We have entered a time of crisis in the United States, brought about by both internal and external

entities. In conventional times, we would rely upon national unity – as we did after Pearl Harbor and the
September 11th attacks. Presently, however, there is distinct division in the United States, and indeed
throughout the world. A complicating factor is that some of the US government agencies we would
normally rely upon to counter our adversaries are viewed by many within our society as themselves a
threat. This essay focuses on one event which served as a catalyst for the present danger: the death of
George Floyd at the hands of Derek Chauvin.

It may surprise the reader to learn that many of my ideas would be censored from traditional social
media platforms. And it can become tiring when practically every opinion you wish to express runs
against the narrative (the Covid-19 origin debate, pandemic policies on early treatment, the 2020
election, the actions on 6 January 2021, the Great Reset, and the vaccine mandates). So it gives me
satisfaction to say this:

I believe that George Floyd was an Innocent Man.

This simple and socially acceptable statement may appear benign but is actually a revolutionary claim
that few, if we are being honest, truly believe. Would it surprise you if I assert that a careful
consideration of the facts leading me to this conclusion offers the means to defeat those who wish to
inflict totalitarianism upon the United States, Western civilization, and indeed the entire world? I believe
those who have brought strife upon us have done the information warfare equivalent of allowing their
Death Star reactor of propaganda to be accessible via an exhaust port of Truth. In other words, what I
lay out here could shine a light on a cataclysmic flaw in the actions of an enormously well-organized and
deadly cabal – but only if a well-placed “missile” of well-reasoned and carefully honed information may
be communicated to a public willing to begin a long process of self-reflection. It is a challenge because it
requires that *everyone* accept that they were wrong in some facet of their perceptions. Simply put,
we are in the process of being tricked by well-organized professionals. Unfortunately, their actions have
already cost the lives and health of many across the world. Even if victorious, about which there remains
great doubt, a process of recovery will be long and difficult. Nonetheless, I hope this essay provides a
stepping stone toward that victory march.

____

George Floyd’s detractors typically characterize him as being guilty of three separate activities which, in
isolation, would be crimes:

1. It is claimed he used hard drugs like fentanyl and heroin.

2. It is claimed he committed forgery by using a fake $20 bill to buy cigarettes.
3. It is claimed he resisted arrest.

Autopsy reports show that George Floyd died with fentanyl in his system. For most people, it is an open-
and-shut case that he was guilty of using this illegal drug. However, let us consider the possibility that
George Floyd was drugged with fentanyl without his knowledge. I concede that that he acquired and
used the pain-killer Percocet, but I will demonstrate the lack of evidence he took either heroin or
fentanyl of his own volition. I will also point out that there are two possibilities for why he may have
used a fake $20: (1) he may have viewed the exchange as the equivalent of giving an IOU and/or (2) he
had been drugged with Fentanyl, without his knowledge, prior to entering Cup Foods. Likewise, if
George Floyd were surreptitiously drugged with Fentanyl prior to his interaction with Chauvin, then he
would not be responsible for resisting arrest. The main basis for my rationale is comprised of two
sources: the testimony of Courteney Ross in the Derek Chauvin trial and an article titled “George Floyd’s
Search for Solutions, “Minneapolis Star-Tribune, by Maya Rao, 27 December 2020. Information from the
police bodycam videos of his arrest is also useful to illuminate some points. This is the first of a series of
three or four articles I plan to write.

A natural question one might have is *why* someone would drug George Floyd? Allow me to make the
case first and address this point afterward. However, I foresee that a paradox will develop. Those who
are least likely to believe my initial assertion George Floyd is innocent will be most likely to believe my
rationale for saying he was. Likewise, those who are most inclined to believe my statement of George
Floyd’s innocence at the outset will be the least likely to believe my reasoning for why he was drugged.

For full disclosure, I place my own confidence of George Floyd’s innocence at about 95 percent. If you
begin reading believing there is at best a one-in-a-million chance that George Floyd is innocent for the
reasons I state- but by the end of this first article admit (to yourself only) a 10 percent chance that what
I propose is true, I will consider that a battle won. In other words, I do not expect a rapid conversion.

Without doubt, the level of certainty could be improved with more information. However, to obtain
evidence, one must have trust in those who gather it. Let us reflect that the Federal Bureau of
Investigation (FBI) is in a prominent position for gathering and analyzing the evidence. Unfortunately,
some within the FBI have demonstrated willingness to obscure evidence for purposes which are
unknown at present. For one example, FBI lawyer Kevin Clinesmith pled guilty to falsifying information
about Carter Page, related to the Mueller investigation, and was sentenced to a year of probation. A
second example is presented by the handling of the laptop now widely verified to belong to Hunter
Biden by FBI agents. Moreover, the treatment of the New York Post story about the Hunter Biden laptop
in October 2020 demonstrates that journalists may be censored if they work to present evidence
outside the bounds of a desired narrative. This limits discussion of ideas even by credible sources
outside of official investigative channels.

Given that these conventional information gathering sources have been compromised, the unfortunate
outcome is that we are left to do our best to conjecture and debate evidence gathered from sources
with limitations. Thus, we must accept the inherent risk of being wrong in exchange for a candid
discussion of facts and ideas.

Let’s begin with three excerpts from the Maya Rao article
(https://web.archive.org/web/20201230035723/https://www.startribune.com/george-floyd-hoped-
moving-to-minnesota-would-save-him-what-he-faced-here-killed-him/573417181/ ) :
 1. “When the staff gathered for beers after the club (Conga Latin Bistro ) closed, (owner Jovanni)
Thunstrom noticed that Floyd didn’t drink…. Thunstrom considered Floyd the best employee he
had had in his 20 years at the club.”
2. (In 2018) “Floyd applied to the YWCA’s Commercial Driver’s License program in St. Paul, MN
(375 Selby Avenue)– hoping to become a truck driver. *He passed the drug test* and
administrators concluded that his criminal record was not recent or severe enough to pose a
problem.”
3. “That afternoon of May 25, Floyd invited Rhodes to a barbeque, but Rhodes was working a
double-shift. As the day waned, Floyd and another friend named Shawanda Hill drove in a
Mercedes- Benz to Cup Foods in south Minneapolis, *where Floyd had gone to pay his phone bill
over the last two years.* Hall went inside first and a clerk rejected his $20 as counterfeit,
according to Cup Foods spokesman Jamar Nelson. A short time later, Floyd walked in and paid
for cigarettes with a bill the clerk also believed was fake. Floyd returned to the car and was
sitting in it with Hall and Hill when the police arrived.”

Setting aside the question of drugs for a moment, let us consider the third point: With respect to Floyd’s
use of the fake $20 bill, there are several indications that George Floyd felt his actions were innocent. In
the Rao story, “Hall went inside first and a clerk rejected his $20 as counterfeit, according to Cup Foods
spokesman Jamar Nelson. A short time later, Floyd walked in and paid for cigarettes with a bill the clerk
also believed was fake. Floyd returned to the car and was sitting in it with Hall and Hill when the police
arrived.”

In fact, Floyd was resting very comfortably in his car several minutes later when police arrived and
former officer Lane immediately drew a gun on Floyd. Consider the described chain of events: first his
friend went into the store to pay and his bill was rejected. You would think that (1) either Hall told Floyd
what had happened and asked him to try, either with the same bill or one like it or (2) Hall did not
indicate to Floyd that the bill was fake and proceeded to give it to him while providing some other
reason for why he had not bought cigarettes with it. Ask yourself, if a thief used forged a bill to rob a
store, would the thief rest outside in his car after the robbery? Wouldn’t even a foolish thief have the
wherewithal to attempt to escape? At this point, it would be unwise to rule anything out, but one logical
explanation is that Floyd viewed the interaction akin to leaving an IOU for the store. After all, the Rao
story indicates George Floyd had regularly paid his phone bill there for two years. He might have simply
expected them to add the amount to his next monthly bill.

Another possibility is that George Floyd’s decision-making was compromised due to being drugged with
fentanyl – without his knowledge- prior to his entering Cup Foods. This suggestion of “without his
knowledge” may strike some as highly unlikely. Floyd was a 46 year old former athlete with several old
injuries, and there is clear evidence that he *did* have a long track record of taking the pain-killer
Percocet outside of prescription. In fact, the Rao article lays out a specific incident involving police from
6 May 2019:

“Keep your hands where I can f___ing see them. Floyd panicked. He fumbled… Two officers maneuvered
Floyd out of the car (passenger side) and handcuffed him. The cops patted Floyd down and found *pain
pills.* Police, ultimately, never forwarded the case to prosecutors for possible charges…” A third officer
drove him to the police station and tried to calm him down. ‘George,’ she said, ‘will you relax, please?
Just relax?’ Floyd said he took *Percocets* that day and said he took 8 or 9 pills daily…. Worried about
Floyd’s condition, authorities called an ambulance… A medical professional named Shelley took his
blood pressure and voiced alarm at the reading: 216 over 160. Floyd said he was not taking his meds.”

A point to recall for later is that this record of Floyd’s arrest and subsequent behavior would have been
readily available to those in the Minneapolis Police Force.

Percocet is a common “bridge drug” used by opiate users when an addiction is present but when a
supply of opiates is hard to find. Many logical (and skeptical) readers may believe he used heroin or
fentanyl regularly too. Still, it must be acknowledged that no drugs other than Percocet were described
as being in his possession during the 6 May 2019 incident in the aforementioned article, and no charges
were ever brought against Floyd pursuant to that incident.

George Floyd held a job, and his boss suggested he was a responsible employee. In fact, Floyd’s
roommate, Alvin Manago, credited Floyd for helping him get his own dishwashing at the same nightclub
owned by Thunstrom. Given the media portrayal of George Floyd in many conservative media outlets,
those on the right of the political spectrum might be unaware that George Floyd did not fit a common
stereotype (albeit, often incorrect) of a heroin or fentanyl addict.

Floyd had moved to Minneapolis from Houston in February 2017, looking for a new life, and in many
ways he succeeded. He passed a drug test in 2018, hoping to become a commercial driver for a second
job – though the Rao article suggests that time demands prevented him from completing the program.
Certainly, a passed drug test from just over a year prior is not direct evidence of innocence, but it does
suggest that Floyd was capable of periods of time without a level of drug use which would appear in a
diagnostic test.

---

Courteney Ross is profiled in the Rao article, and she also describes some aspects Floyd’s use of pain
killers. But her *testimony* in the Chauvin trial deserves more weight, simply because she was under
oath at the time. All quotes and time stamps are from C-SPAN (http://www.c-span.org/video/?510411-
1/derek-chauvin-trial-death-day-4# )

The prosecuting attorney called Ross as a witness and allowed her to discuss (alleged) aspects of drug
use by Floyd and herself. However, a more specific and substantial discussion came about upon cross-
examination.

38:50: Defense Atty: “In the January and February of 2020 timeframe, you and Mr. Floyd were clean and
sober?”

Ross: “We weren’t really talking to each other, so I wasn’t around him - reconnected in March.”
(Curiously, the Rao story is quoted as saying, “In the new year, Floyd found another way of claiming his
place as a Minnesotan. He changed the area code on his replacement cell phone from 832 – Houston –
to 612. Then he and his girlfriend, Courteney Ross, ran out of the Metro PCS store, holding hands and
laughing as they jumped over snow banks with giddy elation. They bought pizza slices across the street
to celebrate.”)

Atty: “Was there an incident in March which required Mr. Floyd to be hospitalized?”

Ross: “Yes”

Atty: “And that was… can you describe to the jury what that incident was?”

Ross: “Which date are you speaking of?”

Atty: “In March, when he was hospitalized.”

Ross: “We went to the hospital a couple of times in March.”

Atty: “OK. I understand he was hospitalized for a more extended time period in March. That is the
incident I am talking about. I understand he went once because he cut his hand on glass or something
and that was a shorter hospital stay. But then there was an extended stay in March. Can you explain
what led to that hospital stay?”

Ross: “Yes I went to go pick Floyd up from his house that night. I thought I was taking him to work. He
wasn’t feeling good. His stomach really hurt. He was doubled over in pain. Just wasn’t feeling well, so he
said he had to go to the hospital. So I took him straight to the hospital. We went to the ER, and they
were checking him out in the ER. It was getting late, and I had to get home to my son, so I left that Friday
night.” (Indeed, 6 March 2020 was a Friday.)

Atty: “Did you later learn that was due to an overdose?”

Ross: “Yes” (objection by prosecutor was overruled)

Atty: “You spent several days with him at the hospital, correct?”

Rosse: “Yes.”

Atty: “and did you learn what caused that overdose?”

Ross: “No.”

Atty: “And at that time did you learn Mr. Floyd was taking anything other than opioids?”

Ross: “No.”

Atty: “You did not know that he had taken heroin at that time?”

Ross: “No.”
(After this testimony, the defense attorney went on for a while to ask about specific aspects of pills.
Overall, the subsequent portion included ambiguous answers and was not particularly informative.)

___

This exchange is interesting for many reasons. Ross represents herself as engaged to be married to
George Floyd, yet her testimony reflects that that they did not interact with each other for a two-month
period of January and February. Then, over a period of only one week in early March, they
“reconnected” to a level whereby Ross was in a position to take Floyd to the hospital on 6 March.

Could it be that after George Floyd visited the hospital (presumably the emergency room) after hurting
his hand, he either had extra pain-killers prescribed - or perhaps needed some extra pain-killers? In fact,
the phrasing of the initial question and answer, suggests that Ross and Floyd’s relationship might have
*revolved* around attaining prescription drugs. In the latter part of the testimony, Ross’s answers are
very ambiguous. She did *not* testify that George Floyd’s drug use involved heroin but rather testifies
that she did NOT know whether he had taken heroin. While she said she “later learned that” his hospital
stay to be due to an overdose - it remains unclear how she obtained that information. Did doctors
disclose the information to her? Did George Floyd tell her? Did she come to the conclusion through
others (which would be hearsay) or perhaps even on her own?

Even if doctors did indeed characterize George Floyd’s medical emergency as due to a drug overdose, is
it possible that they misdiagnosed the true reason? Conceivably, the medical examination, combined
with a conversation with a patient suggesting the ingestion of a large number of Percocets, might have
led doctors to prematurely conclude that Mr. Floyd overdosed without due diligence.

To support this line of argument, let’s consider another part of Ross’s testimony, this time with the
prosecuting attorney questioning:

31:02 Pros. atty: “And I think I forgot to ask you, was there a time in 2020 when the two of you took a
test for covid?” (This question had a Columbo-like “oh and one more thing” feel to it. Listen to it and the
context – and remember it for later.)

Ross: “Yes… George Floyd was positive and I was negative.”

Pros. “Do you recall when that was?”

Ross: “I believe it was in late March.” (An autopsy report indicates a date of 3 April 2020 for George
Floyd, though it is unclear whether that refers to the date he was tested or the date the determination
of a positive test was made.)

Pros: “And as a result of that, did he quarantine for a while?”

Ans: “Yes. He was already quarantining. But his roommates also had Covid.” (This last statement is
available only when listening to the audio recording – curiously, it is not included in C-SPAN’s written
transcript.)
The Rao story also describes some of the circumstances surrounding Floyd’s positive Covid test in early
spring of 2020, as follows: “Floyd was still looking for another job when the pandemic struck in March.
Then he tested positive for Covid-19. Though hypertension put him at higher risk, *Floyd appeared to
recover quickly.* But his finances worsened after the state ordered the shutdown of restaurants to slow
the spread of the virus. He worked his last day at Conga Latin Bistro on March 15.” This timeline,
combined with Floyd’s apparent ease of recovering from Covid-19, is very revealing. It suggests a theory,
as follows:

Is it possible that George Floyd was misdiagnosed with suffering an overdose on 6 March 2020, and that
the cause of his hospitalization was actually Covid-19? While we now know that Covid-19 can present
with nausea, at the time it was mainly associated with fever and respiratory illness. It is well-known that
a positive PCR test for Covid-19 can occur several weeks after recovery, and test kits were not available,
even to hospitals, in Minnesota in early March 2020. Moreover, Floyd’ trip to the emergency room for a
cut on his hand (no earlier than 1 March, according to Ross’s testimony) might have exposed him to
individuals who were contagious. This would explain how George Floyd tested positive for Covid-19 but
had a very mild illness – or so it seemed – in late March and early April of 2020, despite the
complications posed by his hypertension.

Deductive reasoning suggests a strong possibility that:

GEORGE FLOYD’S HOSPITALIZATION FROM MARCH 6-10, 2020 WAS PRIMARILY DUE TO COVID-19.

The corollary to the above statement is that it is quite possible that George Floyd’s hospitalization had
nothing to do with an overdose – let alone an overdose due to heroin or fentanyl. Admittedly, George
Floyd’s self-described use of opioids such as Percocet might have exacerbated the effects of Covid-19.
For example, the article “Coronavirus Disease 2019 and Opioid Use – A pandemic within an Epidemic”
(Slat, Thomas, and Lagisetty, 29 May 2020, JAMA Network Health Forum) states the following: “Because
opioids directly affect the brainstem to slow breathing, individuals using opioids may be at increased risk
for worsened hypoxemia with the (Covid-19) infection.” And the US Native American Health Services
website http://www.ihs.gov/opioids/covid19/ states the following: “Opioid use affects the respiratory
and pulmonary health which may make those with opioid use more susceptible to COVID-19.” Hospital
records were not released as part of the court proceeding against Derek Chauvin, and journalists have
not published information about George Floyd’s hospitalization from that time period.

It seems that the magnitude of George Floyd’s drug habit may have been overblown – in the sense that
it was given so much weight during the court proceedings. One might argue that this is due to the
autopsy report showing fentanyl in his system, but there is no evidence that he *chose* to take
fentanyl.

Is this the first time you have heard the possibility that Covid-19, rather than drug overdose (with heroin
having been suggested) might be responsible for the trip to the hospital characterized by Courteney
Ross? Does it surprise you that, considering that statues have been erected in his honor, that not one
media outlet has pursued the possibility that George Floyd’s hospitalization might be a result of Covid-
19? The logic path is rather clear, in my opinion, and even if there are a few inherent assumptions, it
would paint Mr. Floyd is a positive light. Why haven’t the media looked very deeply into this possibility?
Take the Rao article as one example: it describes George Floyd very favorably but does not question
whether he might have been hospitalized due to Covid-19 rather than an overdose on 6 March 2020.
Likewise, it does not explore the possibility that the fentanyl in George Floyd’s system, according to the
autopsy report, might have been introduced without his knowledge. Even if there were only a slight
chance, the Rao story, among others, might have at least posed the possibility.

Near the end of the re-direct questioning of Courteney Ross, a few exchanges took place which
demonstrated a curious difference between what Ross recalled and what appeared in the FBI-recorded
transcript. In fact, Ross expressed frustration several times about differences in her recollection of what
she told the FBI and what was written by the FBI questioners in the transcript.

57:10 Atty: “Do you recall telling the FBI that when you had that (drug) you felt like you were going to
die?”

Ross: “ I don’t remember saying that, but I did see that in the transcript.”

57:34 Atty: “And is that how you felt, like you were going to die?”

Ross: “I don’t remember feeling that way. No. I didn’t recall even saying that.”

Time 1:00:10

Defense atty: “Do you recall telling the FBI there would be times that he would be up bouncing around
and then there would be times when he was unintelligible?”

Ross: “I don’t recall that. But…”

Def. atty: “Would you disagree if I said that is in the transcript?”

Ross: “No, I wouldn’t disagree with that.”

It seems strange to me that a *prosecution* witness would have so many occasions to disagree with an
FBI-recorded transcript. If one listens to the last comment by Ross in particular, it seems she accepted
that virtually *anything* could have been in the transcript.

The attorney for the prosecution acknowledged this potential problem in Redirect, starting at 1:02:00

Pros. Atty: “Just a few follow up questions for you…. I just want you to clarify for the jury, you’re not
trying to mislead them or anything, what you’re saying is that you personally didn’t see the sale (of
drugs from Mr. Hall to Mr. Floyd).”

Ross: “No, I didn’t. I just wanted to say what I saw.”

Pros. Atty: “But you think that’s probably where those pills came from.”

Ross: “Yes.”
Pros atty: “You don’t disagree with that.”

Ross: “No, I don’t.”

Atty: “You just personally didn’t see it.”

Ross: “Exactly”

Atty: “Incidentally, what did he call his mother? What did he refer to her as?”

Ross: “He called her ‘Mama’ too, but the way he said it’s just different that way he said it. It’s kind of
hard to describe.” (She paused sobbing throughout her answer.)

---

There are two interesting points to be made in this redirect. I’m not an expert, but it seems to me that
the prosecuting led the witness in the questioning. However, the defense attorney did not object since
the prosecutor reinforced a point that the defense attorney wished to make: that Floyd purchased drugs
from Mr. Hall.

It is an interesting paradox that *both* the prosecution and the defense had a motivation to elevate the
perception of George Floyd’s drug habit. The prosecution wished to demonstrate that the drugs were
the primary contributor, as opposed to Mr. Chauvin’s actions, to Mr. Floyd’s death. Meanwhile, the
portrayal of George Floyd as a habitual user of drugs allowed the prosecution to argue that Floyd’s drug
resistance would have been sufficient to leave him largely unaffected by the level of drugs found in his
autopsy. So who is left to assert that George Floyd did not use fentanyl? Would George Floyd’s family
have objected to this line of argument by the prosecution (as well as the defense)? Perhaps that was a
motivating factor for the multi-million dollar settlement which was arranged with the Floyd family prior
to the trial. In any case, it was clear that the prosecutor was quite interested in reinforcing the argument
that the George Floyd chose to use drugs. It also seemed extraordinarily important to establish that the
drugs came from Mr. Hall as opposed to another source. Why do you suppose the source of the drugs
found in George Floyd’s system mattered so much to the prosecutor? After all, it would not matter with
respect to his drug resistance, right? On the other hand, it *might* matter if the goal was to ensure that
no one would suspect a source of drugs other than Mr. Hall.

Also, it is an extraordinary juxtaposition of a critical question (from whom Floyd might have fentanyl)
with a trivial non-sequitur (what George Floyd called his mother). Yet which clip appeared on the media?
You guessed it – the idea that George Floyd called both his mother and his girlfriend ‘Mama’ capture the
imagination of millions (who apparently had never heard songs from the 1970’s before).

----

A famous saying by Sun Tzu is “To know your enemy, you must become your enemy.” Suppose you
wished to impose a totalitarian system upon the United States. One approach would be to look for any
form of cultural weakness. Such a list might include: (1) a history of racism, (2) media controlled by a
relatively small group of few elites, (3) a political system reliant on outdated election technology, (4) a
concentration of power in the president and agencies under him, (5) the ability of lobbyists to influence
lawmaking through monetary support, (6) the ability to pacify the citizenry by ensuring strong
performance for stock prices, and (7) a focus on short-term rather than long-term outcomes.

An enemy might view an effective way to wage an information war as: (1) cause an apparent act of
racism to occur, (2) influence the elite group who controls the media to amplify the message that the US
is fatally flawed and its system of government must be changed, (3) manipulate the election process in
order to (4) control who becomes president, (5) provide funds to influence legislators to vote for bills
supporting this new system, (6) pump money into Wall Street to ensure good stock performance, and
(7) promote short-term success in exchange for long-term costs.

Here, let’s focus only on points one and two. What if our enemies sought to use an act of overt racism to
stimulate a negative mindset in the United States? And what if the media worked very diligently to
support this narrative that racism in the United States renders our present system of government
irredeemable?

In that circumstance, it would behoove our enemies to compensate a White officer, like Derek Chauvin,
to kill an African-American man in broad daylight in front of many witnesses who record the event.
Furthermore, a compliant media would initially downplay the possibility that the murder could have
been premeditated. If this latter statement seems a stretch, I ask you to consider the following
comments made by the attorney for George Floyd’s family, Ben Crump, as quoted in Newsweek
(https://www.newsweek.com/derek-chauvin-george-floyd-nightclub-minneapolis-1509880):

“Speaking to CBS, the lawyer representing Floyd's family previously said he is hopeful Chauvin may still
be charged with first-degree murder as he knew Floyd. ’That is going to be an interesting aspect to this
case and hopefully upgrading these charges to first-degree murder because we believe he knew who
George Floyd was,’ attorney Ben Crump said.”

I Agree with Ben Crump’s statement spoken on behalf of George Floyd’s Family.

In the same story: “A former coworker of George Floyd and former Minneapolis police officer Derek
Chauvin has come forward to claim that the pair clashed while they worked together at a nightclub.
David Pinney, who also worked at the El Nuevo Rodeo club in Minneapolis, told CBS Evening News that
Chauvin and the man he is accused of murdering “bumped heads" while on shifts together. ‘It has a lot
to do with Derek being extremely aggressive within the club with some of the patrons, which was an
issue,’ Pinney said.

Pinney added that he is sure that Chauvin would have recognized Floyd as he kept his knee on his neck
for several minutes while the 46-year-old called out "I can't breathe" last month.

"He knew him," Pinney said. "I would say pretty well."

From the same story, “Last month, Maya Santamaria, the owner of the since burned down club, first
revealed that Chauvin and Floyd had worked together. She said that Chauvin had worked on and off for
17 years as an off-duty officer at the club, while Floyd had been employed as security inside the venue
for around a year. Speaking to KSTP, Santamaria said she wasn't sure how much contact the pair had
with each other.

‘They were working together at the same time, it's just that Chauvin worked outside and the security
guards were inside,’ she said.”

Consider also this statement from the Rao article: “Floyd did not go out seeking attention, but his
physical bearing demanded it – people looked at him wherever he went.”

At 6’5 and 240 pounds, George Floyd would arguably get the attention of any security guard. It is
inconceivable that an experienced police officer would miss him. By contrast, Chauvin is of typical
stature and may not have been so easily recognized by George Floyd, especially if he was drugged prior
to his interaction with Chauvin.

Yet the Rao article, arguably the most detailed media profile of Floyd failed to convey the following:

1) George Floyd was likely hospitalized for Covid-19 rather than drug overdose in March 2020.
2) George Floyd’s family believed that Derek Chauvin knew who Floyd was when he killed him and
wanted the prosecution to pursue first degree murder charges.
3) There is no evidence from the Chauvin trial that George Floyd chose to use heroin or Fentanyl,
and thus it is conceivable that George Floyd was drugged without his knowledge.

Recall at the outset that my goal was to persuade the skeptical reader to accept a mere 10% likelihood
that this third point is possible. Are you there yet? Even if not, would not these three points be fair for
media outlets to discuss, especially if they wish to emphasize positive aspects of Mr. Floyd? Is this essay
the first time that you have seen these areas raised? Why do you think that might be?

For those who are White and politically conservative, I ask: Could it be that YOU are the target of
disinformation? Perhaps the goal of a subversive media is to convince you that George Floyd is a guilty
man so that you will have sympathy for a murderer – Derek Chauvin. Have you, consciously or
subconsciously, found ways to justify his some of actions?

For those who remain skeptical, I ask you to briefly take a leap of faith. Suppose you were drugged with
a substance without knowing its effects on you. Suppose you were resting comfortably, say in your car
after providing what you felt was an IOU to a store where you were a regular customer, and were
suddenly accosted by individuals in a trusted position. Suppose that, unbeknownst to you, those you
trusted were actually were motivated via some type of compensation to do you great harm, even to the
point of killing you.

Consider your answer very carefully because perhaps you will start to appreciate that, regardless of your
race or creed, what happened to George Floyd may be happening to YOU.

A poignant moment during the interaction between Chauvin and Floyd arrived when Floyd cried out,
“I’m not that kind of guy. I’m not a bad guy.” The Rao story demonstrates that George Floyd found
redemption in his life when he moved to Minnesota. I plea to those of you who are predisposed to judge
George Floyd harshly based on a misleading media narrative which conceals his humanity beneath the
veneer of victimhood to reconsider your stance. I ask you to take this moment to contemplate and to
mourn the death of George Floyd in a new way.

I believe George Floyd WAS an innocent man. I believe Derek Chauvin knew Who George Floyd was, and
I believe Chauvin committed *pre-meditated* murder. In fact, I will go further: I believe George Floyd
was set up with a plan that involved *many* other people. I believe George Floyd’s murder was part of a
highly sophisticated plot to characterize the United States – and Western democratic systems, in general
– as irredeemably racist.

___

I invite you to walk just one more mile with me…

What if a plan to murder of George Floyd was concocted by those who wish to diminish the influence of
Western democracies, embodied by the United States of America? What if those who executed such a
plan used virtually limitless monetary resources to recruit Minneapolis police officers to carry out their
plan? What if their goal was- and remains- to undermine trust of US citizens in American fundamental
governmental systems and to enflames racial tension, by bribing a White police officer torture and kill
an innocent man: George Floyd?

Could it be that another goal of the planners was to “reset” our way of life by convincing our lawmakers
to trade away our fundamental freedoms in exchange for a perceived “safety” from a lab-originated,
man-made virus? Is it possible that the goal of this cabal is to transform the United States into a
totalitarian (communist or fascist) state controlled by “the elite”?

The trust of the public in many American institutions, including the media, has been broken over the
past two years by (1) the false characterization as a “conspiracy theory” that SARS-COV-2 might have
originated in a lab in China, (2) the active restriction of widespread use of early treatment for Covid-19
using inexpensive anti-viral drugs, and (3) incessant promotion of Covid vaccines which have clearly
performed disappointingly in preventing SARS-COV-2 and which have led to an extraordinary number
and scope of adverse reactions.

Many of us identify troubling signs and are anxiously waiting for those in the highest levels of
government and our numerous intelligence and law enforcement agencies to protect us from those who
mean us harm. But our patience is wearing thin. In my opinion, it is more evident day-by-day that many
at the *very highest* positions in our government are working with our adversaries to destroy our
constitutional republic and American way of life from within. Western-style democracy should never be
discarded, and it is wrong to characterize our values as unjust. It is clear, now more than ever, that the
citizens of the United States must stand up to reclaim our freedom.

The Framers of our Constitution established our system such that we are able to rectify mistakes, and
we often succeed in doing so. For example, the Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. was once imprisoned
for advocating for civil rights, but he now is revered throughout our society. One reason we admire Dr.
King is that his words and ideas transcend a single timeframe or set of ideas to encompass the breadth
of our liberty. Permit me to apply Dr. King’s inspirational words and principles to convey a message
appropriate for our present times….

Let freedom ring from the top of the Empire State Building. Let freedom ring from the curvaceous
slopes of California. Let freedom ring throughout our land. Do not break our solemn covenant with
future generations! Do not allow the freedom we enjoy to be taken away from our children and
grandchildren.

But not only that… let freedom ring from all the proud bastions of democracy around the world. Do not
accept the shackles of “vaccine passports” or a “social credit system” in any society which values liberty.

But let us not forget those who arguably have suffered more than anyone else at the hands of
totalitarian, murderous tyrants…. Let freedom ring from the highest mountains of the Himalayas to fill
the hearts of the oppressed throughout Tibet and throughout Xinjiang! Let freedom ring throughout the
skyscrapers and the streets of Hong Kong! And… let freedom ring… in Tiananmen Square!

Communism enslaves its people to serve at the feet of the elite rulers and can only be maintained by
violent oppression. Anyone who falsely believes that the people of China simply “prefer Communism” or
“would not understand any other form of government” due to culture or ethnicity have totally failed to
grasp the essence of Dr. King’s message. The desire for liberty is more than an American value – it is an
inherent part of the human spirit.

When we allow freedom to ring from every village and every hamlet, from every country and every city
throughout the world, we will be able to speed up the day when ALL God’s children will be able to join
hands and sing, “Free at last, free at last! Thank God almighty, we are free at last!”

Those in Western societies who have been persuaded – and corrupted- by promises of money and
power to cast a blind eye to the crimes against humanity carried out in communist countries have lost
their way. They are unfit to serve as leaders of any entity in our society.

___

In conclusion, I ask you to consider excerpts from this Voice of America story from 4 June 2020, “The
daytime protests this week across the US have been largely peaceful, consisting of people drawn from
all racial backgrounds and all walks of life, young and old…. But many of the nights since Floyd’s death
have been different, full of rampant pillaging, arson, and vandalism and brawling with police…. Who’s
behinds the violence? ...Law enforcement officials in several states and cities contacted by VOA say they
believe out-of-state actors seeded themselves within the overwhelmingly non-violent local community
protestors… ‘Some people being arrested appear to be affiliated with the hard left, but others seem to
be form the far right’ (according to Professor Brian Levin).”

Setting aside motivation, consider that much of the violence (as described by VOA) took place in
multiple cities across the US took place on within one week of George Floyd’s murder the evening of 25
May 2020. Recall that they came after Derek Chauvin had been charged with murder only two days after
George Floyd’s death. Pause and reflect how much effort would be required to coordinate and execute
the rioting carried out across so many different geographical locations. Does it seem reasonable that
such sophisticated logistical planning would have been carried out in only a few days? Perhaps the
simplest explanation for such an apparent level of organization by those who carried out the violent acts
is that the planning took place for more far longer than just one week. Perhaps the first act of violence
carried out by the few instigators amidst the many sincere non-violent protestors in the name of George
Floyd… was the murder George Floyd himself.

( https://www.voanews.com/a/usa_whos-behind-violence-george-floyd-protests-us/6190522.html )

It would follow that there may be no words more feared by our adversaries more than these: “I believe
that George Floyd was an innocent man.” Do not be afraid to speak them. Time will tell whether more
corroborating evidence might come to light.

In the meantime... May the Force be with you.