Home  |  Articles  |  Exclusives  |  About  |  Links   |  Search  |  Contact


FBI Rep Targets Me Over Website

September 10. 2008

FBI director Robert Mueller

In a very uncivil move, the spokesperson for the Los Angeles FBI field office, Laura Eimiller, emailed this website, whining and complaining about an item she and another agent want removed from it.

Did I leak nation security items, you ask? No. Did I post the name of the bimbo FBI director Robert Mueller cheated on his wife with, you ask? No.

Utilizing a mainstream press item, I wrote a comical article over a year ago, about an FBI agent that was arrested for masturbating in the ladies bathroom (toilets) during a surveillance assignment at a California university. The cleaning lady discovered him and called the police. For the old article please click here.

I searched online and found an over the top photo, featuring a man wearing an FBI logo and a lot of gear. Little did I know, until today, that it was an actual FBI agent in the pic.

Other websites, prior to mine, had been and continue to, use said photo as a default photograph to represent the FBI, due to the symbolism in the snap. Those sites included no name to go with said pic, running it like a stock photo.

One of the other sites that used the photo

The manner in which the FBI agent willingly poses in the photo, with the heavy weaponry, walkie talkie, bullet proof vest over a dress shirt, with shades on, was over the top and led me to think it was a stock photo of a paid actor or spoof, trying to emphasize the Bureau.

It looked like an item from stock photo CD-ROMs for websites, they sell at Office Depot, containing models posing as people from different professions. It's nothing to do with him personally, just all the equipment he is sporting made it look that way.

The pieces other websites continue to use said photo for, run as apart of very incendiary, unflattering and condemnatory articles about the FBI, far worse than my satirical take on it.

Email from the FBI regarding article that has been online well over a year that's a problem all of a sudden (I redacted some of her cell phone number)

I decided to call the telephone number provided in the email, to ascertain whether it truly was a legitimate request, as I have received numerous hoax emails from Madonnaís hackers at Digilink that were submitted to the site under my momís name, my dadís name, my sisterís name and that of a legal representative. Thatís when her hackers are not sending me death threats and other threats of violence on Madonnaís behalf.

I left the FBI rep, Laura Emiller, a message asking for confirmation on whether or not she submitted the email requesting the photo be removed. She called back shortly after. The conversation began normally enough, then escalated into rude, uncivil, arrogant barking from her.

She asked me to remove the photo, stating it is of an actual FBI agent assigned to their Los Angeles office. She then stated he is ďveryĒ angry with me. I did not like the way she said it and felt threatened.

After all, here is a photo of a man holding a large rifle, that I erroneously believed to be an actor, that she is now stating in a very nasty tone is a FBI agent who is ďvery angry" with me. While I am not afraid of anyone, I didnít like how it was said. She emphasized the very angry part in a threatening way. You should play back that conversation for oversight (if you have any) and ask them if you handled it properly.

Still polite, albeit puzzled at this point, I told her, ďI didnít know it was a real FBI agentĒ and thought it was, ďA stock photo.Ē

Then, she starts barking, "what type of person" would "run something without checking" and "defaming" someone. Thatís when I got angry and barked back.

I inquired why she was singling me out for harassment over a photo that other websites were using for worse things and before I posted it.

She then paused, like she was lying, and said mine, "Came up in a search." Thatís a load of rubbish. The FBI routinely appears in my website stats. You read this site more than I do.

Furthermore, I did a Google image search today and found the photo did not appear when I typed in "FBI." The only other way to find the photo is to do a direct Google search and if you had that much time on your hands that you could conduct such searches, which requires a lot of time, you are a waste of the taxpayers' money.

There are missing children, some feared dead, whose parents are complaining the FBI insensitively turned them away when they requested assistance in locating them, yet you mysteriously have time to waste performing time consuming internet searches and emailing me over an old article.

I requested a photo from Eimiller of the FBI agent that was arrested and she hastily replied there isnít one. Right! If you say so. Who is he? Jason Bourne, that he has no picture. Iím sure he has a mug shot after the bathroom incident.

She then kept barking and I hung up on her. I really don't have time for that rubbish.

Regarding the man in the photo posted above, I genuinely did not know it was an FBI agent. I would not have run his photo in that article had I known. I couldnít find a photo of the FBI agent that was arrested and opted for using what I thought was a stock photo of an actor posing as an FBI agent (I will amend the article to reflect that shortly). Hence, when I posted a photo last year of the Miami FBI agent that interviewed me, I put his name under said pic, because it wasnít a stock photo.

Kevin Cogill

Tell the truth. You got mad at the Kevin Cogill article I wrote about the Guns N Roses blogger your FBI field office in Los Angeles recently arrested.

You were angry that I slammed your blatant double standard in throwing the book at a blogger, excessively going after him and humiliatingly hauling him into court in his PJs, while letting copyright infringing stars like Madonna run loose and rack up more financial damages than Cogill ever could.

Then there was the matter of bringing him in via a 5 agent raid, like you were trying to apprehend Suge Knight (then you would have required 5 more agents).

Why donít you arrest stars that break the law in that manner? Oh thatís right, you donít arrest stars. Hollywood owns you. They may as well stamp the words ďProperty Of HollywoodĒ on your backsides.

When Laura Eimiller offensively stated, "what type of person" would "run something without checking" and "defaming" someoneÖI thought, um, you.

Steven Jay Hatfill

After all, didn't the FBI finger the wrong suspect in the 2001 Anthrax Murders, defaming an innocent scientist, Steven Jay Hatfill, destroying his life and career, which prompted him to sue you, winning $6 million dollars in damages, the American taxpayers had to foot for your negligent errors.

Then there is the Richard Jewel case, the man you named as a suspect in the terrible 1996 Atlanta Olympic bombing that left a woman dead and others injured.

Richard Jewel

You destroyed his life, when he'd saved over 100 people that night. When he died this year, people stated the terrible ordeal you put him through, for which the FBI never apologized, in leaving him to be publicly abused as some villain, when he was not and was telling the truth, sent him to an early grave at age 44.

Richard Jewel's mom crying because of the FBI's terrible treatment of her son they wrongly accused of murder and other acts of terrorism

FBI headquarters is very good at sadistically watching innocent victims suffer, even die, while they negligently and knowingly sit back silently and do nothing, which is very un-American. Yet you Laura Eimiller had the nerve to bark at me about "defaming" people, when FBI headquarters has turned it into an artform that destroyed other human beings via willful criminal negligence.

Just who on Godís green earth did you really think you were talking to, you ignorant, belligerent prat. How much crack did you smoke before you made that phone call. Who put you up to it.

All you had to do was say, yes I emailed you and can you take the photo down, because itís a real FBI agent. I would have complied. But you decided to show off and start barking at me.

It was very inappropriate, as I am the victim of very serious crimes and human rights abuses, in a case where the Civil Rights Act has unquestionably been violated, yet here you go abusively and questionably adding to that, via singling me out for harassment over a photo that was a genuine mix up, that other sites ran as well, in the same format. Why didnít you go harass them. You admitted over the phone when questioned that I was the only site you contacted over the photo.

But since you're getting all self-righteous, I ask you this, which of the following two is worse? A black immigrant authors a multi-billion dollar valued Copyrighted Catalog. It is criminally violated to the tune of millions of dollars in ill-gotten gains,  by a sick, deviant pop star and her Hollywood affiliates.

Said sick Hollywood star, in attempts at criminally shaking the Catalog loose, commissions a series of vile, unlawful deeds, aimed at terrorizing and invading the privacy of the black immigrant in very sick ways. Said immigrant, distressed, contacts the FBI to file a complaint to bring an end to the terrorization, invasion of privacy and copyright theft, as it falls under their jurisdiction.

The FBI claims three different times they are investigating it, and all the while throughout the process, negligently allows said stupid star to continue pilfering a very valuable Catalog she not only devalues, but cannot replace. Not to mention, commissioning the attempted murder of said black immigrant, twiceÖversus said black immigrant posting a photo she genuinely believed to be a stock photo of an actor, but is actually an FBI agent, in an article about another FBI agent that was arrested for masturbating in public in a womenís bathroom.

Posting a photo in good faith versus allowing an innocent black immigrant to nearly be viciously murdered twice. Apparently, thatís a tough one to choose from in which ranks higher in the human cruelty stakes (sarcasm).

Robert Mueller

The public has no clue what almost died with me those days, but they will find out and when they do, they will see the FBI in the terrible terms I do now, for letting a sick star in Hollywood, Madonna and her cronies, who I hold in even lower esteem, commission heinous crimes against an innocent person, in attempts at clearing the way to continue to steal valuable copyrighted works that never belonged to them and never will.

I also got to distressingly watch as my parents health deteriorated from the stress, harassment and terrorization that transpired in the case, with the FBI's consent (and apparently Congress as well, members of which routinely come up in my site hits, yet they let the madness from Hollywood continue while the world watches).

I don't know why anyone would think I was going to think well of them for sitting back and letting the terrible human rights abuses, which under the Constitution and U.S. Code they are supposed to halt as the governing body, get so heinous, it affected my parents' health. 

But please, continue to act like youíre the victims. It shows the world how sick and twisted you are and the terrible mindset you, the FBI, Congress and Hollywood, have towards blacks and immigrants you clearly deem less than you and inconsequential lower forms of human life to be exploited, bullied and abused as you see fit.



© Copyright 2007 - 2014 Aisha. All Rights Reserved. Web site design by Aisha for Sonustar Interactive

Aisha | Aisha Blog | Aisha Blog Archive | Goodison Trust | Sonustar | Sonustar News | Judiciary Report | Sound Off Column | Celluloid Film Review | Consumer News Reviews | Compendius | United Peace Initiative | Justice And Truth