Part 1 - Answer to Question 6 on my Presidential Pardon Petition

Question 6 asks to "Provide a complete and detailed account of the offense for which you seek Pardon."

In May of 2003, I was arrested by the FBI and sent to Houston to be placed in the courtroom of a federal judge who worked for the same Enron officials I was accused of threatening. He worked for them just before he was appointed to the bench by the first Bush President. In fact that was why I kept badgering the company, to see if I could get arrested and sent to this one particular judge knowing that it would be the only way to keep a lid on the story I was trying to tell to the American people about what that war was really all about.

I was home was invaded by federal law enforcement officials just as the war in Iraq was getting underway. Later getting arrested and sent to this judge who he refused to acknowledge his background of having worked for Vincent and Elkins to set up Enron´s energy and derivatives trader carved in stone the nature of the scandal behind why the second Bush President was so intent on invading Iraq a second time while casting a new light on why we invaded Iraq the first time.

It was hard to convince myself that attempting this would be worth the effort and risk. But all the pieces of the puzzle from the previous years added up to my plan working just as I had envisioned it. Ever since I was sent to Ewing Werlein´s courtroom where time after time he refused to acknowledge he had anything to do with working for Enron before becoming a federal judge, I still have a hard time believing that I put together this plan and carried it out.

Here is Part 1 of the story. You´ll will have to judge for yourself whether you believe the cards stack up as evidence of a level of scandal that I obviously believe is behind why we invaded Iraq. If it weren´t for the facts that support it, I would not believe this story even though I was there. I know you weren´t there so I accept that there will be skepticism. But if only a piece of this work bares out a new side of our current history that we aren´t being told the truth about, my efforts were not in vain. If there is nothing here worth paying serious attention to, then my mind must truly be suffocated by grandiose delusions surrounded by a life smothered in impossible coincidences. If that were the case, this story would make for great fiction. Either way, I win.

If there is any truth whatsoever in what I allege, this country´s future will remain in grave danger of surviving with its Constitution and Bill of Rights in tact if more people other than me don´t put politics aside and speak out about it. No one is winning if this is the game we are playing, especially if we don´t know that this is the board we are actually playing on. This is not a scandal where the objective is victory. It is simply a scandal of denial, a pretense to reality for the sake of hiding past mistakes, a lie that only prevents the truth from exposing the small percentage of Americans who did this to all of us. It´s time to decide whether we´re going to let this country fail so they, along with those of us who don´t want look at what we are doing wrong, do not have to face reality.

Federal court case number - H-03-162 - United States -v- Bobby Fontaine

Answer to Question 6 - I got myself arrested purposely. My life was threatened by a US senator for blocking the discreet and easy passage of a liability waiver amendment for MTBE producers, a gasoline additive, in an energy bill in 2002. I´d been watching the debate over the amendment on C-SPAN from my home in Virginia just outside Washington DC. Whenever a senator got up and spoke about what they were doing, I emailed his home town newspaper what he said and what was wrong with it, as well as to any email addresses I could find from his home town.

MTBE pollutes groundwater nationwide. It also causes high emissions of Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC´s) that cause climate change. This is not the same global warming said to be caused by CO2 but a change in weather patterns that happen as emissions are released into the atmosphere where they are released. This proven climate science has been around since the global warming debate began but is not publically favored in Washington or Europe. But it´s slowly becoming the main focus of climate science where CO2 theories are becoming less relevant.

I write extensively on this issue under the name Bobby Fontaine and Clyde Novitz and am fluent in understanding it. I have an email from the top climatologist in the US, professor Drew Shindell, where he writes that CO2 is irrelevant to a true climate change debate, that VOC´s, low level ozone, methane, and their reactions with the suns rays and atmospheric water vapor are what is causing regional shifts in weather patterns. Since these manmade pollutants are also part of a natural process for how our regional atmospheres function, any significant addition we make to what nature produces causes dramatic changes to the area the pollutants were released and wherever they might drift to.

Since the human race emits these pollutants all over the world, weather patterns appear to be changing on a global scale lending support to the CO2 theory. But in reality, weather pattern are changing regionally on a global scale. So shifts to ending emissions of pollutants in one place will allow for normal weather patterns to return to that region while seeming global warming changes are still happening elsewhere that are still polluting. This is relevant to my offer to allow you to pardon me because at the time I was threatened, MTBE was causing sever changes in climate around the US while the liability waiver I was blocking from being passed put the burden of lawsuits against the oil companies for anything MTBE had done on the US government and taxpayer instead of the MTBE industry.

It was debated as if it was designed to protect the oil industry from polluted groundwater lawsuits from leaking underground storage tanks but was worded so that the government claimed fault for anything it had done, which included damage caused by extreme changes in climate. The debate was being conducted in such a way that the American people, including the news media who were not fluent enough in understanding the science or politics surrounding the MTBE issue, would not know that there was a serious error being committed by their leaders against them. My sending emails informing their constituents about what they were doing undermined the element of secrecy they needed to pass the bill. The debate ended with my being threatened in such a ludicrous way that only I and my senator knew that it was directed at me while I would have looked delusional at best if I tried to get anyone to listen to my accusations. I suppose if I had acted in haste to defend myself, I would have discredited myself as a voice to be reckoned with on the issue of MTBE, perhaps even getting myself into a great deal of trouble.

A few months later when they tried to debate the bill again, I did the same thing by informing their constituents about what they were doing ignoring the previous threats. The debate over the liability waiver was shut down again, only this time quickly and quietly with no threats which worried me. I had been too easily successful. It made me think they had a backup plan. I was like they were just testing the waters to see if they had scared me off. When they saw clearly I hadn´t taken their threats seriously, they seemed to simply have moved on to try their hand at another solution. This made me worry they might follow through on their threat. It bothered me greatly causing me loss of sleep and frustration until it dawned on me what they were going to do.

This was in the fall of 2002, when Scott McClellan, former White House press secretary to president Bush, says he knew then that Bush was going to invade Iraq no matter what anyone else thought, that his diplomatic stance was only a ploy. That´s the same time it struck me that the liability waver would be tabled in congress for a third time as the war began where it would be run through the House and Senate to be put on the Presidents desk as the war starting so the news media would be distracted from everything else.

This only occurred to me because I knew that the Clean Air Act of 1990, which secured mandates for MTBE to be added to gasoline in the first place, was only able to be passed in spite of the many shortcomings of MTBE because the first Bush president had allowed Saddam Hussein to invade Kuwait and was getting ready push him back across the border into his own country at the time the oxygenate (MTBE is an oxygenate) requirement was debated.

I followed the Clean Air Act debate in 1990 and was astonished that the MTBE mandate was supported by nearly a hundred percent vote in both the House and Senate. It was known to be going to pollute most of the groundwater in the US while there were other choices that were better. In fact the scientific community objected to oxygenates altogether based on concerns for how its emission would react with smog and climate along with how it would pollute groundwater. At that time, I read two newspapers everyday, The Washington Post and The Washington Times. The Washington Times isn´t owned by corporate investors but by the Unification Church founder Sun Myung Moon. The Washington Post did not cover the MTBE aspect of the Clean Air Act debate just like the rest of the publically owned major metropolitan news sources.

But the Washington Times covered the MTBE story in such detail that I have yet to find any other articles to date that were so thorough in telling the truth about MTBE. Those articles disappeared from The Washington Times archives after the same senator who threatened me allowed Sun Myung Moon to use the Dirksen Senate Office Building to for a ceremony where he claimed "Emperors, kings and presidents . . . have declared to all Heaven and Earth that Reverend Sun Myung Moon is none other than humanity's Savior, Messiah, Returning Lord and True Parent" on March 23, 2004, while I was in a federal detention canter in Houston. No other major news source covered the MTBE aspect of the Clean Air Act of 1990 to any significant degree.

The Washington Times however reported that MTBE was designed to produce emissions that would mix with smog dissolving it making it rise into the sky to bake in the sun where it became inert and later dumped in the Atlantic Ocean after following the jet stream there. MTBE did get rid of smog. Smog back then was largely comprised of nitrogen oxide from coal burning and diesel engine emissions. Gasoline engines were not the cause of smog yet the EPA proudly claims that MTBE got rid of it in metropolitan regions nationwide. But they won´t admit how this is possible when the obvious question arises as to how cars got rid of pollution they did not produce it.

In fact MTBE is said to have decreased low level ozone when admittedly it causes higher levels of VOC´s, a necessary precursor to low level ozone forming. When VOC´s are mixed with nitrogen oxide smog in the suns ultra violet rays, it causes low level ozone to form. And if VOC´s are emitted in high enough ratios, ozone and smog are forced to rise high enough into atmosphere to give the impression that the air has been cleared. Low level ozone is also less visible than nitrogen oxide smog. Although MTBE emissions of isobutylene (ether), methanol, and formaldehyde, along with its contribution to low level ozone formation, far exceed the dangers to the environment and human health than those associated with nitrogen oxide smog, since the resulting pollutants are less visible to the naked eye than the previous smog, the EPA says the air we breath is cleaner.

This was the preferred way to take our pollution control policies in the Clean Air Act of 1990 by the oil companies who didn´t want to use an additive to gasoline called, polyisobutylene (PIB). It was offered as a solution to mileage and pollution problems caused by gasoline and diesel engines prior to the Clean Air Act. It was reported by The Washington Times to reduce pollutants from diesel fuel and gasoline by 70% while giving 20% more mileage. It´s being used now by Texas in their state diesel supplies under the product name Viscon to help bring them into compliance with EPA air quality standards. But the mileage benefit aspects of its use are not being published by the state of Texas with regards to their certification of the product.

The company that makes this additive has always shied away from promoting the benefits PIB offers fossil fuels because it´s refined from crude oil where fuels can actually be refined to have the same properties PIB gives it. In fact PIB is made from chemical compounds that are taken out of crude oil for use as polymers rather than simply left in to be refined into fossil fuels. So if there´s government mandate for it to be used in gasoline, refiners would simply come up with a patented process to produce fuel refined to the same standards that adding PIB gives it. Since it has to be added to gasoline in such small and particular amounts or it doesn´t work, his additive would have to be outlawed because any use of it would cause the fuel they produce to fail to have the benefits PIB is designed to give it.

The state of Texas has even hired Viscon to work with refiners to come up with a way to refine fuel with these properties. So Viscon will now one day have the patent on the process for this higher quality fuel so we might even see a cure for our domestic fuel problems come to light in the not too distant future as this additive could give the world 20 more mileage with 70 percent less pollution problems coming from fossil fuels. It´s just a matter of how long it takes for this secretive process to evolve to fruition or for the right people to find out about it and force it to happen sooner, like the American people.

MTBE decreases mileage and causes far greater pollution. But the polluters responsible for the smog problem of 1999 didn´t want to clean up their industries. So Ken Lay of Enron, Phil Gramm and his wife Wendy, and George Bush 41 used money and subtle political promises they reneged on later to get congress to mandate MTBE be added to gasoline believing it was good for the environment even though they knew otherwise. When the scientific community refused to go along with the ruse, George Bush promised to have MTBE evaluated by the EPA. He promised if their concerns were valid, he would support PIB in MTBE´s place. They agreed with his proposal thinking it would insure PIB´s use because they knew a thorough study of MTBE would show it was poison for the environment and human health, and lead to extreme changes in climate.

With the scientific community´s blessing, the Clean Air Act of 1990 was unanimously passed under the cover of Saddam Hussein´s invasion of Kuwait followed by George Bush´s mounted effort to drive him back into Iraq. No study of MTBE over the concerns of scientists was ever done. In fact Bush and senator Gramm went right to work on securing a trillion dollar loan to build MTBE refineries. Once that was done, there was no stopping the MTBE mandate from being exercised. Since a trillion dollars wasn´t actually needed to build enough refining capacity to produce MTBE to comply with the EPA´s mandate, it was put to work on Wall Street funding the investment bubble that falsely gave the impression that our economy was booming when it was actually suffering, which incidentally burst in May of 2006 when MTBE use was discontinued in favor of anhydrous ethanol, another smog melting climate changing oxygenate additive.

The problem was not the trillion dollar loan that was due from the beginning to be paid off in May of 2006. And the Russian are darn glad we came along needing that money because it was originally stolen from the Soviet Union´s treasury at the end of the cold war and was virtually worthless. But it was never planned on being used to build refineries but flushed through Wall Street building an elite banking system on top of it to lend the money out over and over using our credits markets as the foundation for the biggest ponzi scheme in the history of free market financing. In fact the reason the world´s economy is failing now is because our original investment markets were built on a flimsy foundation needing cheap fuel to provide the luxury of easy profits.

Ethanol is expensive to produce, a huge drain on the economy. It also causes a huge loss of mileage in most vehicles, more than the amount of 10 percent added to gasoline. MTBE is cheap to produce and opened a market for huge natural gas reserves we didn´t have a market for so it was also good for the economy in spite of its pitfalls. Anhydrous ethanol is made from corn. We are using it now having replaced MTBE with it. The state of California took the EPA to court in 2006 proving that oxygenates worsen air quality in order to forego adding ethanol to their gasoline. They won their argument based on the scientific evidence they provided for the court but the Bush administration stepped in saying it was no longer being required for air quality but to lessen dependence on foreign oil.

The problem with that argument is that anhydrous ethanol is an oxygenate. Oxygenates were designed purposely to cost gasoline mileage in order to get the high VOC emissions that mix with nitrogen oxide smog causing it to float up into the sky like a hot air balloon. So there´s no way it can be considered a fuel product to replace gasoline with because it causes the need for more oil imports to make up for the loss of mileage and to produce from growing and harvesting of corn, fertilizing it, and then refining it into anhydrous ethanol. It also has to be trucked or trained to fuel depots because it cannot be transferred through pipelines because it is so corrosive.

Hydrous ethanol however, which is what anhydrous ethanol is produced from, is safe for pipelines, doesn´t cause emissions problems or losses of mileage, and can be added to gasoline safely at higher ratios than 10 percent. It´s also cheap to produce because the last steps in producing anhydrous ethanol from hydrous ethanol are very energy intensive while it also removes the water content from the ethanol which means less fuel. The excuse by the industry seems to be their belief that hydrous ethanol cannot be added to gasoline but new technologies proves this to be false and is being done in Germany, China, and even tested by the state of Louisiana.

I have an article that report how General Motors began working on plans to sell flex fuel vehicles in Brazil by 2007 that run on hydrous ethanol blends of gasoline and another article that says Brazil has been doing this on a national scale prior to 2004. I also have articles from 2008 that suggest the ability to add hydrous ethanol to gasoline is a recent discovery that is still being developed when Brazil appears to have been doing it for many years with our auto makers helping them. In fact Brazil and the US signed an energy pact in 2007 vowing to share ethanol technology but in 2008, it´s being said that hydrous ethanol has just been discovered to be able to be added to gasoline to make it actually work towards a fuel benefit over what happens when using anhydrous ethanol.