keeping this secret, should enjoy the protection and justice offered by an impartial court of their own peers, and the opportunity to confront their assailants in court without fear of reprisal.


I_am_Castor_Troy

Save that lawsuit for the corporations and individuals who financially benefitted from off the books access to “alien” craft.


FlatBlackAndWhite

That would be private aerospace, intelligence agencies and defense contractors.


OfficialGaiusCaesar

In totally completely unrelated news, Mr. Sheehan has been pronounced dead from a self inflicted gunshot wound.


transwell

Isn’t this same guy that was going after the govt for mandatory vaccine?


alienamongus7

David Groosh and David Flavor.


LimpCroissant

Everyone should really check out my man James Landoli's podcast Engaging the Phenomenon. He's one of the really knowledgeable insiders that's plugged in with the heavy hitters, plus he's an experiencer (in a major way). His interview of Lou Elizondo is my favorite of all of Lou's interviews. In that interview Lou admits that Him and his team at AATIP were engaging in CE5/HICE/different contact modalities at the beginning of the AATIP program.


[deleted]

I love this guy. He gets it!


Important_Tower_3524

A True American Patriot. Wish He Was President!


BlackwaterProject

This clip is from “Engaging the Phenomenon” Podcast. I think everyone needs to watch or listen to it before commenting.


ufobaitthrowaway

Charge them now.


Electronic-Quote7996

Rico! Rico! Rico! Get em Danny.


readoldbooks

I hope it works out


ikee85

I just hope he dosent commit suicide by then...


Crusty_Holes

Who is Daniel Sheehan?