Skip to main content

Output Analysis: Law 4 - Trusted Investigations

Does the Law Meet the Human Requirements?​

Requirement: Trusted people each get a team within FBI and within US intelligence​

MET. Section 2 establishes two teams per Designated Trusted Investigator (one FBI, one intelligence), totaling six teams.

Requirement: Trusted person chooses who they work with​

MET. Section 3(a) gives sole authority to select team members.

Requirement: Government employees do the investigation​

MET. Section 3(d) provides for government employees to be temporarily reassigned.

Requirement: Nothing is allowed to stop them​

MET. Section 4(b) prohibits any limitation. Section 7 makes obstruction a 15-year crime. Section 9 provides personal security.

Requirement: Allowed to release information​

MET. Section 5(a) grants public release authority. Section 5(e) allows interim releases at any time.

Requirement: Classified info removed but results disclosed​

MET. Section 5(b-c) allows only narrow redactions. Substance must always be disclosed.

Requirement: Government employees can submit requests to join​

MET. Section 3(b) allows direct submission to Designated Trusted Investigator, bypassing chain of command.

Requirement: Illegal for managers to block or persecute​

MET. Section 3(c) makes it unlawful, including prohibiting surveillance of communications about team membership.

Requirement: Any government employee can send information for disclosure​

MET. Section 8(a) allows direct submission to any team.

Requirement: Illegal to persecute anyone for disclosing​

MET. Section 8(b-d) provides criminal penalties, reinstatement, treble damages, and rebuttable presumption.

Requirement: Trusted people are Candace Owens, Dave Smith, Tucker Carlson​

MET. Section 1(a) names all three.

Requirement: Broadly investigate any and all information​

MET. Section 4(a) gives access to ALL records from Laws 1 and 2 plus all Schedule A items. Section 6 mandates investigation of all 175 items.

Requirement: Include the 175 items as mandatory investigation targets​

MET. Section 6 enumerates 8 investigation categories from the 175 items. Section 6(b) requires individual tracking. Section 11(b) requires final report to address all 175 items individually.

Key Improvements Over Previous Version​

FeaturePreviousCurrent
Investigation scopeGeneral authority175 items as mandatory targets (Section 6)
Schedule A integrationNoneFull enumeration and tracking
Personal securityNot addressedDedicated security detail (Section 9)
Anti-surveillanceNot addressedCrime to surveil investigators (Section 9(b-c))
SuccessionNot addressedJoint nomination by remaining investigators (Section 10)
Report requirementsGeneralMust address all 175 items individually
Access to Laws 1-2 recordsNot specifiedExplicit access (Section 4(a))
Coordination mechanismNot addressedVoluntary shared findings database (Section 12)
Communication protectionNot addressedCrime to monitor team membership communications (Section 3(c))

Potential Problems​

Problem 1: Appointments Clause Challenge​

Naming private citizens with government authority may face constitutional challenge. Recommendation: Structure as congressional appointees under Article I. The 9/11 Commission provides precedent for private citizens with government investigative power.

Problem 2: Personal Security Threats​

Given the nature of this investigation, Designated Trusted Investigators face real security risks. Mitigation: Section 9 now provides dedicated security details and criminalizes surveillance of investigators.

Problem 3: All Three Investigators Compromised​

No mechanism if all three are incapacitated. Mitigation: Section 10 provides succession mechanism. If all three are simultaneously unable to serve, congressional committees should have backup appointment authority.

Problem 4: Coordination Between Teams​

Six independent teams may duplicate effort. Mitigation: Section 12 provides voluntary coordination mechanism while preserving independence. Redundancy is a feature, not a bug -- it makes suppression nearly impossible.

Recommendations​

  1. Address Appointments Clause by structuring as congressional appointees
  2. Add backup congressional appointment authority if all three investigators cannot serve
  3. Consider adding independent legal counsel funded by investigation budget (DONE in Section 2(d))
  4. Ensure investigators' Schedule A tracking is public so citizens can monitor progress

Interesting In This Area​

  • Six teams in total: one FBI and one intelligence team per investigator.
  • Obstruction carries fifteen years; the requirements page is where that demand originated.
  • The notes list the counter-argument: naming private citizens in statute is unusual.
  • Law 2's audit uses the same MET-by-section format for intelligence disclosure.

Other Pages In This Section​

Law 2: Charlie Kirk Investigation - Intelligence Services Disclosure Act

Full text of the intelligence disclosure act: CIA, NSA, DIA, NRO and every IC element releasing findings within 30 days, with protection limited to active sources.

Read this

SVG Slide Requirements — Law #3

The slide specification for Law 3, in the same deep-navy, red and gold template as the rest. One message has to land in one frame: investigating this killing is a duty, not a choice.

Read this

Problems, Vulnerabilities, and Recommended Fixes — FIXED ITEMS

The attorney review of all four bills, with the vulnerabilities already closed — including the slow-rolling defence of producing records in a format nobody can search. Each item names the section that fixed it.

Read this

Laws Not Complying with Charter (List_Of_Laws.md) -- Comprehensive Analysis

Every place the four drafts drift from their own charter, item by item: counts that do not match, a Definitions section buried behind Schedule A, and a required disclaimer Law 1 never carries. A charter is only worth something if somebody audits against it.

Read this

Elsewhere In The Investigation​

DOJ Prosecution and Evidence Secrecy

The public record on the charges and evidence handling, plus the sealing questions commentators raise. Digital-forensics warrants were reportedly sealed well into 2026, limiting outside review.

Read this
This image is a digital screenshot of a news article from the WEAR News 3 website, viewed on a mobile device.

Court & Trial

State of Utah v. Tyler Robinson, case 251403576, is where the government's narrative meets adversarial testing — every court date, the day-by-day preliminary hearing transcripts, and the inconclusive ATF ballistics.

Read this

This website's author is @HolonCitizen on X and YouTube/@HolonCitizen. Follow me there.

Interesting​

  • Law 2 would force Congress to explain electronic jamming at UVU.
  • UVU runs its own drone program yet reportedly flew none that day.
  • A cross-section diagram claims a below-grade service cavity sat under the stage. The electrocution story built on it appears to be a fed-slop narrative: no burn, arc mark, or current path has been reported, and the evidence points to an explosive at the microphone.