Who's A Rat - Largest Online Database of Informants and Agents
HomeMembers LoginLatest NewsRefer A LawyerMessage BoardOnline StoreAffiliatesAbout UsContact Us
Who's A Rat - Largest Online Database of Informants and Agents Worldwide!
Site Navigation
Visit Our Store
Refer A Lawyer
Affiliates
Link To Us
Latest News
Top Secret Documents
Make A Donation
Important Case Law
Members Login
Feedback
Message Board
Legal Information
Advertise your AD, Book or Movie

Informants and Agents?Who's a Rat Message Board

WhosaRat.com
Sign up Calendar
 
 
 


Reply
  Author   Comment   Page 1 of 5      1   2   3   4   Next   »
joeb

Registered:
Posts: 8,417
Reply with quote  #1 
Posts here detail how the FBI  "crime family" have their tentacles into everything, as they should.
After all this is the organization that got away with wacking President Kennedy and Martin Luther King, creating the 1993 1st World Trade Center bombing Oklahoma City bombing and 911.


you do know what to do,eh?
see link for another tentacle

http://www.macaudailytimes.com.mo/macau/41303-sands-gets-200-new-tables-hires-ex-fbi-agents-to-investigate-money-laundering.html


Sands gets 200 new tables, hires ex-FBI agents to investigate money laundering

Font size:
  Hong Kong actors Louis Koo, Anita Yuen and Athena Chu cement their handprints and signatures for the upcoming Avenue of the Stars

 

Sands China will have 200 new gaming tables and some of them will start operating by early next month, according to the casino-resort’s CEO Edward Tracy, who also said they hired three former FBI agents
0
joeb

Registered:
Posts: 8,417
Reply with quote  #2 
see link for full stories


1st read
http://www.thedailystar.net/newDesign/latest_news.php?nid=44439




Wednesday, January 30, 2013

FBI plans to appoint representative in Dhaka

The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) of the United States has planned to appoint a permanent representative in Dhaka, who would assist Bangladeshi authorities in joint investigative endeavours.

The plan for appointing a permanent representative was discussed with Bangladesh government officials, including Home Minister MK Alamgir and Inspector General of Police Hassan Mahmood Khandaker, during the visit of Michael S Welch, FBI Assistant Director for International Operations.




2nd read

William Pepper: US Government Assassinated MLK













0
joeb

Registered:
Posts: 8,417
Reply with quote  #3 
see link for full story

http://www.sfbg.com/politics/2013/01/31/activists-slam-hollow-report-sfpd-fbi-spying#comment-86286



Activists slam hollow report on SFPD-FBI spying


Police Chief Greg Suhr refused to elaborate on SFPD-FBI activities during the Jan. 23 Police Commission hearing.

 

The San Francisco Police Department continues to resist meaningful oversight of its partnership with the FBI's Joint Terrorism Task Force. After last year pressuring Mayor Ed Lee into vetoing a strong oversight measure and signing a weaker version, the SFPD last week issued a required report that activists are slamming as “grossly inadequate.”

The Coalition for a Safe San Francisco – which includes civil libertarians and members of Muslim groups and other targets of racial and religious profiling by the FBI – last May stood with Police Chief Greg Suhr and sponsoring Sup. Jane Kim as Lee signed what they called this “historic civil rights legislation.”

But at the time, the activists told the Guardian that the value of the watered-down legislation depended entirely on how it was implemented, particularly in the annual reports on SFPD-FBI operations that it required. To ensure they were specific enough to be meaningful, the coalition says it communicated with Suhr several times asking him to include the number of joint investigations undertaken, how many times FBI requests were denied by the SFPD, and possible violations of department policy and how they were handled.

Instead, when Deputy Chief John Loftus gave the first of these annual reports to the Police Commission on Jan. 23, he spoke for only a couple minutes and said the SFPD was in “full compliance” with the ordinance and a Suhr general order banning surveillance of law-abiding citizens, offering no further details.

“We were very clear with the chief about what we expected to see,” Nadia Kayyali of the Bill of Rights Defense Committee, a coalition member, told the Guardian. She also said the report “was slipped on the agenda at the last minute,” despite assurances that the coalition would be notified and given a chance to respond. “It does show a lack of regard for the ordinance and the work that went into it.”

The activists say that Suhr broke his promise to them to include the more specific information that they sought, even after they recently followed up with messages reminding him about that assurance. "It was in the meeting where he said he would," Nasrina Bargzie with the Asian Law Caucus, another coalition member, told us. Bargzie said she was disappointed and dismayed by what the report included, "but we're going to keep pushing on it."

The controversy surrounding possible SFPD-FBI spying on people who haven't violated any laws – which is illegal under local and state law – broke almost two years ago when the American Civil Liberties Union obtained a secret 2007 SFPD-FBI memorandum of understanding placing SFPD officers under FBI command. It seemed to bypass local restrictions adopted after past SFPD scandals involving police spying on political groups.

Suhr tried to quell the controversy by issuing a general order banning officers from participating in surveillance that violates local rules or the state constitution's privacy protections, but activists pushed for a stronger assurance. The Board of Supervisors then voted 6-5 to codify those protections into city law, but Suhr objected and Lee vetoed the measure. A weaker version calling for annual reports and Police Commission reviews of future SFPD-FBI MOUs was approved unanimously by the board.

Now, it appears the SFPD has done little to soften the “trust us” stance that it has taken from the beginning, frustrating activists who had pushed for more, here and in other cities that do domestic surveillance with the FBI.

“These policies are explicit and unequivocal. San Francisco Police Department members and their Joint Terrorism Task Force supervisors are aware of and familiar with these policies,” Loftus told the commission, explaining that the SFPD did its required quarterly reviews in November and two weeks ago, finding nothing to report.

Police Commissioner Suzy Loftus asked if he could “explain a bit more” and Suhr – who was at the stand giving his report as Loftus gave his from the lectern – answered: “All San Francisco police officers are held to the San Francisco Police Department policies and procedures and the policies and laws of San Francisco, whichever is more strict. So depending on wherever they are, their fallback, if you will, is whatever the policies, procedures, laws, ordinances, and all of San Francisco.”

That answer seemed to satisfy the commission, which defended the SFPD's secretive approach rather than asking any more questions.

“Our officers will not participate in any investigation unless there is a predicate offense that is a violation of the California Penal Code or the United States code, so they will not be involved in random surveillance or random assessments or talking to people,” Commission President Thomas Mazzucco s

0
joeb

Registered:
Posts: 8,417
Reply with quote  #4 
Mon Feb 4, 2013 1:47PM GMT
13
4208
 
286
 
The grandson of the late African-American civil rights leader Malcolm X has been arrested by FBI agents on his way to Iran, Press TV reports.


Muslim civil activist Malcolm Shabazz was reportedly arrested before starting his scheduled visit to Tehran to attend a conference on Hollywoodism, sources outside the United States confirmed on Monday.

The Federal Bureau of Investigation has refused to provide any information about his whereabouts.

Tehran hosted the third Hollywoodism International Conference, on the sidelines of the 31st Fajr International Film Festival in the Iranian capital Tehran on Sunday.

Many filmmakers, directors, actors, and movie critics as well as politicians and economists took part in the conference.

Mike Gravel, a former US Senator who attended the conference, condemned Hollywood’s role in imposing imperialistic views on the people of the world.

“Hollywood is just a tool of the American government and European governments to pursue their imperialistic views whether it is in economy...culture…or religion,” Gravel stated.

The first Hollywoodism and Cinema Conference was held in Iran in 2011.
0
joeb

Registered:
Posts: 8,417
Reply with quote  #5 
see link for full story
http://www.bizjournals.com/philadelphia/news/2013/02/05/former-fbi-director-penn-state.html



Feb 5, 2013, 10:18am EST

Former FBI director, Penn State investigator Freeh to chair Phila. law firm

 
 

Just five months after joining the firm, former FBI Director Louis J. Freeh will succeed Nina M. Gussack as chairman of the 500-lawyer Pepper Hamilton.

Firm officials said the transition will take place later this month.

Gussack is completing her second three-year term. She will continue her full-time practice of law and serve as chairwoman of Pepper’s health effects litigation practice, a role she retained while serving as firm chair.

Freeh, 63, who was hired by Penn State University to conduct an investigation and file a report on the school’s response to the Jerry Sandusky scandal, merged his 12-lawyer, Wilmington, Del.-based firm, Freeh Sporkin & Sullivan, into Pepper Hamilton in late August.

Freeh, a native of Jersey City, N.J., graduated from Rutgers University in 1971, Rutgers School of Law-Newark in 1974 and obtained an LL.M. degree in criminal law from New York University School of Law in 1984. He began his career as an FBI agent (1975 to 1981) before becoming an assistant U.S. Attorney in Manhattan for 10 years. In 1991, President George H.W. Bush selected Freeh to serve as a U.S. District Court judge in the Southern District of New York. President Bill Clinton named Freeh as FBI director two years later. He served from September 1993 to June 2001.

0
joeb

Registered:
Posts: 8,417
Reply with quote  #6 
two reads see link for full story



1st read
http://dawn.com/2013/02/06/nab-may-seek-fbi-help-for-officers-training/

NAB may seek FBI help for officers’ training

February 8, 2013
 

 

ISLAMABAD, Feb 5: The National Accountability Bureau (NAB) is likely to seek assistance of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) of the US for training of its 50 old and 350 new investigators.

However, the process of appointment of over 350 investigators has been delayed because of what a NAB official called ‘litigation’ by some aggrieved candidates.

“It has already been decided by NAB chairman Admiral (retd) Fasih Bokhari that NAB investigators would be trained by some foreign agency, probably the FBI,” said NAB’s media wing deputy director Muhammad Irfan.

The main idea behind the decision, he said, was to keep NAB investigators conversant with new investigation skills and methods to investigate white-collar crimes in an effective way.

However, the decision by the NAB chairman appears to be difficult to implement because nobody is sure about the fate of NAB which, according to the government’s plan, could be replaced soon by a new institution called ‘National Accountability Commission’.

Another NAB official said that initially a batch of 50 investigation officers would be sent to the US for training.




2nd read

http://www.nytimes.com/books/first/k/kelly-evidence.html

Tainting Evidence
Inside the Scandals at the FBI Crime Lab


By JOHN F. KELLY and PHILLIP K. WEARNE
The Free Press

 

 

Prologue: Examining the Examiners

The tall, graying legislator strode past the American flag onto the platform of Committee Room 226. With a quick adjustment of his black-and-white spotted tie, he seated himself at the center of a semicircular dais under the carved eagle on the hardwood-paneled wall. As the lights of six television cameras were switched on and photographers and cameramen began to jostle for position, Senator Charles Grassley of Iowa began to read slowly from three sheets of paper. It was his opening statement as chairman of the Senate Subcommittee on Administrative Oversight into the Courts at hearings entitled, "A Review of the FBI Laboratory: Beyond the Inspector General's Report."

His purpose, he explained, was to help restore public confidence in federal law enforcement in general and the Federal Bureau of Investigation in particular. But the facts the senator went on to outline hardly seemed likely to do that. The hearings had had to be postponed twice, he stated, because of the FBI's refusal to cooperate by supplying requested documentation and by making FBI employees available to testify without the bureau's lawyers present. This, Senator Grassley said, was despite FBI director Louis Freeh's appeal for more oversight to another congressional subcommittee just four months earlier, when he had stated that the FBI could be the most dangerous agency in the country if "not scrutinized carefully."

Senator Grassley said the FBI was being hypocritical. "It is not the message that rings true. It's the actions. The Bureau's actions contradict the director's assertion that it is inviting oversight. And until the actions match the words, the ghosts of FBI past are still very much in the present." He went on to say that he expected the requested documentation to arrive the moment the hearings finished. In fact, within an hour, Senator Grassley had to apologize to the packed committee room for being "so cynical." The documents had arrived but were so heavily redacted as to be virtually useless, he said, holding up page after page of blacked-out FBI memos.

Senator Grassley's hearings took place in the wake of the release five months earlier of a damning 517-page report by the Inspector General's Office of the Department of Justice, the result of an eighteen-month investigation into the FBI laboratory. The investigators had included a panel of five internationally renowned forensic scientists, the first time in its sixty-five-year history that the FBI lab, considered by many -- not least, by itself -- the best in the world, had been subject to any form of external scientific scrutiny. The findings were alarming. FBI examiners had given scientifically flawed, inaccurate, and overstated testimony under oath in court; had altered the lab reports of examiners to give them a pro-prosecutorial slant, and had failed to document tests and examinations from which they drew incriminating conclusions, thus ensuring that their work could never be properly checked.

FBI lab management, meanwhile, had failed to check examinations and lab reports; had overseen a woefully inadequate record retention system; and had not only failed to investigate serious and credible allegations of incompetence but had covered them up. Management had also resisted any form of external scrutiny of the lab and had failed to establish and enforce its own validated scientific procedures and protocols -- the same ones that had been issued by managers themselves in an effort to combat the lab's known shortcomings in the first place.

But the IG's report, shocking as its conclusions were, was severely limited. It had looked at just three of seven units in the FBI lab's Scientific Analysis Section, a fraction of the lab's total of twenty-seven units.* The IG had been mandated to look into the specific allegations of just one man, Dr. Frederic Whitehurst, a Ph.D. chemist and FBI supervisory special agent who for eight years, until 1994, had worked solely on explosives-residue analysis -- trace detection, and identification of the residue left behind by explosions in the lab's Materials Analysis Unit.

For nearly ten years, until he was suspended and put on "administrative leave" just weeks before the IG's report was published in April 1997, Whitehurst had reported his own observations and what others had told him. Underpinning his complaints and their persistence were three things: the unscientific nature of so much of what was being passed off as science in the FBI lab; the culture of pro-prosecution bias rather than scientific truth that pervaded the lab, including the possibly illegal withholding of exculpatory information; and the complete inability of the FBI lab or its management to investigate itself and correct these problems.

Not only had the IG report confined itself to Whitehurst's admittedly limited sphere of knowledge within the FBI lab, it had no mandate to look into the evidentiary matters raised, to ask how particular cases might have been affected, or to look at the possibility of charges against FBI lab employees heavily criticized by the report. Given the plentiful evidence of pro prosecution bias, false testimony, and inadequate forensic work, it was only logical to assume that cases had been affected. How many people might be in jail unjustly? How many might be on Death Row by mistake? If innocent people were in jail for crimes they did not commit, how many guilty ones were walking the streets?

Senator Grassley and others in Congress quickly realized that the inspector general's report had to be the beginning, not the end. The issues Whitehurst had raised, the inspector general had investigated, and now the hearings were examining further, went to the heart of the credibility of justice and the courts in the United States. In the end, the IG's report had raised more questions than it had answered, not least perhaps the most important of all: How had this happened in the first place and how might it be avoided in the future?

The task of assessing what exculpatory evidence had been withheld, how many cases had been affected, and who in the FBI lab, if anyone, should face charges for what had been uncovered had now fallen to a task force in the Criminal Division of the Justice Department. The task force had to identify the prosecutors in each case, then release forensic documentation to them in order to allow them to decide if anything crucial had been withheld. The floodgates, in other words, were controlled by the nation's prosecutors, whose records had been built on legal victories they were now supposed to question. "Is it cynical to question whether these prosecutors are virtually the worst officials to objectively evaluate tainted evidence in their own cases? Clearly the fox is guarding the henhouse," noted Congressman Robert Wexler at the hearings.

The Justice Department refuses to provide updates as to the progress of the task force or even to name its members. However, the scale of the potential fallout is clear: just one of the numerous examiners heavily criticized by the IG's report handled more than six hundred cases in a decade of work at the FBI lab. Defense lawyers believe that thousands of cases will be affected. "The IG's report was a starting, not a finishing point," says one attorney. "I think we will be living with the ramifications of this for years, and not just in terms of the number of appeals you can expect. No defense lawyer in the country is going to take what the FBI lab says at face value any more. For years they were trusted on the basis of glossy advertising. Now the real product turns out to be a dud."

As Fred Whitehurst, a mustached Vietnam veteran sat, arms crossed, at the back of the room, Senator Grassley went on to recount that it was "the FBI's say-one-thing-do-another habit" that made him hesitant to simply accept assurances that everything was now in order at the FBI lab. "The subcommittee's investigation has revealed that systemic problems remain at the lab....The problems exist and flourish because of a cultural disease within the FBI," Grassley continued. "The question is, how will these changes ensure the integrity of the scientific process within the lab, which seeks to discover the truth, when a culture exists within the FBI to apparently cut corners and slant lab reports in favor of the prosecution, which seeks to convict. The IG report did not reconcile this dilemma. The FBI will not admit the problem exists. That is why we are here today."

During the hearings, senators would hear Congressman Robert Wexler call for legislation to ensure the FBI's "future integrity" and express outrage that Whitehurst, "the courageous whistle-blower, was out...while dozens of FBI agents who suppressed evidence, altered evidence, or testified falsely were still there." Clearly angered by what he had heard at the previous hearings four months earlier, Wexler would now accuse the IG of failing to draw logical conclusions from its own findings. How could obvious lying on the witness stand not be considered perjury? How could the systematic alteration of lab reports to make them more incriminating not be considered intentional?

The committee would hear four past and current FBI lab employees all express support for Whitehurst and the general charges he had made. They would hear Dr. Drew Campbell Richardson, an adviser to the FBI lab's deputy assistant director and a highly qualified scientist, say that the FBI lab ignored scientific evidence that did not suit its purposes. They would hear how Bill Tobin, the FBI's metallurgist, and Jim Corby, Whitehurst's former boss, had made repeated complaints about the same examiners Whitehurst had accused, only to have them ignored. And they would hear how one of those heavily criticized in the report had been promoted to head the FBI lab's Explosives Unit, despite being under investigation at the time, passing over Ed Kelso, a widely respected firearms instructor and bomb expert with twenty-five years experience.

This book seeks to explore how all this happened. It seeks to go beyond the inspector general's informative but restricted investigation of the FBI lab and tell the story that the report did not. It seeks to go beyond Fred Whitehurst's serious but limited allegations and show how what he charged applies to other parts of the FBI lab that were never investigated. We have done this with the help of hundreds of hours of interviews of current and former FBI lab staff and thousands of pages of documents, memos, lab reports, interviews, and audits, many of them only released under the Freedom of Information Act after months of stonewalling by the FBI and the IG's office. Some of these documents were the raw material of the IG's report, a number of them indicating problems with lab units and cases never investigated by the investigators.

There was, of course, no cooperation from the FBI in the writing of this book, although we were allowed to talk to Fred Whitehurst on the same terms as the rest of the media -- essentially, without reference to specific cases. In August 1997, the authors submitted a request to interview twenty past and present lab staff; in September we were told our request had been lost; in October it was still pending. In November the authors received a letter thanking us for our interest in the FBI but turning down our request. One of the themes of this book is the FBI's obsession with how it appears rather than what it actually is. This book and its subject did not fit the Bureau's agenda.

In the Introduction and Chapter 1 we look at the state of forensic science in this country and the FBI lab in particular. We show that while claiming to have investigated Whitehurst's allegations and found no problems, management was fully aware that there were massive problems with the FBI lab, its science, its supervision, and its safety. We show that management knew that if it ever agreed to real external scrutiny, if it was ever forced to publish the research data on which its forensic tests were based, if it ever had to make public the results of its internal proficiency tests, the image of the FBI lab as the best forensic laboratory in the world would rapidly dissolve. For this, as Senator Grassley remarked at the Senate hearings, is a culture that rewards "public image-building over discovering the truth."

The extent of the lab's dysfunction becomes clear in Chapters 2 through 8, where we look at major cases the FBI lab has handled. In particular, we detail the failings of four key FBI staff members -- Terry Rudolph, Tom Thurman, Roger Martz, and David Williams -- whose practices in several high-profile cases demonstrate the dangers of the lab's modus operandi. Some of these are cases the IG looked at -- the World Trade Center bombing, the Unabomber investigation, the VANPAC case, the 0.J. Simpson trial. Others are cases the IG did not investigate or examined only partially -- the lab's role in the Ruby Ridge investigation, the Jeffrey MacDonald case, the Oklahoma City bombing.

All of these are celebrated cases involving massive forensic and other investigative resources. The FBI lab's role in all of them raises a huge and still unanswered question: If this is what happens in these high-profile, well-scrutinized cases, what is happening in thousands of less publicized ones?

In talking to dozens of forensic scientists and FBI lab personnel, one thing has become clear to us. Few were surprised at the revelations of the IG report. Many people, inside and out, have known for many years that there were serious problems at the FBI lab. Very few, however, inside or out, have chosen to speak out. With a few honorable exceptions, forensic scientists outside the FBI lab have been reluctant to take on the Bureau, which now wields enormous power throughout the profession, through training programs, research grants, and consultancy work. Many of those working inside the FBI lab seem to have been intimidated by the climate of fear that is a constant theme of Fred Whitehurst's 237 written complaints. In failing to come forward, or in some cases even to support Fred Whitehurst when he did, they have only themselves to blame for the broad-brush condemnation with which all at the FBI lab, good or bad, have now been tainted. They are in essence living testimony to what Senator Grassley describes as the FBI's "cultural problem."

*Even a recent history of the FBI lab, as this book is, presents one accounting dilemma. The number of units and actions, and even their names, have changed continuously over the years. A case in point is the Hairs and Fibers Unit, later called the Microscopic Analysis Unit, now named the Trace Evidence Unit. Ultimately, the problems described here remain, regardless of the name.

 

Introduction

 

Introduction: Forensic Science the Promise and the Product

Scientific crime-solving, or sci-crime -- it is an image upon which much of the FBI's awesome reputation is based. Humans are fallible, are inclined to lie, and are often motivated by anything but the truth. The history of crime fighting in the United States is littered with eyewitnesses who misidentified a suspect, defense lawyers who persuaded juries to find reasonable doubt, and suspects who had credible alibis. The physical evidence, on the other hand, is the silent, definitive witness. The traces of explosives on Timothy McVeigh's clothes in Oklahoma City, the bloody shoe-prints left by the killer of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ron Goldman in Los Angeles, the saliva traces recovered from the sealed envelope of a letter claiming responsibility for the bombing of the World Trade Center...all these offer certainty. And certainty equals proof.

The means of making physical evidence proof is forensic science, the application of science to legal processes, the application of science to crime fighting. Together or apart, the words "forensic" and "scientific" are today commonly used as everyday adjectives that imply definitive, detailed, and comprehensively argued. It is an image burnished by popular television detective series such as Quincy and the coverage of big cases by Court TV, an image epitomized by the source of the country's most famous forensic science: the FBI's crime lab.

Each year half a million people hear and see the case for forensic science when they take the public tour of the FBI headquarters in downtown Washington, D.C. The J. Edgar Hoover Building is a monstrous, sandy-brown structure that somehow exudes the brooding presence of the man whose name it bears. With an overhanging, slanting top floor -- the seventh at the front, the eleventh at the back -- the FBI's HQ looks as though it might topple onto the traffic in Washington's Pennsylvania Avenue at any moment. Passing the black-and-white photographic portraits of FBI directors and the rogues gallery of the Bureau's "Ten Most Wanted" fugitives, visitors take a narrow escalator to the only working part of the FBI they will see on their visit -- the laboratory. 61 YEARS OF FORENSIC SCIENCE SERVICE, DNA: THE SILENT WITNESS proclaims the sign that greets them. It's the sort of public relations exercise of which J. Edgar Hoover, the FBI's former director -- "The Boss" as he was known to agents for nearly fifty years -- would wholeheartedly approve. To Hoover, image was everything, a legacy that thrives at the FBI to this day.

"The examiners you see are working on real cases," says the guide, as children press their faces to the panes of glass that are all that separate the watchers from the watched. "The FBI is the only place in the United States with a full forensic lab," she adds, spinning through DNA, Firearms-Toolmarks, Hairs and Fibers, Materials Analysis, Chemistry and Toxicology, and Questioned Documents -- some of the visible components of the lab's seven-unit Scientific Analysis Section. Here the victims of serious crime -- rape, murder, violent assault -- are reduced to a piece of bloodstained clothing, a hair from the carpet, an invisible explosives residue on a nondescript piece of debris. Only if photos, tapes, or handwritten notes come in as part of the evidence do such people have the faces, voices, or hands that make them real.

What the tourists see is actually just a fraction of what makes up the FBI's Laboratory Division. The Scientific Analysis Section is one of just four lab sections located at FBI headquarters, all with a bewildering range of state-of-the-art expertise, technology, and capacity. Today's Investigative Operations and Support Section grew out of the Questioned Documents Unit, where examiners detected crime by chasing paper records. They look at everything from receipts to handwriting comparisons, targeting everyone from drug smugglers to kidnappers. Documents also handles all types of impressions -- tire treads, shoe-prints, handwriting, or typing imprints. Today this section includes the specialist polygraph, or "lie detector," unit, a computer analysis unit, a special photographic unit, and specialists in analyzing racketeering records -- illegal gambling, prostitution, loan-sharking, and money-laundering records.

The Special Projects Section is even more diverse, with seven units that handle film, video, and photographs of suspects or victims; the famous artists "impressions" of witnesses' descriptions of suspects; crime scene plans; and now computer art and design. The aging or reconstruction of faces of suspects or victims and the reconstruction of crime scenes are a specialty. This section also prepares all forms of graphics or film used as exhibits at trial and the false credentials or documentation needed by FBI agents or informants for undercover work. Here too is the Evidence Control Center, responsible for the receipt, assignment, and tracking of the thousands of lab samples that are subjected to hundreds of thousands of examinations every year.

Finally, practicing one of the oldest and best-known disciplines of forensic science, there is the FBI lab's Latent Fingerprint Section. Here the main task is developing and comparing fingerprints, palm prints, footprints, and even lip prints with some of the estimated 200 million imprint records stored at the FBI's National Crime Information Center in West Virginia. Under an automated fingerprint identification system now being developed, law enforcement officials anywhere in the country will soon be able to instantly match sample prints with those in the database by means of portable computer images.

Much of the work in all lab departments is clinical, routine, and tedious, even though the samples, which can range from soil to bullet casings, are often anything but. Yet this is by far America's biggest, most important, best equipped, and most famous crime lab. As an examiner here you never know what you are going to get -- it could be a rape one day, an explosion the next, and a product-tampering case the day after that. "Here you might start work on the case of a lifetime any day, anytime," says one employee. And it could come from anywhere. As well as its own cases -- federal crime or crime that involves more than one state -- the FBI lab takes work from state, county, and municipal law enforcement agencies across the nation. As a result, its 694 staff handled 136,629 pieces of evidence and performed nearly 700,000 examinations in 1996.

In the past twenty-five years forensic science has been transformed, "growing up so fast that even the most sophisticated researchers cannot keep up," according to Time magazine. Nowhere more so than in the heart of the FBI lab, the Scientific Analysis Section. Here the traditional scientific paraphernalia, the test tubes, gas tanks, and microscopes that recall school chemistry classes rub shoulders with infrared spectroscopes, Apple and Compaq computers, and mass spectrometers. Forensic science is now genetics and microbiology in DNA typing, nuclear physics in neutron activation analysis, analytical chemistry in infrared, ultraviolet, or X-ray spectrometry, and statistics in computerized number crunching.

These new technologies have in many cases been grafted onto a profession that in many of its traditional subfields, such as fingerprints, questioned documents, ballistics, hairs and fibers, and explosives, is not actually based on science at all but on subjective comparisons by individual examiners. Yet either way, whether the "soft" science of the traditional visual comparisons of two hairs, bullets, or fingerprints or the "hard" science of neutron activation analysis or DNA typing, forensic science ultimately cannot avoid the human factor. The examiners who do the tests, run the machines, and make the comparisons are people. At the FBI lab and the nearly four hundred other crime labs in the United States, those people have turned out to be as flawed as the eyewitnesses, juries, or lawyers who make up the rest of the judicial process.

But if scientific crime-fighting is fallible and flawed, those problems rarely come to light. One exception was in July 1994, when USA Today and the Gannett News Service published a survey. Believing that the claim that the bloody glove found on 0. J. Simpson's estate had been planted was far-fetched, the newspaper trawled legal and media databases for comparative cases. They found eighty-five instances since 1974 in which prosecutors had knowingly or unknowingly used tainted evidence that had convicted the innocent or freed the guilty. In the same period, forty-eight people sentenced to death were freed after convictions were found to be based on fabricated evidence or because exonerating or exculpatory evidence was withheld. And these were just the known cases, cases which for one reason or another had come to light or made the news. "In the United States we take science as gospel," said Ray Taylor, a San Antonio, Texas, lawyer and forensic pathology expert, commenting on the survey. "The public perception is that faking science is rare. The truth is it happens all the time."

The tip of this iceberg has been some shocking individual examples. Fred Salem Zain was a police forensic expert in West Virginia and Texas for nearly fifteen years. Hired as a chemist by West Virginia's police crime lab in 1979, he testified as an expert in dozens of rape and murder cases about tests he had never done and results he had never obtained. Despite complaints, nothing was done. Colleagues taped a magician's wand to one of Zain's lab machines in frustration. In 1989, Zain became head of serology at the Bexar County Medical Examiner's office in San Antonio, Texas. When asked to review Zain's work, a Dallas forensic specialist found rampant fraud and falsification. In one case, Zain had testified about blood evidence when no blood had even been found; in other cases he reported performing tests his lab was incapable of doing. Zain was fired. At the last count, five men jailed for rape and murder had had their convictions overturned as a result.

West Texas pathologist Ralph Erdmann, who worked as a contract medical examiner in forty counties, faked more than one hundred autopsies on unexamined bodies and falsified dozens of toxicology and blood reports. Dozens of other autopsies were botched. In one case, he lost a head. Then there was Louise Robbins, a college anthropology professor who claimed the ability to match a footprint on any surface to the person who made it. Robbins appeared as an expert witness for over a decade in more than twenty criminal cases throughout North America before her claims were seriously undermined. Her testimony helped put more than a dozen people behind bars, including an Ohio man who spent six years on Death Row before his conviction was overturned on appeal.

Michael West was a forensic dentist from Hattiesburg, Mississippi, who appeared as a scientific expert more than sixty times in ten states until 1996. At least twenty of these were capital murder cases. West became famous for his controversial use of long-wave ultraviolet light and yellow-lensed goggles to study wound patterns on a body. The equipment is standard: Ultraviolet light can enhance features on the skin. What West claimed he could see was not standard: No other forensic expert could pick up the lines and marks he claimed to see. Robert Kirschner, a former deputy chief medical examiner who testified against West, says what he did was closer to voodoo or alchemy than science. "History is full of people who claimed they could see things, from ghosts to UFOs," says Kirschner. "But claiming it and proving it are two different things."

The biggest and self-proclaimed best forensic lab in the world has not been immune to such rogues. In February 1975, an internal FBI investigation into the activities of Special Agent Thomas Curran, an examiner in the FBI lab's serology unit, revealed a record of perjury, incompetence, and falsification. At the trial of Thomas Doepel for rape and murder in Washington, D.C., in 1974, Curran testified under oath that he had a bachelor's and a master's degree in science; that both Doepel and the victim were blood type O; and that the defendant's shorts bore a single blood stain. In reality, Curran had no degree in anything; Doepel, on retesting, turned out to be blood type B; and the shorts evidenced two, not one, bloodstains.

After further complaints, FBI special agent Jay Cochran was instructed to do a full review of Curran's work. Curran's aberrations, like Zain's, were common. Curran had issued reports of blood analyses when "no laboratory tests were done"; had relied on presumptive tests to draw up confirmatory results; and had written up inadequate and deceptive lab reports, ignoring or distorting test results. "The real issue is that he chose to ignore the virtue of integrity and to lie when asked if specific tests were conducted," Cochran's report to the then head of the FBI laboratory, Dr. Briggs White stated. It was an early warning of what could happen at the FBI lab. Tom Curran turned out to have lied repeatedly under oath about his credentials, and his reports were persistently deceptive, yet no one -- FBI lab management, defense lawyers, judges -- had noticed. When they did, there was no prosecution for perjury.

Of course, every profession has its rotten apples. Forensic science is no different from the law, medicine, academia, law enforcement, or anything else. The issue is not the Zains or Currans per se, but the questions their conduct raises. How did they get into the profession? How did they get away with it for so long? Why are they not stopped and punished? Why do juries, judges, prosecutors, and even defense attorneys believe them?

Take a close look at forensic science and answers are not hard to come by. The first shock is that most forensic scientists are not in fact independent experts. About 80 percent of forensic scientists in North America are affiliated with police or prosecution agencies. Most of these work in police laboratories; many are themselves law enforcement officers, as are most of their superiors. Fred Zain was a state trooper, promoted to lieutenant; Tom Curran was an FBI special agent. The potential conflicts of loyalties and interests is obvious. Scientists are expected to retain a critical sense, to follow nothing but reason, to maintain an open mind. We expect the results, the science, to bear witness in court unencumbered by any other considerations. Complete impartiality may be an aspirational ideal, but what chance is there of coming anywhere near this ideal if the police or FBI pay your wages?

"It is quite common to find laboratory facilities and personnel who are, for all intents and purposes, an arm of the prosecution," notes James Starts, a professor of law and forensic science at George Washington University in Washington, D.C. "They analyze material submitted, on all but rare occasions, solely by the prosecution. They testify almost exclusively on behalf of the prosecution....As a result, their impartiality is replaced by a viewpoint colored brightly with prosecutorial bias." William Thompson, a professor of criminalistics at the University of California, Irvine, agrees: "The culture of such places, run by police or agents, for police or agents, is often just inimical to good scientific practice. The reward system, promotion, incentives...in the end your pay check is based on successful prosecutions, not good science."

Nowhere is this truer than at the FBI laboratory in Washington, the pinnacle of the forensic science mountain in the United States. Institutional bias here is enshrined in the limitation of the availability of the lab and its services to state and federal law enforcement agencies. The FBI lab works for the prosecution and no one else. It is reinforced by the FBI lab's reluctance to give or take second opinions. Generally, evidence submitted to the FBI laboratory cannot be taken elsewhere, or vice versa, even though that might be considered the peer review deemed essential by scientists. The FBI lab is happy to clear suspects and frequently does. However, defense teams need to get a court order and be prepared to share any findings with the prosecution if they want to use the government-funded facility. Indeed, the lab is even off-limits to defense experts who want to observe testing.

The prosecutorial attitude was made clear by one lab veteran now working privately: "People say we're tainted for the prosecution. Hell, that's what we do! We get our evidence and present it for the prosecution." In the FBI laboratory "getting results," the declared aim of FBI director Louis Freeh, means securing prosecutions. But that is only part of the story. Those on the public tour staring through the viewing windows of the Scientific Analysis Section of the FBI laboratory might be surprised to learn that many of the white-coated figures hunched over microscopes or spectrometers are FBI agents. Some have science degrees, but many, particularly, ironically, those in the most senior positions, do not. They are FBI men and women working for an FBI laboratory.

For more than twenty years the FBI resisted replacing its special agents who work in the laboratory with civilian scientists. Even now, after several years of replacing agents with such personnel, FBI agents continue to run the lab, occupying virtually all the senior management and examiner positions. FBI special agents bring an "extra dimension" to the analysis of physical evidence, the FBI insists. The ideal lab specialist "stands in the shoes of the investigator in the field, whom he is serving," as John McDermott, a senior FBI official, put it to a congressional subcommittee in 1981.

Serving the investigator or serving justice? Close liaison between examining agent and investigator, the core of the FBI's argument, can easily create bias that is often so subtle as to be unconscious. In the first place, there is simply the method of working. "Sometimes they're [the investigators are] pretty confused about what they want, so we'll call them up to find out what they're trying to prove," the then FBI Firearms Toolmarks Unit (FTU) chief Jack Dillon told one author. "Often we can suggest some better ways of doing it." By "doing it," of course, Dillon means trying to build a case for prosecution. "That is what I have come to call putting the cart before the horsing around," says Professor Starts. "They're effectively running the investigation backward, starting with a hypothesis of guilt, then going out to try and prove it. That is not science. These people aren't scientists."

Second, there is suggestive incrimination. Numerous studies have shown that advance warning of the results anticipated, even something as simple as looking for a match or positive identification, is significantly more likely to produce those results. In just one example, experiments in 1975 demonstrated that a witness told by police that a suspect was in an identification lineup was seven times more likely to pick out a suspect than those advised only that a suspect might be present. Expectations can be unconsciously passed on, verbally and nonverbally.

One good example of suggestive incrimination comes from Evan Hodge, a former FTU chief at the FBI laboratory. In an article entitled "Guarding Against Error" he tells the story of a police inspector who took a 1911A1 model .45-caliber pistol to a lab for confirmation that it was a murder weapon. "We know this guy shot the victim and this is the gun he used," the examiner was told. "All we want you to do is confirm what we already know so we can get the scumbag off the street. We will wait. How quick can you do it?" The examiner gave them their instant identification. The suspect confessed and led the police to a second pistol, also a .45, also a 1911A1 model, which lab tests demonstrated was the real murder weapon. "We all do this [give in to investigative pressure] to one extent or another," Evan Hodge admitted, arguing that the only solution is to remove the sources of it from the laboratory completely."

Investigators in the field, and the close contact the FBI lab advocates with them, are one source of pressure. There are many more. Prosecutors are one. Politicians, another. The public, yet another. Few criminal cases today do not lean on forensic science, and as the search for the means to combat crime has intensified, so have the expectations. At the FBI, major cases like TRADBOM (the bomb attack on the World Trade Center in New York City) and OKBOM (the Oklahoma City bombing) get the sort of priority, as well as the public and political attention, that is, in itself, a source of pressure. These cases are too big to leave unsolved in the lab, too big to lose in court. The government will throw infinite investigative and legal resources at them. Lower down the crime lab chain, the stakes may be just as big locally. Careers may depend on results. "Don't expect to get re-elected as a district attorney in this country if a particularly heinous crime goes unsolved on your patch," notes one southern lawyer.

Fred Whitehurst's complaints stemmed from such pressures, in particular the culture clash between the needs of science and the needs of law enforcement that are accentuated by the dominance of a law enforcement ethos rather than that of science in the FBI lab. Many accused him of being unable to make the distinction between pure and practical science. Yet Whitehurst is actually quick to acknowledge the uniqueness of the forensic process within science. The forensic scientist seeks to link a sample to an individual, to a substance, to distinguish it from other specimens in a way no other scientist would even attempt. The forensic scientist's standard fare is the sort of degraded, soiled sample that a research scientist would trash if it ever came near his or her laboratory. The forensic scientist's goal is not pure knowledge but practical supposition.

Whitehurst's contention is simply that such ends have to be underpinned by scientific method, proven protocols, and validated procedures or they yield no proven truth, the ultimate aim of both law and science. Forensic science has to use procedures and processes that have withstood traditional scientific scrutiny -- i.e., been subjected to publication and peer review, the sort of "institutional skepticism" that is the cornerstone of the scientific process. Forensic science examinations should be fully documented, subject to cross examination, and the results and process available to the defense. The reality is somewhat different. The openness, democratic debate, public dissemination, and protracted research that are the hallmarks of proper science contrast sharply with the secrecy, haste, and authoritarian hierarchy of the crime lab.

For years, some lawyers and many scientists have argued that forensic science is hardly a branch of science at all in its refusal and institutional inability to accept or conform to scientific norms. With relatively little research done in forensic science itself, there has been a propensity to adopt or adapt half-baked research done elsewhere. The result: Time after time definitive research in the field of forensic science has only been done after questions have been raised about the accuracy and reliability of its procedures, usually in court. The FBI lab, with the biggest forensic science research facility in the country -- the Forensic Science Research and Training Center at Quantico, Virginia -- has been at the center of many of the resulting disputes.

The forensic history of voiceprints -- the claim that a spectrograph could be used to produce a unique pattern for any single individual's speech -- is particularly instructive. With limited research concluded, a number of courts ruled voiceprints admissible. Only when scientists from other fields challenged the spectrograph research and a major scientific controversy erupted did the FBI ask the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) to review voiceprint technology. An NAS evaluation committee quickly concluded that the theory had not been validated. Yet, incredibly, many courts continued to allow the admissibility of voiceprints long after the NAS study had been published.

Those that present science to the public at public expense are surely obliged to understand its basic precepts. Yet many in the FBI lab do not, as Chapters 2 through 8 of this book amply illustrate. Court records throughout the country are littered with examples. In a recent aggravated assault and burglary trial in Montana, FBI fingerprint expert Michael Wieners asserted that a fingerprint experiment he had done was "scientific" but not "completely scientific." It was not surprising he could not tell the difference. Challenged about his familiarity with peer-reviewed literature on fingerprints, Weiners replied: "Peer reviewed? Could you explain that?"

Complaints about such ignorance preceded Fred Whitehurst's arrival at the FBI lab in 1986. In 1981, three prominent independent forensic scientists criticized FBI science and testimony, citing three cases in a paper delivered at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Forensic Sciences (AAFS) in Los Angeles. The first was a bank robbery case in which the FBI examiner seemed to have been unable to distinguish between a class characteristic and an individual characteristic in identifying a canvas bag, despite having a master's degree in forensic science. In the second case, a rape and murder with semen, blood, saliva, and hair samples, the paper criticized the FBI's typing procedure. The critics also pointed out that two FBI hair examiners who had studied the same hair specimens had disagreed on such fundamentals as how many samples there were, whether they had been bleached, and whether they had pulled roots. The third case involved gun residue on a shooting victim's hands that could have exculpated his wife, the defendant, yet had not been mentioned by the FBI examiner.

The authors of the paper stressed that they did not consider these cases aberrations. These case studies were, they claimed, typical of the problems that occurred repeatedly in crime labs and courts. They noted that FBI lab practice was considered standard by many courts, but emphasized that they were not singling out the FBI laboratory. The Bureau did not see it that way. Shortly after the presentation, a former head of the FBI lab, Thomas Kelleher, Jr., charged that the authors, Peter Barnett, Ed Blake, and Robert Ogle, Jr., had violated the code of ethics of the AAFS in making the presentation. They had, Kelleher claimed, misrepresented the role of the lab and the conclusions of FBI examiners. Thus, the actual leveling of the charges became the subject of an investigation by the AAFS's ethics committee.

Ultimately it was decided that there was not "sufficient evidence of misrepresentation of data" by the authors to support the FBI's allegation. "The FBI's allegations were preposterous. I think we made them look ridiculous," says Ed Blake, a longtime critic of the FBI's forensic science. "We chose the FBI lab to show that crime labs could get it wrong because we thought they were big enough to take a little criticism," chuckles Robert Ogle, Jr. "Fortunately, there was someone with a scientific background on the ethics committee. They just said: 'Look, this is bullshit. You can't bring ethics charges against people for giving a scientific paper at a scientific meeting.'"

Years later, Whitehurst's charges and his treatment would mirror those of these three, whose observations, along with Whitehurst's, would be vindicated by the inspector general's report. As the three critics pointed out in a letter to Professor Starts's quarterly newsletter, Scientific Sleuthing Review, their paper cited "errors or insufficiencies on the part of the original examiner...management deficiency...[and] a lack of knowledge." The IG report, sixteen years later, cited "failures by management" and "significant instances of testimonial errors, substandard analytical work and deficient practices." The damage done to confidence in crime labs in general and the FBI lab in particular might have been avoided if the substance of their charges -- not the fact that they had been made -- had been addressed back in 1981, the three pointed out. But the FBI lab was incapable of addressing these issues or indeed of changing anything about the way it operated. Indeed, the very manner in which the FBI handled Whitehurst's complaints -- dismissing them, burying them, then attacking the messenger rather than the message -- illustrated how little the culture of the FBI lab had changed since 1981.

At the core of what the critical experts were alleging is the poor practice that riddles the FBI lab and much forensic science in the United States. Documentation is a case in point. Examiners have proven remarkably loath to write up their bench notes in any adequate scientific manner. No names, no chain of custody history, no testing chronology, no details of supervisory oversight, no confirmatory tests, no signatures -- such omissions are quite normal in FBI lab reports. What the reports do contain is obfuscation and overstated conclusions written in an often incomprehensible style that some experts have termed "forensonics." Undefined terms such as "match" or "identical to" are common; chronicled scientific procedures and protocols to justify them are not.

The motive seems to be to say as little as possible as unintelligibly as possible with what passes for scientific jargon and process. Numerous conversations with former FBI lab personnel and attorneys have left no doubt why. Since lab reports are "discoverable" and have to be handed to the defense, the FBI lab believes that as little as possible should be given away. The approach to research is no different. The publication of findings or methodologies might be used to undermine the prosecution of cases, so the rule that has evolved is to avoid dissemination. In short, the FBI's interpretation of the adversarial approach on which the U.S. judicial system is based works to serve neither science nor truth.

As such, the FBI lab's reports have shocked those outside the U.S. forensic science community. "If these are the ones [reports] to be presented to court as evidence then I am appalled by the structure and information content....[T]he structure of the reports seems to be designed to confuse," concluded Professor Brian Caddy, head of the forensic science unit at Strathclyde University in Scotland on being shown the FBI lab's forensic reports in the Oklahoma City bombing case."

Much the same goes for protocols or established procedures. Traditionally, many FBI forensic scientists have not used protocols -- the recipes for analyses and the touchstones of scientific procedure -- despite the fact that all scientists accept that not using them produces only experimental, not proven, outcomes. Indeed, in some crime labs, established protocols do not even exist. "Basically what we've got is a kind of oral tradition, like medieval English, the Venerable Bede, instead of a regular scientific protocol manual," claimed Stephen Jones, Timothy McVeigh's first defense lawyer in the Oklahoma City bombing case, who has looked into FBI lab procedures in some depth. "The advantage of the oral tradition, of course, is that no one knows what it is."

Such shortcomings are often accentuated in court. Here pressure from prosecutors is direct. All too often the important caveats that punctuate forensic science, phrases such as "including but not excluding," "possible but not certain," "compatible with but not incompatible with," are forgotten. All too often "could" becomes "did," an opinion becomes a fact, tests that only suggest are said to prove. Even if the forensic scientist is sufficiently guarded, prosecutors or even judges are often less so.

"The expert may say something quite guarded like 'was similar' and within minutes you'll hear the prosecutor reinterpret that as a definitive identification," complains Professor Starrs. "How many times do you hear the word 'match.' What the heck does it mean? It must be the most overused word in forensic science." Indeed, surveys have demonstrated that there is no agreement on the definition of such key terms among forensic experts themselves.

In the cauldron of the courtroom, testifying beyond one's expertise becomes common, especially under the FBI's system, where auxiliary examiners, often civilian scientists, actually do the tests, but principal examiners, invariably FBI agents, have tended to do the testifying. All too often the fingerprint expert is invited to comment or even speculate on the bloodstains, the firearms expert on the nature of the bomb explosive, the documents examiner on the toolmarks. When only one expert is appearing in a multidiscipline case, it's tempting for prosecutors or defense lawyers to go for an opinion; it's also tempting for examiners to embellish, exaggerate, or even lie about their credentials. The case of the FBI's Tom Curran, who was variously a zoologist, a biologist, and a psychologist for different court appearances, is exceptional only in degree."

Incredibly, forensic scientists do not have to establish competence by obtaining a license or certification -- even from their peers. There are no federal requirements and, to date, no state has demanded them. There are, to be sure, professional bodies. The American Board of Criminalists conducts very general proficiency tests, the American College of Forensic Examiners holds ethics exams, and perhaps the most highly regarded, the American Academy of Forensic Sciences, is a professional body whose members elect and promote each other on merit. But membership in none of these is a prerequisite to work. There is no certification or minimum standards for a very simple reason -- the profession as a whole has opposed it. As long ago as 1976 certification boards were established in five areas of forensic science in an effort to establish peer-based bodies that would review credentials, run qualifying exams, agree on ethical standards, and certify practitioners in their particular fields. Guidelines were put to the nation's crime lab personnel in a referendum. They rejected them by a 2-1 vote.

Some such as Ed Blake see the forensic science profession as a sort of medieval guild, with crime lab directors, led by the FBI lab and its management, acting as the police chiefs, employing, as they do, four-fifths of the profession. Certainly the failure of the professional associations to assert themselves has left a vacuum crime lab directors seemed to have filled, in deciding who will practice and on what terms. As David Stoney has remarked, in the absence of certification and thus effective sanction, there is, in many ways, no forensic science profession as such: "What are the entry requirements? Employment and function. One joins the profession when one is hired by a crime laboratory and one begins to write reports and testify in court.

In the 1970s, the FBI lab began to flex its muscles to organize the crime labs of the country to fill this vacuum. In 1973, Duayne Dillon, a criminalist from California, stunned an audience at an AAFS meeting by stating that the greatest impediment to the widespread adoption of criminalistics in the U.S. judicial system was the existence of the FBI laboratory. He was actually well intentioned; Dillon was referring to what he saw as the isolation and exclusivity of the FBI lab and its belief that there was no need for other crime labs in the United States. It was also well aimed; Dr. Briggs White, then the director of the FBI lab, was sitting in the audience. Furthermore, it was brilliantly timed; J. Edgar Hoover had died the previous year and Clarence Kelley, keen to shed a little light in the Bureau, took over the FBI in July of that year.

It made sense for the FBI to encourage the development of local crime labs; it reduced the Bureau's workload. It also made sense to link new crime labs to Washington, where there was expertise, information, and resources. That year, the FBI lab started training courses for non-FBI crime lab personnel. The following year, in 1974, Dr. Briggs White was appointed chairman of what was named the American Society of Crime Laboratory Directors (ASCLD), an organization designed to improve cooperation and communication among crime lab directors in the pursuit of "common objectives." A quarterly magazine, Crime Lab Digest, began publication shortly afterward. In 1976, the FBI proposed setting up the Forensic Science Research and Training Center (FSRTC) in Quantico, Virginia, on the grounds of its training academy. By 1978, the thirty-nine-thousand-square-foot facility was under construction.

By the early 1980s, the FBI was the overwhelmingly dominant force in servicing the rapid expansion of forensic science facilities, training everyone from managers to technicians; developing new forensic science techniques, ranging from toxicology to hair identification; and funding research in academia and private industry across the country. Duayne Dillon could not have imagined the consequences of his criticism. "ASCLD and FSRTC gave huge power to a federal agency that had not been active in forensic science organizations," he said years later. "Suddenly the FBI lab's clout increased enormously."

The FBI's new power and the enhanced status the country's crime lab directors enjoyed as a result of being more closely associated with the bureau was a fatal blow to the possibility of any agreed on, enforceable ethical code in forensic science. Every two or three months, Professor Starts, best known for the spotlight he sheds on the profession in his quarterly newsletter, Scientific Sleuthing Review, gets a phone call from someone in a crime lab. "They say, 'I know the defense attorney isn't going to ask the right questions and they're going to convict this guy. What should I do?' Or: 'They said the guy's on the brink of a confession and they want me to fabricate a fingerprint report,'" he reports. Starrs has become a sort of confessor figure because as long ago as 1971 he started arguing publicly for the adoption of an ethical code. What he proposed nearly thirty years ago could be as useful today. On personal issues, Starts suggested:

1. No consideration or person should dissuade the forensic scientist from a full and fair investigation of the facts on which opinion is formulated.
2. The forensic scientist should maintain an attitude of independence, impartiality, and calm objectivity to avoid personal or professional involvement in the proceedings.
3. A forensic scientist should not tender testimony that is not within his/her competence as an expert, or conclusions or opinions within the competence of the jury, acting as laymen.
On procedures, Starts advocates:
4. Utmost care in the treatment of any samples or items of potential evidentiary value to avoid tampering, adulteration, loss, or other change of original state.
5. Full and complete disclosure of the entire case in a comprehensive and well-documented report, to include facts or opinions indicative of the accused's innocence and the shortcomings of his/her opinion that might invalidate it.
6. Forensic scientists should testify to the procedures undertaken and the results disclosed only when opinions can be stated in terms of reasonable scientific certainty.
7. That unless there are special circumstances of possible intimidation or falsification of evidence, a forensic scientist for the prosecution should permit the defense to interview him/her before the trial, an obligation that should not be contingent on the approval of the prosecutor.


0
joeb

Registered:
Posts: 8,417
Reply with quote  #7 
FBI  agent takes over NY National Guard
see link for full story
http://online.wsj.com/article/APbcc9e476d1624760a674aa431e7f811c.html



    February 9, 2013, 3:01 p.m. ET

NY Army Guard unit getting new commander Sunday



UTICA, N.Y. — A veteran of the war in Afghanistan is taking command this weekend of a Utica-based infantry battalion in the New York Army National Guard.

Military officials say a change-of-command ceremony will be held Sunday afternoon at the State Armory in Utica. Lt. Col. Christopher Cronin of Rochester is taking command of the 2nd Battalion, 108th Infantry, part of the Syracuse-based 27th Infantry Brigade Combat Team.

Cronin previously served with the New York State Police and is a special agent with the FBI in civilian life. He entered the military after graduating from Syracuse University in 1993. In Afghanistan, he helped train Afghan army combat troops.
0
joeb

Registered:
Posts: 8,417
Reply with quote  #8 
see link for full story
http://www.cannabisculture.com/content/2013/02/13/Fascinating-Story-White-Boy-Rick-Feds-Built-Him-Drug-Kingpin-Age-14-Then-Threw-Hi


The Fascinating Story of "White Boy Rick": Feds Built Him into Drug Kingpin at Age 14, Then Threw Him in Prison for Life

So why did the authorities turn on him? It started when he helped the feds investigate drug corruption in the Detroit Police Department.
 

Meet Richard Wershe. To other convicts in the Michigan penal system and the handful of DEA and FBI agents who once employed him as an informant, Wershe is known by the more memorable moniker, White Boy Rick.

Wershe was a baby-faced, blond-haired teenager who grew up in the the middle class fringes of Metro Detroit in the 1980s. Around the time he hit puberty, he transformed into White Boy Rick, a prolific drug dealer and teenage prodigy in the cutthroat and vicious streets of the Motor City. He ranked as high in the public imagination as such colorful Detroit drug heavyweights as the Chambers Brothers, Maserati Rick, the notorious Best Friends. By the time he was 16, he was dating the beautiful black niece of the Mayor of Detriot. White Boy Rick had arrived.

He had also been recruited as one of the DEA's prized confidential informants two years earlier, when he was 14. According to Wershe, a federal narcotics task force consisting of officers from the Detroit Police Department, the FBI and the DEA pushed him into the role of drug lord and played up his image. "They turned me into an urban legend," Rick says from a payphone at the Oaks Correctional Facility, near the eastern shore of Lake Michigan.

"I was just a kid when the agents pulled me out of high school in the ninth grade and had me out to three in the morning every night. They gave me a fake ID when I was 15 that said I was 21 so I could travel to Vegas and to Miami to do drug deals." Rick ended his relationship with authorities after serving two years as an informant. Less than a year later, he was arrested for possession with intent to deliver 650 grams of cocaine. He wasn't even 18.

Wershe was pinched on the same Detroit street where he grew up, carrying the drugs, $25,000 in cash, and driving a shiny new Ford Thunderbird that was registered in his girlfriend's name. She was five years older than him, married to Eastside drug kingpin Johnny Curry, and, as luck would have it, the niece of Mayor Coleman Young. Authorities later found eight kilos of cocaine that they linked to Wershe. On January 15, 1988, he was convicted and sentenced to life in prison under Michigan's draconian 650 lifer law, which has since been abolished.

- Read the entire article at AlterNet.

0
joeb

Registered:
Posts: 8,417
Reply with quote  #9 
If you are an activist being tracked by the FBI and someone tries to kill you
and you make a call on your cell phone to get help and alert someone
the FBI  has the ability to misdirect your phone call
File under George Orwell just tweeted Charles Darwin and said "LOL"

see link for how the FBI  crime family spends your tax dime
Oh, just a reminder . The FBI  is just three letters of the alphabet.
Three letters of the alphabet are not doing this. People with names are. Do you
know who they are? Do you know where they live? Nah.......


http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2013/02/15/stingray_imsi_catcher_fbi_files_unlock_history_behind_cellphone_tracking.html
FBI Files Unlock History Behind Clandestine Cellphone Tracking Tool

Friday, Feb. 15, 2013

FBI documents show how easy it is for them to monitor your movements using cellphones



It was described recently by one rights group as a “secretive new surveillance tool.” But documents just released by the FBI suggest that a clandestine cellphone tracking device known as the “Stingray” has been deployed across the United States for almost two decades—despite questions over its legality.

Stingrays, as I’ve reported here before, are portable surveillance gadgets that can trick phones within a specific area into hopping onto a fake network. The feds call them “cell-site simulators” or “digital analyzers,” and they are sometimes also described as “IMSI catchers.” The FBI says it uses them to target criminals and help track the movements of suspects in real time, not to intercept communications. But because Stingrays by design collaterally gather data from innocent bystanders’ phones and can interrupt phone users’ service, critics say they may violate a federal communications law.

A fresh trove of FBI files on cell tracking, some marked “secret,” was published this week by the Electronic Privacy Information Center. They shed light on how, far from being a “new” tool used by the authorities to track down targets, Stingray-style technology has been in the hands of the feds since about 1995 (at least). During that time, local and state law enforcement agencies have also been able to borrow the spy equipment in “exceptional circumstances,” thanks to an order approved by former FBI Director Louis Freeh.

EPIC, a civil liberties group, obtained the documents through ongoing Freedom of Information Act litigation that it is pursuing in order to get the feds to hand over some 25,000 pages of documents that relate to Stingray tools, about 6,000 of which are classified. The FBI has been drip-releasing the documents monthly, and there have been a couple of interesting nuggets in the batches so far—like a disclosure that the FBI has a manual called “cell tracking for dummies” and details hinting that the feds are well aware the use of Stingrays is in shaky legal territory.

The latest release, amounting to some 300 selectively redacted pages, not only suggests that sophisticated cellphone spy gear has been widely deployed since the mid-‘90s. It reveals that the FBI conducted training sessions on cell tracking techniques in 2007 and around the same time was operating an internal "secret" website with the purpose of sharing information and interactive media about "effective tools" for surveillance. There are also some previously classified emails between FBI agents that show the feds joking about using the spy gear. "Are you smart enough to turn the knobs by yourself?" one agent asks a colleague.

On a more serious note, EPIC attorney Alan Butler told me he believes the release raises further legal questions about the technology. It shows that the bureau has been classifying the use of “cellsite simulator” as a “pen register device,” following guidance issued by the Department of Justice. “Pen register” is a term used to describe a type of surveillance that does not usually require a search warrant because it records only metadata—the who, where, and when of a communication but not the content. However, Butler pointed out, a June 2012 ruling in the Southern District of Texas found that Stingrays should require a warrant, with the judge concluding that “the government has not provided any support that the pen register statute applies to stingray equipment.”
0
joeb

Registered:
Posts: 8,417
Reply with quote  #10 
see link for full story
http://billingsgazette.com/news/state-and-regional/montana/horse-sense-medical-marijuana-bills-face-tough-time-at-legislature/article_73feca6e-923d-5076-97ab-a5af862d7f12.html

Horse Sense: Medical-marijuana bills face tough time at Legislature

 

HELENA — So far, the 2013 Legislature appears to be no more receptive to medical marijuana than the 2011 session was.

The House Human Services Committee on Friday tabled — and almost certainly killed -- four medical-marijuana bills by Rep. Kelly McCarthy, D-Billings. The bills all died on 12-4 votes, with 10 Republicans and two Democrats opposing the bills, while four Democrats backed them.

McCarthy’s bills were intended to fix the 2011 medical-marijuana law, Senate Bill 423, which has been challenged in court. He tried to remove those provisions in the law that District Judge James Reynolds of Helena has twice blocked with preliminary injunctions, most recently in January.

“We were hoping to make SB423, as enjoined, permanent so the legal gymnastics could stop and all parties could get on with their lives,” McCarthy said afterward.

By his own description, McCarthy is one of the least likely lawmakers to sponsor these bills. Now a banker, he served in U.S. military intelligence for 23 years and participated in some interdictions to intercept illegal drugs being smuggled.

Members of the Montana Cannabis Information Association met with McCarthy during his campaign and explained the challenges they face.

“I made a commitment to help them if and when I got elected,” McCarthy said.

McCarthy wasn’t surprised his bills went down.

“I understand that I’ve burned a bit of political capital on this one, but everyone deserves representation,” he said. “When I didn’t see too many other legislators wanting to take up the challenge, I leaned into the strike zone and took one for the team. I didn’t think we’d win, but I didn’t let that stop me from giving my best shot.”

His bills ran headlong into the stiff opposition of another former drug-fighting federal employee, House Human Services Chairman David Howard, R-Park City.

Howard, a retired FBI agent and chief of law enforcement for the Bureau of Land Management, told the committee how he spearheaded an effort in the 1980s to chop down thousands of illegal pot plants. It took place near the King Range National Conservation Area in northern California, near Garberville, which the BBC has dubbed America’s “marijuana heartland.”

Howard denounced marijuana as “a poison” and “a joke” on Friday after blasting it as “a scourge” two years ago.

If any medical marijuana-bill passes the 2013 Legislature, it likely will have to clear Howard’s committee. That isn’t likely.

Over in the Senate, Sen. Dave Wanzenried, D-Missoula, has a pair of medical-marijuana bills that will be heard this week in the Senate Judiciary Committee.

0
joeb

Registered:
Posts: 8,417
Reply with quote  #11 
4 reads


1st read

New Book Aims to Reveal FBI, CIA Involvement in Kennedy Assassination

 

  
  

To Kill a President: Finally – an Ex-FBI Agent Rips Aside the Veil of Secrecy that Killed JFK by M. Wesley Swearingen

To Kill a President: Finally – an Ex-FBI Agent Rips Aside the Veil of Secrecy that Killed JFK by M. Wesley Swearingen seeks to uncover new information about the assassination of President John F. Kennedy and identify the groups who conspired to kill him.

According to Swearingen, Lee Harvey Oswald did not act alone in assassinating Kennedy as was claimed by the FBI, the Warren Commission and other investigating bodies. Instead, he argues that rogue CIA agents acting in concert with the mafia and certain Cuban exiles plotted to kill Kennedy. Swearingen contends that the conspiracy was covered up by the FBI, an effort that continues to this day through the agency's unwillingness to disclose key details about the events surrounding Kennedy's death.

 

"I want to set the record straight," Swearingen says. "The truth is my inspiration. Upholding the Constitution and exposing government corruption is my sole purpose."

A 25-year veteran of FBI field work, Swearingen was employed by the bureau in 1963 when Kennedy was shot in Dallas. Citing internal sources and information not previously released to the public, Swearingen claims that Oswald was an FBI informant who was known to government officials prior to the assassination. He argues that the statements and actions of FBI and CIA personnel indicate a cover-up, one that he believes included CIA-trained Cuban exiles and American mobsters.

"Names are named, associations are made, reasonable conjectures are served and Swearingen comes across as the real deal," explains a Kirkus Discoveries review. "He virtually dares readers to prove him wrong."

To Kill a President: Finally – an Ex-FBI Agent Rips Aside the Veil of Secrecy that Killed JFK is available for sale online at Amazon.com and other channels.

About the Author

M. Wesley Swearingen is a former FBI agent and the author of FBI Secrets: an Agent's Expose. A U.S. Navy veteran who served during World War II, Swearingen later graduated from Ohio State University and joined the FBI while it was directed by J. Edgar Hoover. Following his retirement from the FBI in 1977, Swearingen was involved in several lawsuits against the bureau related to wrongful imprisonment and civil rights violations. A licensed private investigator, Swearingen has appeared in several documentary films about the FBI and earned the California Attorneys for Criminal Justice's President's Award.



2nd read


CUT AND PASTE THIS LINK

see link for full story
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/total_truth_sciences/jcz0-1p_Lwg





The Martin Luther King Conspiracy Exposed in Memphis

by Jim Douglass

  
  

According to a Memphis jury’s verdict on December 8, 1999, in the wrongful death lawsuit of the King family versus Loyd Jowers "and other unknown co-conspirators," Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. was assassinated by a conspiracy that included agencies of his own government. Almost 32 years after King’s murder at the Lorraine Motel in Memphis on April 4, 1968, a court extended the circle of responsibility for the assassination beyond the late scapegoat James Earl Ray to the United States government.

I can hardly believe the fact that, apart from the courtroom participants, only Memphis TV reporter Wendell Stacy and I attended from beginning to end this historic three-and-one-half week trial. Because of journalistic neglect scarcely anyone else in this land of ours even knows what went on in it. After critical testimony was given in the trial’s second week before an almost empty gallery, Barbara Reis, U.S. correspondent for the Lisbon daily Publico who was there several days, turned to me and said, "Everything in the U.S. is the trial of the century. O.J. Simpson’s trial was the trial of the century. Clinton’s trial was the trial of the century. But this is the trial of the century, and who’s here?"

 

What I experienced in that courtroom ranged from inspiration at the courage of the Kings, their lawyer-investigator William F. Pepper, and the witnesses, to amazement at the government’s carefully interwoven plot to kill Dr. King. The seriousness with which U.S. intelligence agencies planned the murder of Martin Luther King Jr. speaks eloquently of the threat Kingian nonviolence represented to the powers that be in the spring of 1968.

In the complaint filed by the King family, "King versus Jowers and Other Unknown Co-Conspirators," the only named defendant, Loyd Jowers, was never their primary concern. As soon became evident in court, the real defendants were the anonymous co-conspirators who stood in the shadows behind Jowers, the former owner of a Memphis bar and grill. The Kings and Pepper were in effect charging U.S. intelligence agencies – particularly the FBI and Army intelligence – with organizing, subcontracting, and covering up the assassination. Such a charge guarantees almost insuperable obstacles to its being argued in a court within the United States. Judicially it is an unwelcome beast.

 

Many qualifiers have been attached to the verdict in the King case. It came not in criminal court but in civil court, where the standards of evidence are much lower than in criminal court. (For example, the plaintiffs used unsworn testimony made on audiotapes and videotapes.) Furthermore, the King family as plaintiffs and Jowers as defendant agreed ahead of time on much of the evidence.

But these observations are not entirely to the point. Because of the government’s "sovereign immunity," it is not possible to put a U.S. intelligence agency in the dock of a U.S. criminal court. Such a step would require authorization by the federal government, which is not likely to indict itself. Thanks to the conjunction of a civil court, an independent judge with a sense of history, and a courageous family and lawyer, a spiritual breakthrough to an unspeakable truth occurred in Memphis. It allowed at least a few people (and hopefully many more through them) to see the forces behind King’s martyrdom and to feel the responsibility we all share for it through our government. In the end, twelve jurors, six black and six white, said to everyone willing to hear: guilty as charged.

 

We can also thank the unlikely figure of Loyd Jowers for providing a way into that truth.

Loyd Jowers: When the frail, 73-year-old Jowers became ill after three days in court, Judge Swearengen excused him. Jowers did not testify and said through his attorney, Lewis Garrison, that he would plead the Fifth Amendment if subpoenaed. His discretion was too late. In 1993 against the advice of Garrison, Jowers had gone public. Prompted by William Pepper’s progress as James Earl Ray’s attorney in uncovering Jowers’s role in the assassination, Jowers told his story to Sam Donaldson on Prime Time Live. He said he had been asked to help in the murder of King and was told there would be a decoy (Ray) in the plot. He was also told that the police "wouldn’t be there that night."

 

In that interview, the transcript of which was read to the jury in the Memphis courtroom, Jowers said the man who asked him to help in the murder was a Mafia-connected produce dealer named Frank Liberto. Liberto, now deceased, had a courier deliver $100,000 for Jowers to hold at his restaurant, Jim’s Grill, the back door of which opened onto the dense bushes across from the Lorraine Motel. Jowers said he was visited the day before the murder by a man named Raul, who brought a rifle in a box.

As Mike Vinson reported in the March–April Probe, other witnesses testified to their knowledge of Liberto’s involvement in King’s slaying. Store-owner John McFerren said he arrived around 5:15 pm, April 4, 1968, for a produce pick-up at Frank Liberto’s warehouse in Memphis. (King would be shot at 6:01 pm.) When he approached the warehouse office, McFerren overheard Liberto on the phone inside saying, "Shoot the son-of-a-bitch on the balcony."

Café-owner Lavada Addison, a friend of Liberto’s in the late 1970’s, testified that Liberto had told her he "had Martin Luther King killed." Addison’s son, Nathan Whitlock, said when he learned of this conversation he asked Liberto point-blank if he had killed King.

"[Liberto] said, ‘I didn’t kill the nigger but I had it done.’ I said, ‘What about that other son-of-a-bitch taking credit for it?’ He says, ‘Ahh, he wasn’t nothing but a troublemaker from Missouri. He was a front man…a setup man.’"



3rd read
http://live.dbpedia.org/page/Assassination_of_Robert_F._Kennedy




4th read
http://www.livingstondaily.com/article/20130217/OPINION01/302170327/Tom-Watkins-Rogers-may-new-Paul-Revere?odyssey=nav|head


Tom Watkins: Rogers may be the new Paul Revere

Feb. 17, 2013  |  

Is the cybersky falling? U.S. Rep. Mike Rogers, R-Brighton, and former Gov. John Engler, now president of the Business Roundtable, believe so.

They are correct.

"The sky is falling, the sky is falling" cried Chicken Little. Today, that cry remains an idiom indicating a belief that disaster is imminent.

Yet, what if the crier is right and there is pending disaster that we do not take heed of?

This is exactly the dilemma that Rogers faces in his attempt to get the country to pay attention and protect ourselves against a massive cyberattack. Rogers is warning us of the potential cyberattack that could cripple our economy, wiping out our entire financial system and power grids — the computer networks that help run our entire country's infrastructure.

Simply imagine a sci-fi movie — complete with enemies able to unleash a computer virus so powerful that it might shut our country down. Frightening enough for you?

Rogers, chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and a former FBI agent, believes in this level of devastation being threatened by terrorist organizations and foreign governments. Clearly, he is in a position to know.




0
joeb

Registered:
Posts: 8,417
Reply with quote  #12 
Flannery, Greg .  REACH OUT AND TAPE SOMEONE  . 


In These Times MagazineMarch 1989 issueThis article appeared in the

March issue of the national publication INTHESE TIMES.It details the massive illegal
FBI wiretap program placed on US Presidents, members of Congress,
Judges, people of color,local politicians during the 1970's thru the 1980's.
This was before thePatriot Act.More important it details
how FBI agents working with local police were committing voter fraud and arson.
see link you will have to cut and paste it into the url box
https://docs.google.com/viewer?url=http://64.62.200.70/PERIODICAL/PDF/InTheseTimes-1989mar22/12-14/

note I checked this link and it works
0
joeb

Registered:
Posts: 8,417
Reply with quote  #13 
see link for full story
http://psdispatch.com/stories/State-Police-Commissioner-is-Friendly-Sons-speaker,267367?category_id=4&town_id=4&sub_type=stories

State Police Commissioner is Friendly Sons’ speaker


February 24 2013


 

Greater Pittston Friendly Sons of St. Patrick President Jimmy Clancy announced Colonel Frank Noonan, Pennsylvania State Police Commissioner, will be principal speaker at the 99th Annual St. Patrick’s Day Banquet on March 17 at the Woodlands Inn & Resort.

Atty. Jarret Ferrentino will serve as toastmaster and James “Jay” Duffy will as Grand Marshal. Atty. William “Billy”Anzalone is General Chairman.

The Man of the Year award will go to Mark Casper and W. Francis Swingle Award recipient will be former Major League baseball player Andy Ashby.


Colonel Noonan was nominated by Governor Thomas W. Corbett to serve as the 21st Commissioner of the Pennsylvania State Police on Jan. 18, 2011. As commissioner, he exercises administrative, command, and fiscal authority and responsibility over the department. He oversees a budget of more than $876 million and commands a statewide complement of more than 6,000 enlisted and civilian employees, which includes more than 4,400 State Police Troopers.

As the commissioner, he is empowered by statute to assist the governor by enforcing the law and preserving the peace through the detection of crime, apprehension of criminals, and patrol of the highways. He serves as Chairman of the Municipal Police Officers Education and Training Commission.


Following his retirement from the FBI in 1998, Noonan was appointed Northeast Regional Director for the Attorney General’s Bureau of Narcotics Investigation. He was promoted to Chief of Criminal Investigations for the Office of Attorney General in July 2009. He received the Linda E. Richardson Commitment to Excellence Award, which is the most prestigious award given by the Pennsylvania Narcotics Officers’ Association, in 2009.

 

0
joeb

Registered:
Posts: 8,417
Reply with quote  #14 

http://www.rigorousintuition.ca/board2/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=36091


see link for full story



Sibel Edmonds talks about Gladio B

 Sun Feb 17, 2013 9:22 pm

Gladio B is defined as a NATO-directed effort to radicalize, enable and protect Islamic terrorists to further their own geopolitical ends.

In this ground-breaking interview, famed FBI whistleblower and Boiling Frogs Post founder Sibel Edmonds lays out the thread connecting NATO’s Gladio operations to Turkish paramilitaries and ultra-nationalists, and how the operation continues through cooperation with terrorists and the Islamization of Central Asia and the Caucasus. From Abdullah Çatlı’s remarkable life (and death) to the rise of Fethullah Gulen’s $25 billion (CIA-supported) Islamic network to the NATO takeover of the Afghan poppy crop in the wake of 9/11, you won’t want to miss a moment of this riveting conversation.

Part 1


Sibel Edmonds of BoilingFrogsPost.com joins us for the second part of our series on Gladio B, the NATO-directed effort to radicalize, enable and protect Islamic terrorists to further their own geopolitical ends. This time we discuss recent events, like the US Embassy bombing in Ankara and the catch-and-release of Osama Bin Laden’s son-in-law in Turkey, before going back to the 1990s for more on the roots of the Gladio B operation and its tie-in to stories like that of Yasin al-Qadi. We shine a light on the FBI agents who were working on shutting down terrorist finance networks, and how they were shut down by elements of the State Department and the CIA. We also answer comments and questions from listeners of our first conversation.

Part 2


Sibel Edmonds of BoilingFrogsPost.com joins us for the third part of our series on Gladio B, the NATO-directed effort to radicalize, enable and protect Islamic terrorists to further their own geopolitical ends. In this edition we discuss the Hood Event, the Gladio A / B transition, Israel’s role in funding both sides of the regional conflict, and how the Kurds have been used and abused by every would-be regional power in the area. Sibel also takes questions on Ayman al-Zawahiri and begins to discuss Huseyin Baybasin (aka “Europe’s Pablo Escobar”) and the NATO-protected heroin operations in Europe.

Part 3
0
joeb

Registered:
Posts: 8,417
Reply with quote  #15 
see link for full story
http://www.commercialappeal.com/news/2013/feb/25/settlement-to-unveil-photos-records-documenting/

Settlement to unveil photos, records documenting Ernest Withers' work as FBI informant

Photo by Michael McMullan // Buy this photo

Ernest Withers, who covered many of the major events in the civil rights movement of the 1950's and 60's, in his studio in February 1990.

Ernest Withers, at right, was a witness to the turmoil of 1968 in downtown Memphis. (Courtesy Special Collections/University of Memphis Libraries)

A legal settlement finalized Monday is expected to unearth photographs and records documenting the late Ernest Withers’ secret work as an FBI informant in Memphis during the civil rights era.

The agreement between the FBI and The Commercial Appeal allows the newspaper to access portions of 70 investigative files in which Withers participated as an informant.

Those 70 cases, ranging from the FBI’s investigation of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. while in Memphis in 1968 as well as examinations of his Southern Christian Leadership Conference, the NAACP and the black power and peace movements here, represent a fraction of the celebrated photographer’s work for the FBI between 1958 and 1976.

As part of the settlement, the FBI released a statement reporting that agents were authorized to pay Withers $20,088 between 1958 and 1976 but could not confirm how much he actually received.

That’s a signficant sum for the notoriously tightfisted FBI which paid its informants sparingly — the vast majority got nothing. Though the FBI’s Memphis field office had scores of informants reporting on “racial” matters and civil unrest here in 1968, records show only five of those informants were paid. Much of Withers’ pay is believed to have come after 1967.

The settlement also requires the FBI to pay $186,000 in attorney fees and legal costs the newspaper accumulated since filing suit in 2010. In turn, the newspaper agreed to drop its lawsuit, which it did Monday in U.S. District Court in Washington.

The settlement, believed to be the first of its kind involving a civil rights era informant, is expected to provide a rare look inside the FBI’s domestic intelligence operation that kept a close eye on black America in search of Communist and militant influences.

“This is a big win for the cause of open records and for civil rights in America for that matter,” said Chris Peck, editor of The Commercial Appeal. “After two years, hundreds of thousands of dollars in court costs, and many hours of reporting The Commercial Appeal has prevailed in its effort to get a more detailed picture of the extent of the spying and informing done in Memphis during Dr. King’s life and up until the time of his death.

“This settlement and the documents and records that will be released as a result of it, clearly will help Americans better understand the complicated role the FBI played in the Civil Rights era.”

0
joeb

Registered:
Posts: 8,417
Reply with quote  #16 
see link for full story
http://www.collapsenet.com/free-resources/collapsenet-public-access/news-alerts/item/10681-supreme-court-thwarts-challenge-to-warrantless-surveillance


Supreme Court Thwarts Challenge to Warrantless Surveillance

“A divided Supreme Court halted a legal challenge Tuesday to a once-secret warrantless surveillance project that gobbles up Americans’ electronic communications, a program that Congress eventually legalized in 2008 and again in 2012.

The 5-4 decision (.pdf) by Justice Samuel Alito was a clear victory for the President Barack Obama administration, which like its predecessor, argued that government wiretapping laws cannot be challenged in court. What’s more, the outcome marks the first time the Supreme Court decided any case touching on the eavesdropping program that was secretly employed in the wake of 9/11 by the President George W. Bush administration, and eventually codified into law twice by Congress.

A high court majority concluded that, because the eavesdropping is done secretly, the American Civil Liberties Union, journalists and human-rights groups that sued to nullify the law have no legal standing to sue — because they have no evidence they are being targeted by the FISA Amendments Act. Some of the plaintiffs, which the court labeled “respondents,” are also journalists and among other things claimed the 2008 legislation has chilled their speech and violated their Fourth Amendment privacy rights.”
- See more at: http://www.collapsenet.com/free-resources/collapsenet-public-access/news-alerts/item/10681-supreme-court-thwarts-challenge-to-warrantless-surveillance#sthash.xRJRw5qw.dpuf
0
joeb

Registered:
Posts: 8,417
Reply with quote  #17 

see link for full story

http://www.komonews.com/news/local/Ex-bodyguards-claim-cover-ups-sex-harassment-by-Paul-Allens-family-194521961.html

 

 

Ex-bodyguards claim cover-ups, sex harassment by Paul Allen family

  •  
SEATTLE - Luggage packed with giraffe bones could mean trouble for Vulcan CEO Jody Allen and her brother -- Microsoft co-founder and Seahawks owner Paul Allen -- as lawsuits filed by the siblings’ bodyguards proceed.

The allegation – that Jody Allen tried to sneak home the bones while on safari in Botswana – is the most concrete claim made so far by a group of former Vulcan Inc. bodyguards who’ve sued both Allens and their firm, which was founded by Paul Allen, who remains the company's chairman. But the giraffe’s bones may turn out to be the smallest skeleton tucked in the Allen family closet.

Silenced by court orders and confidentiality agreements, the former members of the Allens’ personal security detail have made vague claims that the Allens were involved in criminal activity and bribery, and that Jody Allen sexually harassed security officers. They also claim other Vulcan executives turned a blind eye or worse to the behavior.

At least five former members of the Allens’ personal security team have sued the siblings and Vulcan. Court documents indicate that 10 other former members of the team have previously settled with Vulcan after closed hearings before a private mediator.

In a series of lawsuits filed in King County Superior Court, the security officers accused Jody Allen of sexually harassing members of the executive protection team. They’ve also claimed she, her brother and others with the firm have committed and covered up crimes, which have yet to be described in detail.

Those alleged crimes may be revealed later this year, when attorneys for two former leaders of the executive protection team – a retired FBI special agent among them – are scheduled to take their cases to a jury. The Allens would be called to testify, as would dozens of current and former Vulcan employees alleged to have witnessed illegal or unethical activities.



A tiny piece of the Allens’ operation, the Vulcan executive protection team is staffed by elite security contractors – SEAL-school trained combat veterans among them – paid to protect Paul and Jody Allen, as well as Jody Allen’s children. Members of the team, which numbered eight to 14 people from 2010 to 2011, accompany the Allens when they travel and provide security for their properties.

In a sworn statement, former team leader and retired FBI special agent Kathy Leodler said the Allens are now trying to hide criminal activity behind confidentiality agreements.

“Let me be clear, I do not accept the assertion that crimes of corporate executives can be covered up by an agreement to protect trade secrets or Allen ‘privacy,’” Leodler said in a declaration to the court.
 
0
joeb

Registered:
Posts: 8,417
Reply with quote  #18 
see link for full story

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2013/03/google-nsl-range/

Google Says the FBI Is Secretly Spying on Some of Its Customers

Source: Google

The terrorists apparently would win if Google told you the exact number of times the Federal Bureau of Investigation invoked a secret process to extract data about the media giant’s customers.

That’s why it is unlawful for any record-keeper to disclose it has received a so-called National Security Letter. But under a deal brokered with the President Barack Obama administration, Google on Tuesday published a “range” of times it received National Security Letters demanding it divulge account information to the authorities without warrants.

It was the first time a company has ever released data chronicling the volume of National Security Letter requests.

National Security Letters allow the government to get detailed information on Americans’ finances and communications without oversight from a judge. The FBI has issued hundreds of thousands of NSLs and has even been reprimanded for abusing them. The NSLs are written demands from the FBI that compel internet service providers, credit companies, financial institutions and businesses like Google to hand over confidential records about their customers, such as subscriber information, phone numbers and e-mail addresses, websites visited and more as long as the FBI says the information is “relevant” to an investigation.

In each year from 2009 to 2012, Google said it received “0-999″ National Security Letters.

But in its talks with the authorities over releasing figures, Google said national security was on the mind of the Obama administration.

“You’ll notice that we’re reporting numerical ranges rather than exact numbers. This is to address concerns raised by the FBI, Justice Department and other agencies that releasing exact numbers might reveal information about investigations. We plan to update these figures annually,” Richard Salgado, a Google legal director, wrote in a blog post.

Salgado was not available for comment.

0
joeb

Registered:
Posts: 8,417
Reply with quote  #19 
see link for full story
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/queens/fbi_agent_won_be_charged_in_car_0MhcXShrAicr5YyNer1IqK


FBI agent won't be charged in Queens car thief shooting

  • March 6, 2013

The off-duty FBI agent who opened fire from his bedroom window on two punks breaking into his car in Queens last July will not be charged with a crime.

Word of the charges being dropped, first reported by The Post today, was officially announced by Queens DA Richard Brown.

The men who allegedly tried to break into the agent’s vehicle also won’t be charged, sources said.

“No one is being charged with anything,” said one source to The Post yesterday in advance of the announcement.

The incident occurred as the agent’s wife heard a car alarm go off while nursing their newborn at 5 a.m. One of the alleged thieves, 23-year-old Adrian Ricketts, was shot in the back.

 

But prosecutors decided not to file charges against anyone involved in the incident because the G-Man, Ricketts, and Ricketts' alleged accomplice Andrae Ricketts, wanted immunity from prosecution in exchange for testifying to a Queens grand jury.

"The district attorney's office will not choose sides with regards to this incident. It was our intention to submit the entire matter to a grand jury," said Queens assistant district attorney Robert Hanophy in court today. "It appears that the attorneys for the agent and the Ricketts have agreed to have their clients not testify against each other."

0
joeb

Registered:
Posts: 8,417
Reply with quote  #20 
http://www.allgov.com/Controversies/ViewNews/Judge_Orders_Justice_Dept_to_Release_Document_about_FBI_Helping_Ronald_Reagans_Political_Career_120311
Judge Orders Justice Dept. to Release Document about FBI Helping Ronald Reagan’s Political Career
Sunday, March 11, 2012
Judge Orders Justice Dept. to Release Document about FBI Helping Ronald Reagan’s Political Career
A California journalist has won his fight with the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) to get the Department of Justice to release documents that may show the FBI, although a government entity, was helping advance Ronald Reagan’s political career in the 1970s.
 
Seth Rosenfeld, who is writing a book about the FBI’s activities in connection with the University of California during the Cold War, filed a Freedom of Information Act request to obtain records pertaining to Reagan’s relationship with the FBI.
 
It has been previously acknowledged that Reagan did help the FBI as early as the 1940s by spying on suspected communists in the Screen Actors Guild.
 
Rosenfeld contends that the FBI has a three-page document from January 9, 1975, that may indicate that while Reagan was Governor of California the bureau was helping advance his political career by warning him of potentially embarrassing details about his associates. In one instance, this meant informing Reagan about the relationship between an acquaintance of Reagan’s and the son of an organized crime figure. According to material that has been released, Reagan acknowledged that the association “might well jeopardize any political aspirations [Reagan] might have.”
 
The document in question also deals with the traffic violations and arrest record of a public figure aligned with Reagan. Rosenfeld argues that the FBI should reveal the name of the public figure in question. U.S. District Judge Edward Chen agreed with Rosenfeld that “the investigation of the subject’s old traffic violations had no conceivable purpose other than to aid Ronald Reagan’s political career by providing advance notice of any issues of potential embarrassment that might affect any future political campaign. The disclosure of this document thus enhances the public’s understanding of whether then FBI used public resources to benefit a private citizen for non-law enforcement purposes.”
 
The judge granted summary judgment to the journalist and ordered the FBI to release an unredacted copy of the 37-year-old document.
0
joeb

Registered:
Posts: 8,417
Reply with quote  #21 

http://www.rollcall.com/news/people_on_the_move-222962-1.html?pos=oathh

People on the Move

 

 

Nick Rossi has been hired as a deputy staff director for the Republican staff of the Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee. Rossi was a Republican staff director for the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee. He has worked as a Republican chief counsel and chief investigator for the Senate Commerce Committee and as a Republican chief counsel for the Senate Judiciary Committee. He also has worked for the FBI as an attorney and special agent.

0
joeb

Registered:
Posts: 8,417
Reply with quote  #22 

http://www.armytimes.com/news/2013/03/army-application-window-open-for-may-fbi-board-030913/


Application window open for May FBI board


By Jim Tice - Staff writer
Posted : Saturday Mar 9, 2013 9:58:43 EST

Applications are being accepted for an Army board that will nominate soldiers to attend the FBI National Academy at Quantico, Va., in 2014.

The zone of eligibility includes:

• Military police captains and majors in area of concentration 31A.

• Military police warrant officers in grades CW2 through CW4 who hold military occupational specialty 311A, CID special agent.

• Military police enlisted soldiers in the ranks of sergeant first class through sergeant major who hold MOS 31D, CID special agent.

• Military intelligence captains and majors in AOC 35D.

• Military intelligence chief warrant officers in grades CW2 through CW4 in MOS 351L, counterintelligence technician.

• Military intelligence enlisted soldiers in ranks sergeant first class through sergeant major in MOS 35L, counterintelligence agent, and 35Y, chief counterintelligence and human intelligence sergeant.

Although nominations for academy attendance will be made by a board that meets May 20-24 at Human Resources Command, final acceptance will rest with the FBI, which will conduct file reviews, interviews and background checks.

Selected soldiers will attend the academy during one of the 10-week sessions during 2014 as follows: Jan. 12-March 21, April 6-June 13, July 13-Sept. 19 and Sept. 28-Dec. 13.

Applications must be processed through a soldier’s chain of command to arrive at HRC no later than May 15, and in accordance with instructions in MilPer Message 13-056, dated Feb. 26.

0
joeb

Registered:
Posts: 8,417
Reply with quote  #23 

 
Hiding Carly by Ann Eisenstein
PRLog (Press Release) - Mar. 11, 2013 - APEX, N.C. -- Ann Eisenstein is an author, educator and psychologist. A graduate of the FBI Citizen’s Academy, her work with the agency helped bring her first middle grade mystery, Hiding Carly, (Peak City Publishing, 2013) to life. Ann created a story where the main character, Sean Gray, is a believable eleven-year-
old with strong character traits that belie his physical stature. Sean participated in the FBI Junior Special Agent program at school, where he learned many valuable lessons like: ask questions, follow the evidence, and that despite outward appearances, all things are not as they seem. Former (retired) FBI Special Agent Robert Malinowski said Sean “exemplifies the qualities that we see in our Junior Special Agents.”

Ann explains that during her time training with the FBI Citizen’s Academy program, she learned that the FBI does more than protect and defend the United States against terrorist and foreign intelligence threats. They also work with both government and private sector partners every day and at every level—local, state, federal, tribal, and international. They are on the front line in the Crimes Against Children Program, including kidnapping, sexual exploitation and child trafficking. Ann said, “These are the real life issues that we and our kids face in these times. Issues that my protagonist, Sean, faces, questions, studies and hopes to help resolve.”

The FBI Junior Special Agent Program was established in 1990 and is in numerous school districts across the country. Children in fourth to sixth grade attend a 2-4 month program with FBI employees. Students learn about various key operations of the FBI, like using science to process evidence and polygraphing. More importantly, they learn social skills, lessons on cultural diversity, and the importance of abstaining from crime, involvement in gangs and drug and alcohol abuse. Malinowski said, “I believe any time you can reach out to young people and impress on them that doing what is right outweighs peer pressure, then we need to make efforts toward that end. The FBI's Junior Special Agent - sometimes referred to as “Junior G-men" - Program does just that. After personally coordinating the program, I saw such positive changes in many of our youth.”

Eisenstein is a member of the FBI InfraGard which brings together representatives from the private and public sectors to help protect our nation’s critical infrastructure—both virtual and physical—from attacks by terrorists and criminals. She is a soon-to-be graduate of the Richland County Sheriff’s Department Citizen’s Police Academy in South Carolina. Upon graduation, she plans to use the knowledge and experience to continue work on missing children initiatives as well as computer crimes prevention.

As part of her Hiding Carly book tour and effort to raise awareness of issues in the community, Ann will be distributing child identity kits purchased from the Polly Klaas foundation. Learn more at http://www.anneisenstein.com

About the Book

Hiding Carly, Peak City Publishing, LLC, 2013


Eleven year old Sean is in search of the truth. Someone murdered his father, Special Agent Max Gray, and the FBI has officially closed the case. Now it is up to him to find out who was to blame. While investigating online, Sean stumbles upon a mysterious connection between his father and that new girl in his class. Now he has two puzzles to solve. What really happened to his dad and what does Carly have to do with it? In the face of danger, Sean sets aside his fear and finds the courage, compassion, and conviction to "follow the evidence."

Hiding Carly, A Sean Gray Junior Special Agent Mystery can be purchased through the publisher at: http://www.PeakCityPublishing.com.
0
joeb

Registered:
Posts: 8,417
Reply with quote  #24 
FBI  agents are pulling out all the stops to get their man Rogers elected to the US Senate.
couple of reads



1st read
see link for full story
http://rochester.patch.com/articles/rochester-congressman-leads-new-u-s-senate-poll



Rochester Congressman Leads New U.S. Senate Poll

Rep. Mike Rogers is a frontrunner for the GOP nomination to the senate seat that is being vacated by Carl Levin.


U.S. Rep. Mike Rogers, the Republican who represents Rochester and Rochester Hills, is a front-runner for the GOP nomination to the state's next U.S. Senate race, according to a poll released Tuesday.

On Saturday, Rogers said he was considering a run for the Senate seat that Democrat Carl Levin recently announced that he would vacate in 2014.

"I am giving the Senate race serious consideration," Rogers told the Detroit Free Press.

Rogers has served since 2001 as the representative for Michigan's 8th District, which includes the Rochester area following last year's Congressional redistricting. He also serves as the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee and is a former FBI agent.

In the automated survey of 1,170 likely Republican voters conducted Monday, 31.11 percent of respondents said they would support Rogers for the GOP nomination to the senate seat, according to a news release from Murray Communications-Portable Insights-Combat Data, which conducted the poll.

Scott Romney, the brother of presidential candidate Mitt Romney, received 29.74 percent of the votes; former Secretary of State Terri Lynn Land received 20.85 percent of the votes. The margin of error in the poll was 2.86 percent.

“The poll is good news for U.S Rep. Mike Rogers,” said Christopher Mark of Portable Insights. “His support among likely Republican primary




2nd read
http://www.thelandesreport.com/Donsanto.htm

Why won't the Department of Justice (DOJ) investigate electronic vote fraud?
Is it because the DOJ and FBI have long been involved in it, themselves? 

Meet Craig C. Donsanto, head of the U.S. Department of Justice’s Election Crimes Branch, Public Integrity Section (from 1970-present). 

Photo of Craig Donsanto (left) and Ernest Locker Jr., former special agent at the Federal Bureau of Investigation, spoke at IFES and discussed their careers investigating electoral fraud.  Source: http://www.ifes.org/newsinbrief.html?title=U%25S%25%20Election%20Fraud%20Experts%20Speak%20at%20IFES

READ:

  • PROSECUTION OF ELECTION OFFENSES(see: DOJ/DonsantoElectionManuel.pdf)  January 1999, Sixth Edition, by Craig C. Donsanto, Director, U.S. Department of Justice, Criminal Division, Public Integrity Section --This manual is a study in how NOT to investigate election crimes. There is little mention of voting machines or the threat they pose to the process. Check out page 62 and see democracy.ru article (at bottom of this page) that tipped this editor off as to the existence of the manual, and is a good summary of the manuel --Excerpt: "Since the voting process is at bottom primarily a state-regulated activity, federal authorities should not interfere with it. This means that until the votes have been canvassed and the outcome of all the election contests on the ballot certified by the competent state authority, the documentation generated by the election process must remaininstate hands. Also, while this may not be possible in all situations, it is preferable that the predication of federal voter fraud investigations above «preliminaries» await the conclusion of the election and the certification of results. Again, close consultation with Public Integrity is encouraged."  (In other words, after the fox has left the henhouse, Donsanto allows his agents to investigate.)
  • A FEDERAL OBSERVER REPORT (See: FederalObserverReport.pdf)  Once again, this report is a study in how NOT to effectively observe the election process.  No meaningful information is collected as a result of federal observers filling out these reports.

The Cincinnati Bell-FBI scandal:  Leonard Gates, a Cincinnati Bell employee for 23 years, testified that in the late 1970's and 80's, the FBI assisted telephone companies with hacking into mainframe election computers in cities across the country. He spoke with agents from both the DOJ (U.S. Attorney Kathleen M. Brinkman) and FBI (Agent Love), but to his knowledge, neither agency took further action.  Leonard Gates 1987Deposition, plus 1985 Background Material from Jim Condit, Jr.//Pandora's Black Box & http://www.votefraud.org/expert_strunk_report.htm (contains case number) 

  • Gates testified, P. 28, "He (Gates's supervisor, Mr. Jim West,) said the programming was obtained out of California, and that the programming had been obtained through the FBI, and all this kind of stuff, and that was about it." 
  • Page 34 excerpt: "And I knew that we did do certain things under certain court direction, under certain court orders, and I just didn't see where they would have a court order to get into that, and I expressed my concern to Mr. Dugan (President of Cincinnati Bell).  Mr. Dugan said it was a very gray area, and that they were into like New York and Atlanta, Georgia, and to the other computers, you know.  This was just small compared to what was going on."
  • Page 39, "...and I said, "Well, do you (Mr.Fedrich, vice president of Cincinnati Bell) have a blanket court order on this or what?"  And he kind of weasel-worded me, to be honest with you.  He said "Well, our relationship with the FBI is very, very close."

Excerpt from Nov 1996, Pandora's Black Box by Philip M. O’Halloran of Relevance, The Cincinnati Election Wiretapping Scandal:

Lewis and other skeptics of the vote-fixing scenario like to insist that there has never been any evidence of a "conspiracy" to fix elections by computer. But then, most of those we interviewed on both sides of the issue had never heard of the case of Leonard Gates of Cincinnati, Ohio. An employee of the Cincinnati Bell telephone company, Gates was watching a local t.v. news story, in which a Cincinnati man named Jim Condit was charging that the election system was vulnerable to vote fraud in the Hamilton county election process.

He based his charges on his experience as a candidate for city council in 1979, when, after an election night computer crash, Condit and seven other "feisty challengers" had suddenly "fallen to the very bottom of the heap" of 26 candidates. Gates called the station and later contacted Mr. Condit, telling him he knew firsthand how his votes were robbed. They met and shared information and ultimately Gates testified in Condit’s Cincinnatus PAC (political action committee) lawsuit against the Hamilton County Board of Elections.

The suit had earlier been decided against the plaintiffs and Gates took the stand during the appeal. He swore under oath that he was ordered by his Cincinnati Bell superiors to wiretap the election headquarters’ phones lines to provide a link-up between the county’s vote-counting computers and parties unknown on another phone line somewhere in California.

The following are excerpts from the Cincinnati Post of October, 30th, 1987:

Cincinnati Bell security supervisors ordered wire-taps installed on county computers before elections in the late 1970s and early 1980s that could have allowed vote totals to be altered, a former Bell employee says in a sworn court document.

Leonard Gates, a 23-year Cincinnati Bell employee until he was fired in 1986, claims in a deposition filed Thursday in Hamilton County Common Pleas Court to have installed the wire-taps. Cincinnati Bell officials denied Gates’ allegations that are part of a six-year-old civil suit that contends the elections computer is subject o manipulation and fraud.

Gates claims a security supervisor for the telephone company told him in 1979 that the firm had obtained a computer program through the FBI that gave it access to the county computer used to count votes. [Emphasis added].

The FBI refused comment and Cincinnati Bell spokesmen vehemently denied the allegations, claiming Gates was a "disgruntled ex-employee", yet, according to Condit, the company ultimately admitted that one of its vans was involved in the wiretapping, although it claimed they were commandeered without the company’s knowledge. The Post continued:

In the deposition, Gates claims he first installed a wire-tap on a telephone line to the county computers before the 1977 election at the instruction of James West, a Bell security supervisor.

Gates contends both West and Peter Gabor, security director, told him to install wire-taps in subsequent elections. Both men declined comment Thursday.

In the 1979 election, which is the focus of the deposition – Gates said he received instructions in the mail from West about installing wire-taps on county computers in the County Administration Building at Court and Main streets.

The wire-taps were installed on the eve of the election at Cincinnati Bell’s switching control center at Seventh and Elm Streets and terminated in a conference room in the building, Gates alleges.

In the deposition, Gates described in great technical detail installation of the wire-taps.

At about 8:30 p.m. on election day – Nov. 6, 1979 – Gates said he was called by West and told something had gone wrong, causing the elections computer to malfunction. At West’s instructions, Gates said he removed the taps.

The elections computer shutdown for two hours on election evening due to what was believed to be a power failure, Condit Sr. has said.

Gates said West told him they "had the ability to actually alter what was being done with the votes."

Gates said West told him the Board of elections did not know about the taps and that the computer program for the elections computer "was obtained out of California, and that the programming had been obtained through the FBI..."

Shortly after the 1979 election, Gates said he met with the late Richard Dugan, former Cincinnati Bell president, to express his concerns that the wire-taps were done without a court order.

"Mr. Dugan said it was a very gray area... This was just small compared to what was going on. He told me just, if I had a problem, to talk to him and everything would be okay, but everything was under control," Gates said [Emphasis added].

[Editor’s Note: This scandal’s alleged FBI connection raises the possibility of U.S. law enforcement and/or intelligence involvement in electronic vote-rigging.]

Another Cincinnati Bell employee, named Bob Draise, admitted to being involved in a second phase of the illegal operation, which involved wiretapping several prominent Cincinnati political figures including a crusader against pornography named Keating and the Hamilton County commissioner, Allen Paul.

Jim Condit told Relevance that, as a result of the ensuing scandal, Draise was convicted and five Cincinnati police officers, who were allegedly involved in the wiretapping operation, abruptly resigned. The alleged involvement of the FBI was never pursued and the Bureau itself did not follow up on the Gates allegations. In spite of all the evidence, the appeal by the plaintiff failed and the issue was laid to rest.


FEDERAL COMPLICITY IN VOTE FRAUD - excerpts from Lynn Landes's 2007 'REPORT TO CONGRESS'

The unique vulnerability of electronic voting technologies has been long known to federal authorities. 

“If you did it right, no one would ever know,” said Craig C. Donsanto, head of the U.S. Department of Justice’s Election Crimes Branch, Public Integrity Section (from 1970-present) in a July 4,1989 Los Angeles Times article about electronic voting machines and vote fraud. 

So, why hasn't Donsanto sounded the alarm and informed Congress of this threat?

Donsanto has the reputation of a gatekeeper.  He was featured in the Colliers' book, VoteScam, for his unwillingness to investigate evidence they collected over the years of rampant vote fraud involving voting machine companies, the news networks' exit polls, and election officials in Florida and other states. 

Furthermore, Donsanto made it official department policy that no federal investigator should enter a polling precinct on election day, nor should they begin any serious investigation of the voting process until after the election results are certified.  It is this policy that gives those who commit vote fraud ample opportunity to destroy evidence and cover their tracks. (See official policy: http://www.thelandesreport.com/Donsanto.htm)

There is more to be concerned about than obstruction of justice within the DOJ.  It appears that elements within the FBI may have not only been aware of computer vote fraud, but participated in it.  The following are excerpts from the Cincinnati Post of October 30th, 1987:

"Cincinnati Bell security supervisors ordered wire-taps installed on county computers before elections in the late 1970s and early 1980s that could have allowed vote totals to be altered, a former Bell employee says in a sworn court document. Leonard Gates, a 23-year Cincinnati Bell employee until he was fired in 1986, claims in a deposition filed Thursday in Hamilton County Common Pleas Court to have installed the wire-taps. Cincinnati Bell officials denied Gates’ allegations that are part of a six-year-old civil suit that contends the elections computer is subject o manipulation and fraud. Gates claims a security supervisor for the telephone company told him in 1979 that the firm had obtained a computer program through the FBI that gave it access to the county computer used to count votes."  (See: http://www.ecotalk.org/Pandora'sBlackBox.htm)

No state could match the staggering number of Voting Rights complaints due to voting machines and other election irregularities as Florida did in the 2000 presidential election. Yet the Bush Administration's DOJ under Attorney General John Ashcroft did not send federal observers to Florida to monitor the voting process in 2002, although federal observers were sent to several other states. This was surprising news to many people and organizations who were told by DOJ officials that "Justice" would be down there in force.

Even if federal observers had been sent to Florida, how would they 'observe' the accuracy of the voting machines there?

"They wouldn't know that," says Nelldean Monroe, Voting Rights Program Administrator for the U.S. Office of Personnel Management (OPM) in a phone interview. Her agency is responsible for the recruiting and training of federal observers who are sent by the DOJ to monitor elections if violations of the Voting Rights Act are suspected. 

In a November 21, 2002 e-mail Monroe elaborated, "The only observance of the tallying of the votes is when DOJ specifically requests observers to do so. This rarely occurs, but when it does, it is most often during the day following the election when a County conducts a canvass of challenged or rejected ballots. In this case, federal observers may observe the County representatives as they make determinations on whether to accept a challenged or rejected ballot. Federal observers may also observe the counting of the ballots (or vote tallying) when paper ballots are used."  (See e-mail: http://www.thelandesreport.com/nelldeanmonroe.htm)

In other words, federal observers can only observe people, not machines, counting paper ballots. Monroe confirmed that there is no training and no opportunity for federal observers to observe the accuracy of voting machines.

Under Section 8 of the Voting Rights Act, 42 U.S.Code § 1973f, federal observers may be authorized to observe "... whether persons who are entitled to vote are being permitted to vote ...(and) whether votes cast by persons entitled to vote are being properly tabulated..."

America's nontransparent voting process (i.e., voting by machine, absentee, early, or secret ballot) violate those provisions. Federal observers cannot observe "whether persons who are entitled to vote are being permitted to vote” (and) “whether votes cast are being properly tabulated." 

Under "Prohibited acts" in §1973i, the "Failure or refusal to permit casting or tabulation of vote"...can result in civil and criminal penalties. "No person acting under color of law shall fail or refuse to permit any person to vote who is entitled to vote...(and) Whoever...knowingly and willfully falsifies or conceals a material fact... shall be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned not more than five years, or both."

Requiring voters to use voting machines, rather than allow them to mark and cast their own votes, constitutes "failure or refusal to permit casting".  Any result produced by a machine is circumstantial (i.e., not direct) evidence of the intention of the voter.

Fundamentally, nontransparent voting makes the role of the federal observer moot and the Voting Rights Act unenforceable. 



DONSANTO - WATERGATE - VOTEFRAUD

2005:  From Dan Kennedy http://medialogarchives.blogspot.com/2005/06/notes-on-deep-throat.asp 

Yesterday afternoon, Wendell Woodman, a freelance political columnist based at the State House, in Boston, blasted out an e-mail containing a column he wrote in 1995 in which he speculated that Felt was Deep Throat. The column was preceded by an introductory note stating that Woodman had actually fingered Felt as far back as the early 1970s.

Here is the column - and you've got to love the Florida voting-fraud angle. Some things never change. I've fixed a few spellings of names.

No, Diane Sawyer was not "Deep Throat," as Rabbi Baruch Korff, an old confidante of President Nixon, suggested Monday for the amusement of AP.

Diane may be Deep Flattered. But "Deep Throat" was Mark Felt.

The Associated Press attributed the rabbi's guess to the fact that Diane was an assistant to White House Press Secretary Ron Ziegler in 1972. AP promptly added Diane into the sauce with former FBI director L. Patrick Gray and then-National Security deputy Alexander Haig as Throat candidates.

Author Bob Woodward of the Washington Post and "All The President's Men" insists the source who helped him and fellow reporter Carl Bernstein break the Watergate story was a guy.

That would be Mark Felt.

After three Miami television stations projected the results of the September, 1970 primary elections in Florida's Dade County "down to the last digit" as soon as the polls closed, Henry Petersen, who headed the U.S. Justice Department's Criminal Division, was instructed to begin an investigation.

Throughout 1971 and into 1972, the Nixon White House - notably Attorney General John Mitchell and Nixon aides H.R. Haldeman and John Ehrlichman - received regular briefings. Richard Nixon, who was sure that vote fraud in Illinois and Texas had cost him the presidency in 1960, was a fanatic on the subject and in 1972 ordered Petersen to accelerate the probe.

As soon as FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover died on May 2, 1972, a 27-year-old Justice Department employee named Craig C. Donsanto signed Petersen's name to a "courtesy" letter telling Democratic Congressman Claude Pepper of Miami that all hell was about to break loose. Pepper learned that Democratic National Committee offices based at the Watergate ostensibly were in cahoots with a California computing firm anxious to corner the market on the new computer voting industry and that Dade County had been a guinea pig.

Promising him assistance in his career, Pepper prevailed on Donsanto to stamp a "National Security" embargo on the FBI file. That file is still classified. But two Miami reporters, Kenneth and James Collier, managed to obtain copies of it - at about the time Bob Graham was elected Governor of Florida in 1978.

One of the three TV stations implicated in the 1970 fraud case was WPLG-TV of Miami, an affiliate of the Washington Post and Newsweek, and the property of Post owner Katharine Graham, who is Bob Graham's brother-in-law. The call letters WPLG were a tribute to her late husband, Philip L. Graham.

The Watergate burglars (from Miami, you will recall) did not break into the Watergate to tap a telephone. It doesn't take six people to do that. They were looking for evidence of vote fraud and conspiracy.

Thanks to Donsanto's counterfeit letter to Pepper, the offices were germ-free. They didn't even leave milk and cookies for the six burglars.

Thanks to a grateful Claude Pepper, Craig Donsanto quickly became chief of the Justice Department's Public Integrity Section and, by 1984, was Special Prosecutor in the Voting Fraud Section, responsible for all federal voting fraud cases in the United States. Gives you a warm feeling, right?

Although Petersen's case was derailed by the treachery in his office, those who were party to those matters viewed the Watergate debacle as a race between Nixon and the Post to see which would nail the other first.

New to his job as Acting Director of the FBI at the time of the burglary, L. Patrick Gray was forced to rely on the judgment and expertise of the man who had been J. Edgar Hoover's aide and confidante - Mark Felt.

As a junior departmental attorney whose new Godfather was Claude Pepper, Donsanto scored more career points for himself at Justice by feeding everything he had on the case to Mark Felt.

The currency of choice is Washington is information, favors.

Perhaps Mark Felt did feed some of that to Gray, but certainly Gray would not have passed it along to the Post from his tenuous role as "Acting" director of the FBI. That identifies the crafty Mark Felt as "Deep Throat." That conclusion is not a stretch (indeed, it's unavoidable) once we rid ourselves of the nursery rhyme about six burglars trying to tap a telephone.

When in 1982 the Colliers invited Washington Post Assistant Managing Editor Bob Woodward to view a six-hour videotape of voting fraud in Dade County and inquired "what Katharine Graham knew and when she knew it?" Woodward replied, "Don't start a war with me on this."

As late as 1983, the State Attorney for Dade County, a lady named Janet Reno (ring a bell?) was urging the Governor of Florida to name a special prosecutor to press the so-called Votescam case. But the Governor, a future U.S. Senator named Bob Graham (ring a bell?) refused her requests.

By 1984, expecting a challenge from Gov. Graham for her U.S. Senate seat in 1986, Republican Sen. Paula Hawkins sponsored an order to create a special select Senate committee on voting abuse, and prevailed on then-Attorney General William Smith and two of his deputies to view the video.

Everything is under lock-and-key, at least in Florida.

Bob Woodward's source on a private Oval Office conversation between President Clinton and a member of his cabinet (related in his book, "The Agenda: Inside the Clinton White House") will be revealed 74 years from now, he promises. In another book, "Veil", he related a 1986 deathbed confession of CIA Director William J. Casey about Iran-Contra thusly: "I believed."

Why a comatose patient fresh from a craniotomy would pass that along to the man who brought down Nixon just because he snuck by a committee of CIA security men at Georgetown Hospital is curious. If he was hoping that Woodward would pass it along to the Roman Catholic Church, he got his wish. It's on page 507.

As to the other matter, "Deep Throat" was Mark Felt.

0
joeb

Registered:
Posts: 8,417
Reply with quote  #25 
Thursday, April 30, 2009 by Salon.com
Top Senate Democrat: Bankers 'Own' the US Congress
CLICK LINK TO VIEW LINKS AND BAR GRAPHS
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2009/04/30-8

PART 1

by Glenn Greenwald

Sen. Dick Durbin, on a local Chicago radio station this week, blurted out an obvious truth about Congress that, despite being blindingly obvious, is rarely spoken: "And the banks -- hard to believe in a time when we're facing a banking crisis that many of the banks created -- are still the most powerful lobby on Capitol Hill. And they frankly own the place." The blunt acknowledgment that the same banks that caused the financial crisis "own" the U.S. Congress -- according to one of that institution's most powerful members -- demonstrates just how extreme this institutional corruption is.

The ownership of the federal government by banks and other large corporations is effectuated in literally countless ways, none more effective than the endless and increasingly sleazy overlap between government and corporate officials. Here is just one random item this week announcing a couple of standard personnel moves:

Former Barney Frank staffer now top Goldman Sachs lobbyist

Goldman Sachs' new top lobbyist was recently the top staffer to Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., on the House Financial Services Committee chaired by Frank. Michael Paese, a registered lobbyist for the Securities Industries and Financial Markets Association since he left Frank's committee in September, will join Goldman as director of government affairs, a role held last year by former Tom Daschle intimate, Mark Patterson, now the chief of staff at the Treasury Department. This is not Paese's first swing through the Wall Street-Congress revolving door: he previously worked at JP Morgan and Mercantile Bankshares, and in between served as senior minority counsel at the Financial Services Committee.

So: Paese went from Chairman Frank's office to be the top lobbyist at Goldman, and shortly before that, Goldman dispatched Paese's predecessor, close Tom Daschle associate Mark Patterson, to be Chief of Staff to Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner, himself a protege of former Goldman CEO Robert Rubin and a virtually wholly owned subsidiary of the banking industry. That's all part of what Desmond Lachman -- American Enterprise Institute fellow, former chief emerging market strategist at Salomon Smith Barney and top IMF official (no socialist he) -- recently described as "Goldman Sachs's seeming lock on high-level U.S. Treasury jobs."

Meanwhile, the above-linked Huffington Post article which reported on Durbin's comments also notes Sen. Evan Bayh's previously-reported central role on behalf of the bankers in blocking legislation, hated by the banking industry, to allow bankruptcy judges to alter the terms of mortgages so that families can stay in their homes. Bayh is up for re-election in 2010, and here -- according to the indispensable Open Secrets site -- is Bayh's top donor:

Goldman is also the top donor to Bayh over the course of his Congressional career, during which Bayh has received more than $4 million from the finance, insurance and real estate sectors:

In a totally unrelated coincidence -- after the Government, as Matt Taibbi put it, enacted "a bailout program that has now figured three ways to funnel money to Goldman, Sachs"-- this is what happened earlier this month:

Goldman reports $1.8 billion profit

Goldman Sachs reported a much stronger-than-expected first-quarter profit Monday, bouncing back from its worst quarter as a public company. . . .

In reporting its results a day earlier than expected, New York-based Goldman said it earned $1.81 billion, or $3.39 a share, for the quarter ended March 31. Analysts surveyed by Thomson Financial were looking for a profit of $1.64 a share.

Goldman shares, which have surged more than 70% during the past month, continued rising late Monday, gaining about 4.7% for the day.

Nobody even tries to hide this any longer. The only way they could make it more blatant is if they hung a huge Goldman Sachs logo on the Capitol dome and then branded it onto the foreheads of leading members of Congress and executive branch officials.

Of course, ownership of the government is not confined to Goldman or even to bankers generally; legislation in virtually every area is written by the lobbyists dispatched by the corporations that demand it, and its passage then ensured by "representatives" whose pockets are stuffed with money from those same corporations. Just as one example, as Jane Hamsher reported about Bayh:

Bayh's little "lobbyist problem" is considered by many to be what tanked his Vice Presidential aspirations. His wife Susan earns about $837,000 a year serving on seven corporate boards, among them Wellpoint, a health insurance company for which Bayh helped secure a $24.7 million dollar grant. She's on the board of ETrade, even as Bayh is on the Senate Finance Committee.

Bayh wants people to believe he's a "moderate" who sits in the "center."
0
joeb

Registered:
Posts: 8,417
Reply with quote  #26 
http://dissenter.firedoglake.com/2013/03/14/same-us-attorney-who-prosecuted-fbi-informant-hacker-sabu-indicts-reuters-employee-on-conspiracy-charges/

IMPORTANT TO SEE LINK AND TWEET SENT BY SABU 
see link for full story

US Attorney Who Prosecuted FBI Informant & Hacker ‘Sabu’ Indicts Reuters Employee for Conspiracy Charge
By: Kevin Gosztola Thursday March 14, 2013 8:27 pm    


The Justice Department indicted Matthew Keys, the deputy social media editor for Reuters.com, for allegedly conspiring with members of Anonymous and giving them login information so they could “hack into and alter” the Los Angeles Times‘ website.

The indictment should raise suspicion, however, because Hector Xavier Monsegur or ”Sabu,” who the FBI flipped and used to catch and, to some extent, entrap LulzSec hackers, is likely involved in the indictment.

Keys is charged with “conspiracy to cause damage to a protected computer,” “transmission of malicious code” and “attempted transmission of malicious code.”

From Matthew Keys’ indictment, US Attorney Benjamin B. Wagner, who prosecuted “Sabu,” and Assistant Attorney General Mythili Raman allege, ”Between on or about December 8, 2010, and or about December 15, 2010, in the State and Eastern District of California and elsewhere, Matthew Keys, together with at least one other person, did conspire to knowingly cause the transmission of a program, information, code and command and, as a result of such conduct, intentionally caused damage without authorization to a protected computer, causing loss to a person during a 1-year period aggregating at least $5,000 in value,” which violated a section of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act.

Who could that other person be? On March 14, the same day as this indictment, Wagner and Assistant US Attorney Matthew D. Segal filed a “notice of related cases” to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California, where the indictment was filed.

The notice:

    Both cases related to computer hacking attacks by the group that called itself “Anonymous.” The Keys case alleges that Keys gave login credentials to members of Anonymous and encouraged them to vandalize the web site of his former employer, a news organization. Defendant Monsegur, who used the nickname “Sabu,” appeared in the Internet chat log at the core of the Keys case, and, in that chat log, offered advice on how to conduct the network intrusion. Monsegur later became a cooperating defendant in the Southern District of New York.

In Parmy Olson’s book, We Are Anonymous, Olson writes that Sabu claimed, “Keys had given away administrator access to the online publishing system of Tribune, his former employer, in return for a chance to ‘hang out in our channel.’” Keys denied this.

“Sabu” sent this tweet:
0
joeb

Registered:
Posts: 8,417
Reply with quote  #27 
see link for full story
http://cryptome.org/2013-info/03/casey/michael-anne-casey.htm


 16 March 2013

Michael Anne Casey CIA bin Laden Hunter

Michael Anne Casey, with Alfreda Frances Bikowsky, was identified by reporters reporters Ray Nowosielski and John Duffy as principals in the CIA team which tracked Osama bin Laden:

    Nowosielski and Duffy make the case that Bikowsky and another CIA agent named Michael Anne Casey deliberately declined to tell the White House and the FBI that Khalid al-Mihdhar, an Al Qaida affiliate they were tracking, had obtained a visa to enter the U.S. in the summer of 2001. Al-Mihdhar was one of the hijackers on American Airlines Flight 77. The CIA lost track of him after he entered the U.S.

    Michael Anne Casey, according Nowosielski and Duffy, is the name of the CIA analyst who sat on information about Al-Mihdhar obtaining a visa in 2001, at one point telling an FBI agent detailed to the agency, "Listen, it's not an FBI case. It's not an FBI matter. When we want the FBI to know, we'll let them know. And you're not going to say anything."
0
joeb

Registered:
Posts: 8,417
Reply with quote  #28 
FBI  agent Director of Security World Trade Center

Manhattan Court Upholds District Court Decision: Saudi Arabia, Royal Family Can Not Be Sued In U.S.

August 15, 2008 8:10 a.m. EST

Vittorio Hernandez - AHN News Writer

Manhattan, NY (AHN) - A Manhattan federal appeals court ruled Thursday that the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and several prominent persons from the kingdom could not be sued for the Sept. 11, 2001 attack.

The decision upheld the 2006 ruling of the U.S. Court of Appeals Second Circuit that Saudi Arabia, four princes, a banker and an organization in the kingdom that disbursed money to charities were exempt from lawsuits under American laws.

The decision, however, only favored the Saudi Arabian nation and nationals. It excluded Osama bin Laden, several banks and suspected terrorists from a class suit filed by families of 9/11 victims.

In its ruling, the Manhattan court said, "The Kingdom has not been designated a state sponsor of terrorism by the United States." However, the lawyer of former FBI expert John O'Neill, who was among the World Trade Center victims, disputed the court's argument.

Jerry Goldman, O'Neill's lawyer, pointed out, "If the driver from the Saudi embassy sideswipes somebody on the Long Island Expressway you can sue, but if they help people kill 3,000 people in lower Manhattan and a field in Pennsylvania and the Pentagon... they can walk away from it."

Goldman insisted the Saudi Arabians provided money to the terrorists. He added the plaintiffs will appeal the decision.
0
joeb

Registered:
Posts: 8,417
Reply with quote  #29 
see link for full story
http://www.alabamas13.com/story/21671611/billy-sharp-appointed-tuscaloosa-county-sheriff

Billy Sharp has been appointed the new Tuscaloosa County Sheriff.


Sharp retired from the Alabama Criminal Justice Center, where he worked as an investigator, a chief investigator and field agent over a span of 28 years.  He was a volunteer instructor with the Alabama Peace Officers Standards and Training Commission for 33 years.  Sharp oversaw the FBI's National Crime Information Center system and state databases while at the Criminal Justice Center.

Sharp's new position is effective immediately.

0
joeb

Registered:
Posts: 8,417
Reply with quote  #30 

see link for full story

http://www.timesunion.com/business/press-releases/article/Patrick-Gray-Cisco-Principal-Security-4366472.php



Patrick Gray, Cisco Principal Security Strategist, Keynote Speaker at Vanguard Security & Compliance 2013

Published 3:05 pm, Tuesday, March 19, 2013

The company that placed this press release with PRWeb is responsible for its content. It is not edited by the Albany Times Union.

 
 
 
0
Share
 
 
  

Cisco Principal Security Strategist for Cisco, Patrick Gray, will be a keynote speaker at Vanguard Security & Compliance 2013. His speech will address current data security threats posed by organized crime and state-sponsored actors, highlight the newest cyber criminals and examine the latest tactics employed by predators.

Las Vegas, Nevade (PRWEB) March 19, 2013

Vanguard Integrity Professionals today announced that the award-winning, twenty-year veteran of the FBI and the Principal Security Strategist for Cisco, Patrick Gray, will be the opening keynote speaker on June 24th at Vanguard Security & Compliance 2013. Now in its 27th year, Vanguard Security & Compliance is the world’s largest educational forum dedicated to modern information technology security training for large enterprise servers and the networks to which they are connected.

Gray’s speech, entitled “The Confluence of Data Security Challenges,” will explore the current threat landscape by highlighting the newest cyber criminals and examining the latest tactics employed by these predators. Gray will address how organized criminal groups, collectives such as Anonymous, and state-sponsored actors utilize social media, social engineering, advanced persistent threats and malware to compromise networks world-wide both large and small. “I look forward to participating in the Vanguard Security & Compliance 2013 event. One of the key pitfalls facing us today is the misperceived level of trust in network and enterprise-wide security,” Gray stated. “There are numerous factors that can undermine network security which may not be readily apparent. This will be the focus of my presentation.”

“We welcome Patrick as a keynote speaker at Vanguard Security & Compliance 2013. He always delivers an insightful and entertaining security presentation that attendees appreciate,” said Steven Ringelberg, chief operating officer at Vanguard. “Patrick’s keynote will provide attendees with a better understanding of the difficulties of network security, and why it is important to have defense-in-depth within your enterprise, particularly at the server level, to be able to deal with inevitable network penetrations.”

Gray joined Cisco as principal security strategist after previously serving as director of X-Force operations at Internet Security Systems. At ISS, Gray was one of the creators of the X-Force Internet threat intelligence center and also served as director of the penetration testing and emergency response teams. Prior to joining ISS, Gray spent 20 years as a special agent for the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Based on his work with ISS and the FBI, Gray has first-hand knowledge of the hacking community, and its aims and methodologies as it attacks government, ecommerce, energy and financial entities.

One of Gray’s assignments was in the FBI Intelligence Division where he was responsible for global counterintelligence investigations. Another assignment was as supervisor of a special operations group that ultimately morphed into one of the FBI’s first regional cyber-crime squads. Gray continues to work closely with the FBI and other U.S. Government agencies and serves as advisor to the National Infrastructure Advisory Council for the Department of Homeland Security.

About Vanguard Security & Compliance 2013
Vanguard Security & Compliance, June 24-27, is committed to providing security practitioners with immediate knowledge and hands-on skills to secure their enterprise and mitigate risks using emerging security technologies and techniques. Since its inception, the event has been responsible for providing more than 10,000 IBM® System z® security practitioners with z/OS® and RACF® security training to ensure the protection of their critical infrastructures. Each year as the security threatscape and regulatory environment evolves the training advances to address today’s toughest security and compliance challenges.

For a complete list of sessions and program tracks, or to learn more about Vanguard Security & Compliance 2013, visit http://www.go2vsc.com

 

0
joeb

Registered:
Posts: 8,417
Reply with quote  #31 
and you thought Congress and the US Senate would hold FBI  agents accountable, eh?


 
 

1st read
see link for full story
http://www.myfoxboston.com/story/21762715/2013/03/21/out-of-control-senator-blasts-boston-fbi-over-mob-informant

'Out of Control:' Senator blasts Boston FBI over mob informant

 
 
A top-ranking U.S. Senator is leveling harsh criticism against the Boston office of the FBI for its handling of local mob informant Mark Rossetti, saying the office needs a major shakeup.
"I thought it was pretty clear after Bulger as an example, now Rossetti coming out and not having learned any lessons. There needs to be big changes. I'm not running the FBI but this has been going on too long. There have to be big changes," Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, told FOX Undercover.
Grassley launched his own investigation of the FBI's handling of Rossetti after his informant status was publicly revealed in 2011.
Rossetti is a mob captain and suspected murderer who was charged in 2010 with running an organized crime ring including heroin trafficking, loan sharking and extortion. A State Police wiretap on Rossetti that gathered evidence used to indict and ultimately convict him also recorded conversations with his FBI handler, showing he was committing crimes while acting as a paid informant.
"It's very difficult with the use of a Rossetti or a previous person that they wouldn't know it's going on and there wasn't some knowledge of it. And if there isn't knowledge of it there ought to be, otherwise the FBI is not doing its job," Grassley said.
The Boston FBI's office's use of Rossetti is particularly troubling because it was the office where corrupt former agent John Connolly dealt with former mob boss James "Whitey" Bulger.
"Going back a ways, don't you have an FBI agent that was convicted of some wrongdoing because he was involved in this process as well? Doesn't that tell you something about the local office probably being out of control?" Grassley said.
"Do the guidelines for dealing with informants need to be revised again?" Beaudet asked him.
"First of all, they revised them and then they work with Rossetti, and that's a conflict with the original guidelines. I don't know whether just a revision again is going to make any difference. There's something in the culture of the FBI in this particular part of the country that needs to be dealt with. I don't know whether another revision of guidelines would make much difference," Grassley replied.
The FBI in a statement said the internal review is still underway pending access to some state court documents.
"The review consists of thousands of documents, interviews with those directly involved in the matter, including members of the Massachusetts State Police, FBI, district attorney's office and the U.S. Attorney's Office," the FBI statement said.
The culture of the FBI office in Boston was also part of Grassley's investigation. He found that the FBI's relationship with the State Police organized crime section was still poisoned from the Bulger years.
Court records revealed that, early in the investigation, State Police asked the FBI if Rossetti was an informant, which the FBI denied.
"The FBI never communicated with authorities in Massachusetts, particularly with the State Police, that he was an informant, and there was information that was very clear to the FBI that he was involved in criminal activity," Grassley said.
After Rossetti's informant status was publicly revealed, the FBI and State Police issued a joint statement suggesting their relationship was just fine.
"The FBI cooperated for months with the Massachusetts State Police, assisting their organized crime unit until the investigation was complete," the statement said.
Grassley said the press release "was not true."
"There's a great deal of antagonism between the FBI and the State Police. The State Police does not trust the FBI," he said.
"All law enforcement in this country ought to be working together and the FBI is the granddaddy of them all in a sense of being national and federal and crossing state lines and all that. They should be setting the example for cooperation and see local police and state police as a helping hand rather than seeing them as somewhat of an enemy," he said.
The FBI statement says "(T)he FBI cooperated with the MSP in the manner requested by police officials. The FBI and the MSP work closely together on a day-to-day basis in furtherance of our mutual commitment to public safety."
Rossetti pleaded guilty last week to the last of his charges from the state police investigation. He won't be out of prison until he's in his sixties.
But Grassley says it shouldn't be case closed with the Boston FBI.
"I'm not saying just in this case in Boston, in Massachusetts, and I'm not saying it just with the FBI, I'm saying across government, if heads don't roll you don't get any change of behavior," he said.
But in the statement, FBI headquarters is standing by its Boston office.
"FBI leadership has full confidence in FBI Boston management and employees," the statement says.
      


2nd read

see link for full FBI  penetration
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2013/03/microsoft-nsl-revelation/



Microsoft, Too, Says FBI Secretly Surveilling Its Customers

    By David Kravets
    03.21.13

A breakdown of the number of National Security Letters the FBI has issued to Microsoft targeted accounts (“identifiers”) for user data. Source: Microsoft

Microsoft said the Federal Bureau of Investigation is secretly spying on its customers with so-called National Security Letters that don’t require a judge’s approval, a revelation Thursday that mirrors one Google announced two weeks ago.

Redmond, Washington-based Microsoft announced that the type of accounts the feds are targeting with National Security Letters, warrants or court orders include Hotmail/Outlook.com, SkyDrive, Xbox LIVE, Microsoft Account, Messenger and Office 365.

The announcements by the two tech giants mark the first time U.S. companies have divulged they were secretly responding to National Security Letters and coughing up user data to the bureau without probable-cause warrants. And the Microsoft announcement comes six days after a federal judge declared National Security Letters unconstitutional and gave the President Barack Obama administration 90 days to appeal the ruling.

The NSLs, which have been issued nationwide hundreds of thousands of times, are written demands from the FBI that compel internet service providers, credit companies, financial institutions and businesses like Google and Microsoft to hand over confidential records about their customers, such as subscriber information, phone numbers and e-mail addresses, websites visited and more as long as the FBI says the information is “relevant” to an investigation.

“Like others in the industry, we believe it is important for the public to have access to information about law enforcement access to customer data, particularly as customers are increasingly using technology to communicate and store private information,” Microsoft said.

Google, Microsoft and other entities that receive NSLs are gagged from disclosing them publicly or to the targets. But, “pursuant to approval from the government,” Microsoft released a numerical “range” of the number of NSLs it has received dating to 2009.

Two weeks ago, when Google released its numbers, it said it only publicized a range “to address concerns raised by the FBI, Justice Department and other agencies that releasing exact numbers might reveal information about investigations.”


For 2012, which is the latest data available, Microsoft said it received 0-999 National Security Letters involving between 1,000 to 1,999 accounts. In 2011, Microsoft said it received 1,000-1,999 of them for 3,000-3,999 accounts.

For 2010, the company reported 1,000-1,999 requests targeting 5,000-5,999 accounts. In 2009, there were 0-999 National Security Letters targeting 2,000-2,999 accounts.

Google, on the other hand, reported receiving 0-999 National Security Letters for years 2009-2012 affecting 1,000-1,999 accounts for all years but 2010. That year, National Security Letters targeted 2,000-2,999 accounts.

Neither Google nor Microsoft numerically broke down which of their services were targeted with NSLs.

In 2011, the year with the latest available figures, the FBI issued 16,511 National Security Letters pertaining to 7,201 different persons. (.pdf)

You’re not alone if it seems strange the two companies are reporting numerical ranges.

U.S. District Judge Susan Illston of San Francisco declared the letters unconstitutional on Friday because of the harsh gag rules associated with them. Illston said the NSL nondisclosure provisions “significantly infringe on speech regarding controversial government powers” which thwarts “the public debate” about them.

Under the Patriot Act, a NSL may compel Microsoft to divulge “the name, address, length of service, and local and long distance toll billing records” of our users if it is “relevant to an authorized investigation to protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities.” An FBI agent can self-issue an NSL to credit bureaus, ISPs, phone companies or any business with only the sign-off of the special agent in charge of their field office.

A Justice Department Inspector General audit found in 2007 that the FBI had indeed abused its authority and misused NSLs on many occasions. After 9/11, for example, the FBI paid multimillion-dollar contracts to AT&T and Verizon requiring the companies to station employees inside the FBI and to give these employees access to the telecom databases so they could immediately service FBI requests for telephone records.

The IG found that the employees let FBI agents illegally look at customer records without paperwork and even wrote NSLs for the FBI.


3rd read
see link for full story

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013/03/21/when-government-demands-silence-ugliness-patriot-act/

When the government demands silence -- the ugliness of the Patriot Act

 
Published March 21, 2013
 
  •  
     
In 1798, when John Adams was president of the United States, the feds enacted four pieces of legislation called the Alien and Sedition Acts. One of these laws made it a federal crime to publish any false, scandalous or malicious writing -- even if true -- about the president or the federal government, notwithstanding the guarantee of free speech in the First Amendment.
The feds used these laws to torment their adversaries in the press and even successfully prosecuted a congressman who heavily criticized the president. Then-Vice President Thomas Jefferson vowed that if he became president, these abominable laws would expire. He did, and they did, but this became a lesson for future generations: The guarantees of personal freedom in the Constitution are only as valuable and reliable as is the fidelity to the Constitution of those to whom we have entrusted it for safekeeping.
We have entrusted the Constitution to all three branches of the federal government for safekeeping. But typically, they fail to do so. Presidents have repeatedly assaulted the freedom of speech many times throughout our history, and Congresses have looked the other way. Abraham Lincoln arrested Northerners who challenged the Civil War. Woodrow Wilson arrested Americans who challenged World War I. FDR arrested Americans he thought might not support World War II. LBJ and Richard Nixon used the FBI to harass hundreds whose anti-Vietnam protests frustrated them.
In the post-9/11 era the chief instrument of repression of personal freedom has been the government’s signature anti-terror legislation: the Patriot Act.
In our own post 9/11 era, the chief instrument of repression of personal freedom has been the government’s signature anti-terror legislation: the Patriot Act. It was born in secrecy, as members of the House of Representatives were given 15 minutes to read its 300 pages before voting on it in October 2001, and it operates in silence, as those who suffer under it cannot speak about it.
The Patriot Act permits FBI agents to write their own search warrants and gives those warrants the patriotic and harmless-sounding name of national security letters (NSLs). This authorization is in direct violation of the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which says that the people shall be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects from unreasonable searches and seizures, and that that security can only be violated by a search warrant issued by a neutral judge and based upon probable cause of crime.
The probable cause requirement compels the feds to acquire evidence of criminal behavior about the person whose records they seek, so as to prevent politically motivated invasions of privacy and fishing expeditions like those that were common in the colonial era. Judges are free, of course, to sign the requested warrant, to modify it and sign it, or to reject it if it lacks the underlying probable cause.
The very concept of a search warrant authorized by law enforcement and not by the courts is directly and profoundly antithetical to the Constitution -- no matter what the warrant is called. Yet, that’s what Congress and President Bush made lawful when they gave us the Patriot Act.
When FBI agents serve the warrants they’ve written for themselves -- the NSLs as they call them -- they tell the recipient of the warrant that he or she will commit a felony if he or she tells anyone -- a lawyer, a judge, a spouse, a priest in confessional -- of the receipt of the warrant. The NSLs are typically not served on the person whose records the FBI wants; rather, they are served on the custodians of those records, such as computer servers, the Post Office, hospitals, banks, delivery services, telephone providers, etc.
Because of the Patriot Act’s mandated silence, the person whose records the FBI seeks often never knows his or her records have been seized. Since October 2001, FBI agents and other federal agents have served more than 350,000 search warrants with which they have authorized themselves to conduct a search. Each time they have done so, they have warned the recipient of the warrant to remain silent or be prosecuted for telling the truth about the government.
Occasionally, recipients have not remained silent. They have understood their natural and constitutionally protected right to the freedom of speech and their moral and fiduciary duty to their customer or client, and they have moved in federal court either to suppress the warrant or for the right to tell the customer or client whose records are being sought that the FBI has come calling. Isn’t that odd in America -- asking a judge for permission to tell the truth about the government?
What’s even more odd is that the same section of the Patriot Act that criminalizes speaking freely about the receipt of an agent-written search warrant also authorizes the FBI to give the recipient of the warrant permission to speak about it. How un-American is that -- asking the FBI for permission to tell the truth about the government?
Last week in San Francisco, U.S. District Court Judge Susan Illston held that the section of the Patriot Act that prohibits telling anyone about the receipt of an FBI agent-written search warrant and the section that requires asking and receiving the permission of the FBI before talking about the receipt of one profoundly and directly infringe upon the freedom of speech guaranteed by the First Amendment. And the government knows that.
We all know that the whole purpose of the First Amendment is to encourage open, wide, robust debate about and transparency from the government. Our right to exercise the freedom of speech comes from our humanity, not from the government. The Constitution recognizes that we can only lose that right by consent or after a jury trial that results in conviction and incarceration.
But we can also lose it by the tyranny of the majority, as Congress and the president in 1798 and 2001 have demonstrated.

4th  read
see link for full story
http://www.oregonlive.com/portland/index.ssf/2013/03/report_on_portland_police_invo.html

Report on Portland police involvement in FBI-led terrorism task force is scant on details

March 21, 2013
 
 
 
 
Portland Police Chief Mike Reese, an assistant chief, a police lieutenant and two officers have obtained "Secret'' clearance from the FBI to participate in the FBI-led Joint Terrorism Task Force on an as-needed basis, according to a police bureau report. Randy L. Rasmussen/The Oregonian  
Portland police criminal intelligence officers have worked with the FBI-led Joint Terrorism Task Force at the federal agency's request on at least one investigation of domestic terrorism in the last year, according to a report Portland Police Chief Mike Reese has submitted to city commissioners.
This year, the chief assigned criminal intelligence officers to work on an investigation with the Joint Terrorism Task Force that occurred outside of Portland's city limits, after consultation with the police commissioner, the chief wrote in the report.
Those are the most details offered in the chief's 2013 annual report on the bureau's involvement in the federal task force. He'll present it to the City Council at 9:30 a.m. Wednesday.
"We have committed a very limited amount of bureau resources to JTTF work, so disclosure of the number of cases or hours worked may compromise ongoing investigations and reveal the operational tempo of our work on terrorism,'' the chief wrote in the report.
A 2011 agreement between the City Council and federal officials allowed for "as needed" involvement by Portland Police Bureau officers in the task force.  The City Council vote reversed a 2005 decision that made Portland the first city in the country to pull out of the task force.
The 2011 agreement called on the bureau to submit annual reports to the council by the end of January each year.
Portland's new Mayor Charlie Hales sought a delay in the report's presentation until this month. The report says Hales met with Gregory A. Fowler,  Special Agent-in-Charge of  the FBI's Portland field office, on Feb. 14.
According to the report dated Feb. 19 and made public Wednesday, the Portland police chief, assistant chief in charge of investigations, the lieutenant of the Police Bureau's Criminal Intelligence Unit, and two of the unit's officers have been granted "Secret'' clearance by the FBI. That's a step down from Top Secret clearance, which would allow Portland officers unescorted access to FBI offices or access to informants' information.
It was determined that Portland officers would not need the Top Secret clearance, Reese wrote in the report.
The chief said he limited Portland police involvement with the federal task force to two criminal intelligence officers on an as-needed basis to help ensure "effective oversight,'' the report says.
A Portland police assistant chief, and the lieutenant of the criminal intelligence unit attend the task force's executive committee meetings, either with the chief, or in his place, the report says.  A senior deputy city attorney provided training to the Portland criminal intelligence officers on the legal guidelines for their involvement in any federal terrorism investigation.
The city attorney's office found Portland police have complied with Oregon law and the city's agreement that restricts police involvement in terrorism investigations found to have a "criminal nexus,'' the report says.
Portland police were not involved in the recent investigation and March 5 arrest of a 48-year-old city employee, Reaz Qadir Khan, who is accused of sending aid for a terrorist implicated in a 2009 suicide attack in Pakistan.
This is not the first time the police bureau's annual report didn't meet the city's deadline.
It was issued in February in 2012, under then-Mayor Sam Adams, who filed paperwork authorizing a delay that year. When that report came out, Commissioner Amanda Fritz said she expected more details -- including the number of cases requiring police participation and hours worked -- and voted against the report in a 4-1 decision.
0
joeb

Registered:
Posts: 8,417
Reply with quote  #32 

see link for full story
http://thetrialofwhiteybulger.com/the-fbi-and-whitey-bulger/senator-chuck-grassley-stirs-in-his-sleep/#comment-14242


Senator Chuck Grassley Stirs In His SLeep

 

I was going to title this page “Senator Chuck Grassley Wakes Up,” but upon a closer reading of the article I realized he was only stirring a little.  I’m talking about an article I read regarding our old  friend Mark Rossetti the murderous Mafia captain who was a Top Echelon informant for the FBI, the one who in 2010 an FBI agent was overheard telling him that his job was to keep him invisible and safe.

Grassley is upset because Rossetti is a Whitey Bulger redux: the FBI protecting a man believed to have murdered people so he can continue his gangster ways.

You may recall a Congressional committee delved into the FBI’s use of Whitey Bulger and others and in 2004  issued a report titled: Everything Secret Degenerates” The FBI’s Use Of Murderers As Informants.”  The first paragraph of the Executive Summary read: “Federal law enforcement officials made a decision to use murderers as informants beginning in the 1960s. Known killers were protected from the consequences of their crimes and purposefully kept on the streets. This report discusses some of the disastrous consequence of the use of murderers as informant in New England.”

In its conclusion the Committee wrote that it “is committed to ensuring that these abuses are not repeated.” It then notes that: “FBI Director Robert Mueller has undertaken re-engineering the administration and operation of human sources.” It continues by pointing out all the changes being made by the FBI to prevent similar future situations. It concludes by saying: “The Committee will examine these reforms to ensure that they are being implemented and to ensure that, as implemented, they are effective.”

When the Mark Rossetti situation was publicly disclosed in 2011, Congressman Steven Lynch was highly upset. And well he should have been. He was part of a minority that attached its own views to the Committees Report. Lynch’s position was the Committee’s work was not done and that it should decide “what actions must be taken legislatively, through regulation, by oversight activity, or some combination in order to prevent a continuation or recurrence of similar events in the future.”

What has happened? The Committee and Congress did nothing. They went to sleep believing its job was done. The FBI said it had changed when it didn’t. It continued to do what it had always done. The FBI had again successfully bamboozled Congress because like Old Man River it just keeps flowing along.

I’ve criticized Congressman Steven Lynch for dropping the ball in this matter because as a member of the Committee and being from Whitey’s home town of South Boston he knew of the “disastrous consequences” that follow from keeping murderers safe. He too lacked the nerve to go up against the FBI.

Senator “Don’t call me Charlie it’s Chuck” Grassley a Republican from Iowa who has been in Congress for 40 years spoke about Rossetti saying: “It’s very difficult with the use of a Rossetti or a previous person that they wouldn’t know it’s going on and there wasn’t some knowledge of it. And if there isn’t knowledge of it there ought to be, otherwise the FBI is not doing its job.

He went on to say, “Going back a ways, don’t you have an FBI agent that was convicted of some wrongdoing because he was involved in this process as well? Doesn’t that tell you something about the local office probably being out of control?” 

The FBI responded with its typical disingenuousness saying an internal review involving thousands of documents is still underway. No one seems to suggest that if the FBI takes two years to investigate this simple matter then that in and of itself is proof something is wrong.

Grassley was asked about the FBI guidelines which we have seen are just there for cover. Grassely didn’t think changing them would make a difference because the FBI worked “with Rossetti, and that’s a conflict with the original guidelines.”

It is more than the guidelines, Grassley said, “There’s something in the culture of the FBI in this particular part of the country that needs to be dealt with.” The FBI replied, “FBI leadership has full confidence in FBI Boston management and employees.

That is about the same response it made back when the issues involving Stevie Flemmi and Whitey first came up.

Senator Grassley explained: “I thought it was pretty clear after Bulger as an example, now Rossetti coming out and not having learned any lessons. There needs to be big changes. I’m not running the FBI but this has been going on too long. There have to be big changes,”

Therein lies the problem. Senator Grassley after 40 years in Congress doesn’t understand what is happening. First, this is not a local problem. We only know of the FBI’s abuses because we’ve lifted the lid on the Boston office. No other FBI office has been examined as closely as Boston. Congress seems afraid to look any further than Boston. I’ve always been taught that If one barrel in a lot is rotten you can assume others are.

Next Grassley should understand that it is his job to run the FBI.  In our system of checks and balances, when the executive runs amok, Congress has the obligation to do something about it. The FBI has been acting wrongfully since it introduced the Top Echelon program, in the 1960s. Grassley and Lynch and many others in Congress know it. They know, or should know, the FBI will not change. Grassley said the “FBI is not doing its job.” Well, Congress, neither are you. The  40 year sleep continues.

0
joeb

Registered:
Posts: 8,417
Reply with quote  #33 
see link for full story

http://bostonherald.com/news_opinion/local_coverage/2013/03/whitey_lawyers_doj_in_relationships_with_numerous_murderers



Whitey lawyers: DOJ ‘in relationships with numerous murderers’
March 26, 2013


Mobster James “Whitey” Bulger’s defense team is vowing to prove at his trial this summer that the license to kill he claims he was gifted by the Department of Justice “was not an isolated incident,” but rather “one example of the DOJ’s ongoing practice of making agreements with alleged high-level criminals,” according to court documents filed last night.

Lawyers on both sides of Bulger’s prosecution for 19 murders will have their first public encounter this morning with Denise Casper, the new judge on the case.

Last night filings by the defense team of J.W. Carney Jr. and Hank Brennan stated, “The DOJ historically has promised not to prosecute organized crime figures if the arrangement supports their objectives, and then, will later deny the arrangements.”

To triumph in its objective of crushing Bulger’s rivals in La Costra Nostra, the attorneys said, “As the DOJ’s war against LCN continued through the 1970’s and 1980’s, the DOJ continued their pattern of conduct by engaging in relationships with numerous murderers.”



They seek, among other things, that Casper compel the U.S. Attorney’s Office to reveal to them the identities of two confidential informants referenced in a 1995 FBI affidavit they argue directly contradicts “the expected testimony of a key government witness, Kevin Weeks,” who they hope to discredit on the stand.

Weeks was Bulger’s utility man and did much of the South Boston crew’s dirty work, including digging mass graves for their alleged victims. The purported discrepancy centers around a winning 1991 $14.3 million Lottery ticket turned in by Michael Linskey. Linskey, his brother Patrick, Weeks and Bulger split the winnings until Bulger’s annual $119,000 share was forfeited when he went on the lam in 1995.

Citing Weeks’ 2007 autobiography “Brutal” and prior court testimony, Bulger’s public defender J.W. Carney Jr. said Weeks maintains their stake in the payout was legitimate; however, at least one of the unnamed informants told the FBI Bulger and Weeks paid hundreds of thousands of dollars for their share as part of a scheme to use the ticket proceeds to launder money from their criminal enterprises.

“This individual is well positioned to directly contradict Weeks’ testimony at trial regarding the lottery winnings. The defendant (Bulger) in entitled to call him for this purpose,” Carney said in documents filed last night in U.S. District Court. “The government has accepted Weeks’ representation that the lottery win was lawful. Accordingly, there is no pending investigation or other law enforcement interest that would require the preservation of the informant’s anonymity.”

Casper was earlier this month selected to replace U.S. District Court Judge Richard G. Stearns after the federal 1st Circuit Court of Appeals ruled his prior work as a top-level federal prosecutor might leave the trial vulnerable to criticism over potential bias.
0
joeb

Registered:
Posts: 8,417
Reply with quote  #34 
see link for full story

http://www.wral.com/mccrory-names-nc-law-enforcement-chiefs/12279223/?d_posting_successful=1&d_full_comments=1&d_comments_page=1#comments_block


March 28,2013

McCrory names NC law enforcement chiefs

Gov. Pat McCrory on Thursday named the commanders of three North Carolina law enforcement agencies under his control.

McCrory named Col. William Grey to lead the State Highway Patrol, FBI agent Gregory Baker to head the Division of Alcohol Law Enforcement and Clayton Police Chief Glen Allen as chief of the State Capitol Police.

"We are indebted to these brave men and women who put on the uniform every day and to their families," McCrory said, calling law enforcement the "fine line between our freedom and our safety."

Grey, 52, of Cary, has been with the Highway Patrol for 22 years, including a stint as chief of its special operations unit, according to McCrory, who said Gray "understands leadership by example."

The governor cited Trooper Michael Potts, who was shot last month while making a traffic stop in Durham, as an example of the dangers law enforcement officers face in their daily duties. He said he plans to invite Potts to the Executive Mansion for steak and lobster dinner once the trooper's jaw heals from the shooting.

"I'm proud of the black and gray," McCrory said of the Highway Patrol. "We're going to bring pride to that uniform across this state and among all the personnel."

The agency has seen numerous officers resign, face discipline or be fired in recent years for infractions ranging from profiling young women for traffic stops and animal abuse to drunken driving and having sex on duty.

 

 

 

 

The State Capitol Police also was scarred recently when acting chief Tony Asion and another officer were fired amid an internal investigation of outside employment by officers on the force. Gray has served as acting Capitol Police chief in recent weeks.

"The demands of a law enforcement officer can be overwhelming at times, and we appreciate the commitment it takes to provide loyal service to this state," McCrory said, adding that he expects all officers to "uphold the agency's highest standards and give us your best."

"People are looking at men and women in uniform for respect, and we will follow through with that," he said.

Baker, 49, of Raleigh, has served with the FBI in Raleigh, Charlotte and Washington, D.C., and has worked closely with local law enforcement agencies, which the governor said is a key role for ALE.

0
joeb

Registered:
Posts: 8,417
Reply with quote  #35 
see link for full story
http://www.capitalgazette.com/news/environment/eastern-shore-osprey-cam-a-hit-in-area-offices-homes/article_02eb1466-42a0-56c9-b029-3639d6d6cda5.html

Eastern Shore Osprey cam a hit in area offices, homes

March 31, 2013

Tom and Audrey live on a nesting platform built about 15 years ago. The two of them, as well as an earlier pair of ospreys that used the platform, have been watched through a camera for years by the property owner, a former FBI agent who now runs a security consulting firm.

The property owner, who asked not to be named so as not to draw onlookers to his house, set up his own camera on the nesting platform several years ago. He shared the camera’s feed over the Internet with friends, but only five people at a time could watch.

Then he was approached by colleagues with a company called Earth Security, who had been working with the Chesapeake Conservancy on finding a spot for a high-quality wildlife camera.

“It’s something I wanted to do, but I couldn’t invest the kind of money that it was going to take,” the property owner said.

Installing the camera wasn’t exactly a piece of cake, said Scott McDaniel of Glen Burnie-based Earth Security.

McDaniel obtained a 3-megapixel camera usually used for outdoor security footage, mounted it 20 feet in the air on a pole above the nest and ran wires to the property owner’s house, where it was hooked up to a dedicated high-speed Internet line.

McDaniel used a video transcoder developed by Earth Security’s parent company, Skyline Technology, that allows the video to be broadcast to large numbers of Internet viewers. For now, the osprey cam website doesn’t work on Firefox or on mobile devices, but fixes are in the works.

McDaniel said it has been cool to use his company’s technology to promote wildlife.

“It’s amazing that they are unbothered by the camera being there. The camera is sitting there staring at them, and they’re like, ‘Whatever,’” he said.

0
joeb

Registered:
Posts: 8,417
Reply with quote  #36 
 SEE LINK FOR FULL STORY
http://www.thenews.com.pk/Todays-News-13-21961-NAB-to-provide-ECP-with-details-of-convicts-defaulters-says-Fasih

NAB to provide ECP with details of convicts, defaulters, says Fasih    
Monday, April 01, 2013
 

 

The NAB chief said that the relevant wings had been directed to facilitate the ECP in holding fair and free elections and election cells had been set up at the NAB headquarters and provincial regional offices.

 

He said that the National Accountability Bureau (NAB) saved Rs200 billion from being swindled by intervening in projects and procurements worth Rs1.5 trillion during last year.The NAB chairman in an interview with this agency said that the bureau had tried to nip corruption in the bud, which was manifested by its intervention in high profile cases, involving huge somes of money. The small-scale cases were to be tackled by the Federal Investigation Agency (FIA), Anti-Corruption Establishment, police and other departments like Customs and Taxation, which had their own courts.

 

He said despite manpower shortage NAB had revitalised its functioning when it was on the verge of collapse. “Currently, we are running our affairs with 28 per cent strength. Though we have recruited 260 new investigators, the shortage still exists,” the NAB chairman added.

 

He said the new officers, who would be trained in six months, would strengthen the enforcement. Around 40 of the new investigators would be sent abroad for further training on the basis of their performance. NAB, in that regard, had already made arrangements with the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and the investigation and anti-corruption agencies of the European Union.

 

He said NAB would empower the regulators to advance meritocracy, fair play and transparency, to promote awareness and combat corruption, which had eaten up the very core of the country’s system.

 

Replying to a question, Fasih said today’s NAB was different from the one headed by General (retd) Amjad, who had the full backing of the army. “At that time the NAB recovered Rs180 billion from tax and loan defaulters as the main force behind that recovery was the armed forces.

 

But later, NAB’s recovery dropped to a single digit. However, having no such backing, the NAB has recovered Rs25 billion during last year,” he said.He ruled out the impression that the NAB was still being used as a tool for political victimization, saying it had always worked independently and would continue to perform its functions.

 

When asked about the slow investigation process, the NAB chairman said that probing financial crimes was a highly complex and complicated process. White collar criminals were highly intelligent and savvy in financial dealings and regulations and finding prosecutable evidence against them to secure conviction under the current outdated Evidence Act was time consuming. The investigators also need modern training, he added.

 

“To deal with white collar crime is not as easy as it seems to be. Unfortunately we do not have innovative and advance expertise to prove and investigate the forensic evidence,” he remarked.

 

Despite being a time-consuming process, we are striving hard to complete the probes as early as possible, he added. “I have already directed the NAB operations and prosecution wings to actively pursue all high profile cases, including rental power producers (RPPs) and Oil and Gas Regulatory Authority (Ogra) cases so as the references can be filed if sufficient court-worthy evidence is available,” Fasih Bokhari added.

 

About the suo moto notice taken by the NAB on tax evasion of telecom companies, Fasih Bokhari said the case was under investigation and its findings would be shared with the media.

 

Cellular companies may be more important for media organisations because of their commercial interests on account of advertisements, but NAB will not spare any corrupt individual or institution, he added.

0
joeb

Registered:
Posts: 8,417
Reply with quote  #37 

FBI honoring city philanthropist Doris Buffett

Richmond FBI Special Agent in Charge Jeffrey C. Mazanec presents Fredericksburg resident Doris Buffett with the 2012 Director’s Community Leadership Award for the Richmond Division.

Fredericksburg philanthropist Doris Buffett is to be honored Friday by FBI Director Robert Mueller for her service to the community and contribution to public safety, the FBI’s Richmond Division announced today.

She is recipient of the 2012 Director’s Community Leadership Award for the Richmond Division, an honor that recognizes “commitment and contribution to public safety and awareness,” according to the FBI statement.

 

0
joeb

Registered:
Posts: 8,417
Reply with quote  #38 
The Weather Report brought to you by Exxon Mobil part of the Texas Oil Mafia
that funded the President Kennedy assassination.




TWO READS
2nd read
see link for full story
http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/H ... 417568.php


Record Breaking High winds in SF close Great Highway

Monday, April 8, 2013
Punishing winds howled across the Bay Area for more than three hours Monday morning, upending lawn furniture, toppling trash bins, downing power lines and tearing off tree limbs.

Gusts of 75 mph were recorded off Ocean Beach in San Francisco, said Steve Anderson, a forecaster with the National Weather Service.

"It was the highest wind ever recorded there," Anderson said. "One of our weather spotters called in (from Ocean Beach) and said, 'It is really windy and my front window just got blown out.' "

A giant eucalyptus tree toppled over on 48th Avenue near Geary Boulevard, and the Great Highway was closed between Skyline Boulevard and Lincoln Way because of sand on the roadway, city officials said.

Almost 4,000 customers were without power on the Peninsula as of 11:30 a.m. Monday, while hundreds more were in the dark in the North and East Bay, said Jason King, a spokesman for Pacific Gas and Electric Co. A high-wind advisory was issued for Bay Area bridges.

1st read
see link for full story
http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKSinvestOil.htm


Texas Oil Men

Just before John F. Kennedy was assassinated he upset people like Clint Murchison and Haroldson L. Hunt when he talked about plans to submit to Congress a tax reform plan designed to produce about $185,000,000 in additional revenues by changes in the favourable tax treatment until then accorded the gas-oil industry. Kennedy was particularly upset that Hunt, who had an annual income of about $30,000,000, paid only small amounts of federal income tax.

Madeleine Brown claims that she was Johnson's mistress. In her autobiography, Texas in the Morning (1997) Brown claims that the conspiracy to kill Kennedy involved Lyndon B. Johnson and several Texas oil men including Clint Murchison, Haroldson L. Hunt and J. Edgar Hoover. This theory was supported by Craig Zirbel in his book The Texas Connection: The Assassination of President John F. Kennedy (1991).

Joachim Joesten, an investigative journalist, believes that Johnson's secretary, Bobby Baker was involved in this plot: "The Baker scandal then is truly the hidden key to the assassination, or more exact, the timing of the Baker affair crystallized the more or less vague plans to eliminate Kennedy which had already been in existence the threat of complete exposure which faced Johnson in the Baker scandal provided that final impulse he was forced to give the go-ahead signal to the plotters who had long been waiting for the right opportunity."

In his book, JFK: The Second Plot (1992), Matthew Smith points out that: "The oil industry in Texas had enjoyed huge tax concessions since 1926, when Congress had provided them as an incentive to increase much needed prospecting. The oil depletion benefits were somehow left in place to become a permanent means by which immense fortunes were amassed by those in the industry and, well aware of the anomaly, John Kennedy had declared an intention to review the oil industry revenues. There was nothing in the world which would have inflamed the oil barons more than the President interfering with the oil depletion allowance."

In Dick Russell's book, The Man Who Knew Too Much (1992) Richard Case Nagell claimed the initial plan to assassinate President John F. Kennedy was financed by Haroldson L. Hunt and other individuals. The operation was to be performed by a anti-Castro group that included David Ferrie, Guy Banisterand Clay Shaw. According to Nagell the conspirators believed that if they set-up Lee Harvey Oswald, a well-known supporter of Fidel Castro with links to the Soviet Union, the assassination would result in a full-scale war against Cuba.

In 2003 Barr McClellan published Blood, Money & Power: How LBJ Killed JFK. In the book McClellan argues that Lyndon B. Johnson and Edward Clark were involved in the planning and cover-up of the assassination of John F. Kennedy. McClellan also named Malcolm Wallace as one of the assassins. The killing of Kennedy was paid for by oil millionaires such as Clint Murchison and Haroldson L. Hunt. McClellan claims that Clark got $2 million for this work.

The assassination of Kennedy allowed the oil depletion allowance to be kept at 27.5 per cent. It remained unchanged during the Johnson presidency. According to McClellan this resulted in a saving of over 100 million dollars to the American oil industry. Soon after Johnson left office it dropped to 15 per cent.

(L1) Barr McClellan, Blood Money and Power: How L.B.J. Killed J.F.K. (2003)

A fawning allegiance to Dallas and its billionaire leaders was something that would never change throughout Lyndon Johnson's political career. The true Texas oilmen were not the wild Glenn McCarthys of Houston or the corporate managers of the great oil companies, the "majors." Big Oil was in Dallas, and the most prominent members were conservative businessmen like Clint Murchison, H. L. Hunt, Wofford Cain, and D. H. "Dry Hole" Byrd." The wilder, less-inhibited Sid Richardson of nearby Fort Worth was also a member. These men went to work when oil was first discovered in the early part of the twentieth century, and, when the "black giant" was discovered in their back yards in 1931, they moved in. In an area of east Texas extending over five counties, large tracts of land over the black giant were up for grabs, and anyone with the guns and muscle could have the oil leases. They only had to get onto the property, fight off the other squatters and resist buyout overtures from the majors. Following remarkable success stories in those wild and woolly days, the new rich had the uniquely Texas right to brag nonstop, to fly their jets wherever, to gamble whenever they felt lucky, to own football teams, and, generally, to do whatever they damned well pleased. They did what billionaires did - whatever they wanted to do - and, as the new cash machines, they set the pattern for Texas culture for many yet to come.

During these early years, a strange relationship developed between Big Oil and Washington on three separate fronts plus a notable deference on the fourth. First, the federal government had allowed Texas oil higher tax deductions than any other industry in America. A strange compromise cut in 1923 with the IRS benefited the oil business as no other. Depletion was one of three main government subsidies to the business, and this one was as sacred as the Alamo, saving oilmen millions by reducing their taxes up to 27.5 per cent. Specifically, this was an expense deduction for depletion of resources and was allowed as a reduction of taxable income.

How did people like Clint Murchison and H. L. Hunt become billionaires in the 1930s?

(L2) Marquis W. Childs, Washington Calling (10th October, 1963)

To a friend and long-time associate who called on him the other day President Kennedy expressed considerable bitterness on the subject of top-bracket taxpayers who use tax exemptions to spread propaganda of the extreme right. The President talked about two men, each of whom is often referred to as "the richest man in the world". One was J. Paul Getty, an oilman who spends most of his time in England. The second was the Dallas, Texas, oilman H. L. Hunt. Both are billionaires. Both, according to the President, paid small amounts in federal income tax last year. These men, the President said, use various forms of tax exemption and special tax allowances to subsidize the ultra right on television, radio and in print.

There is no doubt that the right-wing is heavily subsidized. On radio and television stations across the nation free taped programs are run daily, assailing the United Nations, attacking the graduated income tax, foreign aid, social security and the other favorite hates of the extreme right. One of the biggest tax benefits oilmen enjoy is the 27.5 per cent depletion allowance. In his January tax message, the President proposed a sharp reduction in this benefit, which has been extended to cover a long list of minerals. The tax bill passed by the House made only a minor change, however. The right-wing is prepared to go all out to defeat Kennedy in 1964.

Why was President John F. Kennedy angry about the activities of H. L. Hunt? What did he plan to do about the tax benefits enjoyed by Texas oilmen like H. L. Hunt?

(L3) New York Times (15th December, 1963)

Nowhere is oil a bigger political force than Texas, producer of 35 per cent of the nation's oil and possessor of half of its obtainable oil reserves. As a Texan in Congress, Lyndon B. Johnson was a strong advocate of oil industry causes - low import quotas and the 27.5 % per cent tax allowance for depletion of oil reserves.

Did John F. Kennedy and Lyndon B. Johnson agree about the 27.5 % per cent tax allowance for depletion of oil reserves?

(L4) Thomas G. Buchanan, Who Killed Kennedy? (1964)

Few Americans suspect the dominant position oil assumes in the American economy. Most of us probably would guess that steel or auto-manufacturing were the chief industries of the United States, with chemicals not far behind them. Oil investments are, however, more than these three industries combined-more than 50 billion dollars. Almost half of this enormous wealth is owned in Texas. Until 1901, Texas was noted chiefly for its cattle, and it was the land of "frontier justice" which non-Texans have been taught by Hollywood films to associate with Texas. But on January 10 of that year, oil was found at Spindletop, just south of Beaumont, Texas, and the State has never been the same since that day. Easterners had a monopoly on oil before then; John D. Rockefeller alone, through Standard Oil, controlled 83 per cent of the United States production. But in the first year, the well at Spindletop produced as much oil as all 37,000 Eastern wells combined, and Texas since that time has gained almost complete monopoly of all America's own oil resources, although Standard Oil, through its investments overseas, still occupies a powerful position.

Texas oil, needless to say, has in the past half-century become the focal point of the whole State economy. So great, for instance, are the revenues from oil alone that no State income tax is needed; individuals in Texas pay the government in Washington, like anybody else - and hate it - but they are exempt from paying their own State. Oil men, consequently, run the State, with bitter factional disputes sometimes between them, but unchallenged by outsiders.

The Texas oil industry itself is theoretically under the jurisdiction of the Texas Railroad Commission, which decides in advance how much oil each producer is permitted to produce each month. It finds out, first, how much oil will be bought by each of the big companies that own the pipelines and, after they submit the quantity that they agree to purchase, Texas companies are then assigned percentages of the expected market. In this way a surplus is avoided. It is unnecessary to add, in view of what has already been stated, that all decisions by the Commission reflect the viewpoint of the dominant oil companies it is meant to regulate. If it were permitted to react to public sentiment, i.e. the interest of the consumer, it might authorize production of sufficient oil to force the big companies to lower prices.

Now and then, when the effects of the decisions of the oil men challenged the economy of the whole country, efforts have been made to stop them from demanding an unreasonable profit. Such, for instance, was the case in May, 1958, when a Federal grand jury indicted 29 oil companies for a conspiracy to charge outrageous prices. The charge was based on an increase in prices which was put into effect by these oil companies in i957, at a time when there was no oil shortage but, on the contrary, the industry was complaining of what Morgan Davis, president of Humble Oil, had been describing as a "burdensome surplus-producing capacity." The excess oil available was so great that production had been varying from 9 to 13 days a month, yet Humble Oil chose this time to increase its price to the consumer, and its 28 competitors then followed suit. The New York Times financial expert J. H. Carmical estimated, at that time, that this price rise cost the United States consumer half a billion dollars, and the public protest was so great that the oil companies were brought to court and charged with a conspiracy to violate price-fixing legislation. But a sympathetic judge decided that "the evidence in the case does not rise above the level of suspicion," and concluded, "I have an absolute conviction personally that the defendants are not guilty." They were all acquitted...

The process gathered its momentum during World War II, when major aircraft factories were built in Dallas and, with government assistance, other war production plants, constructed for the military service, remained there. They continued to be used in peacetime to supply the Air Force with its bomber planes and radar. In addition, when the war had ended, Texas as a whole and Dallas in particular made every effort to attract employers from the North to relocate there, offering these powerful incentives:

1. Low taxes. In addition to the fact that Texas has no personal income tax, the corporate tax rate is lower than in most States.

2. Cheap labour. The predominance of giant cattle farms like the King Ranch has forced a large number of the farmers to move to the cities. The farm workers harvesting the cotton, rice and other crops have to compete with "Wetbacks," migratory Mexican day labourers who work for pitifully meagre wages; this, in turn, tends to force down the wages of the city workers in the factories.

3. Anti-union legislation. State laws forbid compulsory membership in a union; some types of strike are forbidden entirely; and, where a strike is allowed, no more than two pickets are permitted in each area of 50 feet. A union official arrested on a picket line is prohibited by law from holding any union office after that.

4. Natural advantages. Access to the country's principal sources of oil, natural gas and sulphur with reduced transportation costs.

With these advantages to offer, Dallas managed to attract new industries to move there, supplementing factories built during World War II, and even these new industries tend also to be oriented toward contracts from the various armed forces. The most important was the great aircraft firm, Chance Vought, which made the biggest industrial relocation in U.S. history, moving its entire plant from Connecticut to Dallas-a transfer of 13,000 tons of equipment from that Northern State, as well as the 1,300 most important employees (all the others were simply left behind in Connecticut to add to the Northern unemployed). Another major Dallas firm is Continental Electronics Manufacturing Company, which recently built for the Navy a $40,000,000 radio transmitter, said to be the world's most powerful, designed to communicate with Navy submarines anywhere in the world, even when lying on the bottom of the ocean. Texas Instruments, which has rapidly become one of the nation's principal electronics parts suppliers, also has a large share of defence contracts.

Despite their frequent intervention in political campaigns in Northern States, the Texas millionaires proclaim themselves strong advocates of what they call "States' rights"-which, from their point of view, excludes all outside intervention in the State of Texas. Northerners cannot quite understand the bitterness which Texans feel against the government in Washington, and Northern financiers in general-a feeling which appears to be quite general in Texas. Thus, the New York Times of October 16, 1956 expressed astonishment that "the Governor of Texas, a rich man and a conservative, castigates `Wall Street' in terms used by the Daily Worker." It seems strange that men who have benefited from a tax concession which grants them commercial advantages no other section of the country can match, should nevertheless feel deep resentment, first, against the businessmen in other and less favoured industries and, second, against the Federal Government which has granted the concession to them. Yet this has been so. The Texas millionaires maintain that even the advantages they have are not sufficient; that their taxes are oppressive; that the bureaucrats from Washington are trying to take over Texas. Curiously, though, the State of Texas is one of the principal beneficiaries of Federal grants of one sort or another, quite apart from the tax policy which we already have discussed-and at the same time, Texas spends so little of her own tax money on social services that the average Texas citizen receives less aid than those in other States. Texas, for instance, gets more help from Washington than any other State for various child welfare services, yet ranks no more than 44th in money spent for this same purpose; Texas is the second State in money it accepts to help the blind and aged, but is 40th in money spent; Texas ranks third in its receipts from Washington for all purposes, yet 32nd in expenditures on public education.

The men whom the oligarchs in the State of Texas regard as their main enemies are those who dare propose reduction of their tax concession. Frank Ikard, a Texas Congressman, has called such persons "bombthrowing liberals." The Texas oil men are inclined to feel that epithet is much too mild; for them, the men who want to lower the oil depletion allowance are nothing short of Communists, although two critics of the present level of "depletion allowances" have been the late Republican leader, Senator Robert Taft, and former President Harry Truman, neither noted for pro-Communist opinions. Taft said it was "to a large extent a gift-a special privilege, beyond what any one else can get;" and Truman charged, "No loophole in the tax law is so inequitable." The first serious efforts to bring the taxes of the oil industry into closer correspondence with those of other U.S. industries were made by the New Deal, and no one hated President Roosevelt more bitterly than such Texans as John Nance Garner, who served as Vice-President during Roosevelt's first term and then opposed him for the second. When Roosevelt died in 1945, while the United States was still at war, a San Antonio millionaire announced a cocktail party to celebrate his death. In recent years, the chief foe of the Texas oil men has been Democratic Senator Douglas of Illinois, who proposed to keep the 27.5 per cent bonus for the small producers, but reduce it to 15 per cent for big ones. Douglas pointed out that there had been one oil company in 1954 which had a net income of four million dollars and paid only $404 in taxes, lower than the average US married couple; that there was another company which made five million dollars and paid no income tax at all; a third showed profits of 12 million dollars in 1953 and yet received a $500,000 tax credit; this same company made 10 million dollars the next year, and received another $100,000 tax credit.

To such arguments, the Texans have responded that the national security itself depends on their ability to guard their present rate of profit. "Oil, gentlemen, is ammunition," a Congressional committee was assured by General Ernest O. Thompson, Commanding General of the Texas National Guard. "In defence," he said, "oil is a prime mover. Why tamper with a system that... has made oil available in such quantities that we have been able to win two wars?"

Two wars, and so... why not a third one? Of all sections of the country, none was more opposed to any indication that an understanding might be reached between the President of the United States and Khrushchev, none is more convinced that the United States not only could survive a nuclear attack but could go on and win the war, especially if the U.S. had made the "first strike"-and that it might be worth it. Some of this hostility to a détente may be ascribed, of course, to cynical self-interest, for Texas has achieved an annual expansion, since the cold war started, more than six times greater than the national economy has averaged; conversely, if disarmament were actually to begin, no other section of America would suffer such immediate disruption of its industry, since an extremely high proportion of defence work has been concentrated in the State of Texas.

Neither cynical self-interest nor fear, however, totally explains the attitude of the oligarchy - or, at least, a portion of them. A major part of it must be ascribed to boredom. These oligarchs started as gamblers and gamblers they have remained. But in recent years there has been nothing left on which to gamble, except perhaps the whole future of the United States. This theory is, I think, worth some serious consideration. They have run out of new fields to conquer in the State of Texas; they've begun expanding. We have one of the most powerful and wealthy oligarchies in the world, controlled-as no society has ever been before-by men whose instincts are not those of businessmen, but gamblers. I suggest the impact of this fact upon world history, in any country which possesses the atomic bomb, is terrifying.

Why does Thomas G. Buchanan believe that the Texas Oil Industry might have been involved in the assassination of John F. Kennedy?

(L5) Joachim Joesten, How Kennedy Was Killed (1968)

When District Attorney Garrison, in his statement of September 21, 1967, made the startling disclosure that the assassination of President Kennedy had been ordered and paid for by a handful of oil-rich psychotic millionaires, he

didn't name any names. But I'm quite sure that all the good people of Dallas, if any of them were privileged to hear the news, instantly thought of their fellow-resident Haroldson Lafayette Hunt, the boss of the immensely rich Hunt Oil Company of Dallas.

Hunt is not only by far the richest of all the Texas oil millionaires but he is also, and more importantly, the one with the most pronounced and most vicious spleen. And, above all, the one who hated Kennedy most.

It so happens that H. L. Hunt is also a longtime friend, admirer and financial 'angel' of the most prominent Texas politician of our time, Lyndon B. Johnson, the man who was destined to become President of the United States automatically the moment Kennedy died. Perhaps this is the reason why Garrison preferred not to be too specific.

What evidence does Joachim Joesten use to claim that the "assassination of President Kennedy had been ordered and paid for by a handful of oil-rich psychotic millionaires"?

(L6) Dr. Albert E. Burke attending a meeting at the home of Haroldson L. Hunt in Dallas in 1961. Later he gave an account of the meeting.

I have listened to communists and other groups that can only be called enemies, accuse us of the worst intentions, the most inhuman ways of doing things, as the most dangerous people on earth, to be stopped and destroyed at all costs... But nothing I have heard in or from those places around us compared with the experience I had in the Dallas home of an American, whose hate for this country's leaders, and the way our institutions worked, was the most vicious, venomous and dangerous I have known in my life. No communist ever heard, no enemy of this nation has ever done a better job of degrading or belittling this country. That American was one of this nation's richest and most powerful men!

It was a very special performance by a pillar of the American community, who influences things in his community. It was a very special performance because in that living room during his performance - in which he said things had reached the point where there seemed to be "no way left to get those traitors out of our government except by shooting them out" during that performance, there were four teenagers in that room to be influenced. His views were shared on November 22, 1963.

Interestingly, the man accused of that crime claimed to be a Marxist, a communist. But my host assured me - when I objected to his remarks - that he believed as he did because he was anti-communist!

What happened in that home in Dallas, of one of America's richest and most powerful men, shashed that goal of America as a united country for the four teenagers in on that conversation that night.

Why does Dr. Albert E. Burke believe that Haroldson L. Hunt was involved in the assassination of John F. Kennedy?

(L7) Madeleine Brown, interviewed on the television programme, A Current Affair (24th February, 1992)

On Thursday night, Nov. 21, 1963, the last evening prior to Camelot's demise, I attended a social at Clint Murchison's home. It was my understanding that the event was scheduled as a tribute honoring his long time friend, J. Edgar Hoover (whom Murchison had first met decades earlier through President William Howard Taft), and his companion, Clyde Tolson. Val Imm, the society editor for the now-defunct Dallas Times Herald, unwittingly documented one of the most significant gatherings in American history. The impressive guest list included John McCloy, Richard Nixon, George Brown, R. L. Thornton, H. L. Hunt and a host of others from the 8F group. The jovial party was just breaking up when Lyndon made an unscheduled visit. I was the most surprised by his appearance since Jesse had not mentioned anything about Lyndon's coming to Clint's. With Lyndon's hectic schedule, I never dreamed he could attend the big party. After all, he had arrived in Dallas on Tuesday to attend the Pepsi-Cola convention. Tension filled the room upon his arrival. The group immediately went behind closed doors. A short time later Lyndon, anxious and red-faced, reappeared I knew how secretly Lyndon operated. Therefore I said nothing... not even that I was happy to see him. Squeezing my hand so hard, it felt crushed from the pressure, he spoke with a grating whisper, a quiet growl, into my ear, not a love message, but one I'll always remember: "After tomorrow those goddamn Kennedys will never embarrass me again - that's no threat - that's a promise."

Who does Madeleine Brown think was involved in planning the assassination of John F. Kennedy?

(L8) Madeleine Brown, Texas in the Morning (1998)

Just a few weeks later (after the assassination) I mentioned to him that people in Dallas were saying he himself had something to do with it. He became really violent, really ugly, and said it was American Intelligence and oil that were behind it. Then he left the room and slammed the door It scared me.

According to Madeleine Brown, who did Lyndon Johnson believe was behind the assassination of Kennedy?

(L9) Jim Marrs, Crossfire: The Plot that Killed Kennedy (1990)

Madeleine Brown, reported to be Johnson’s mistress for twenty years, has publicly stated that Johnson had foreknowledge of the assassination. But did Johnson really have enough power to initiate the assassination and force literally dozens of government officials and agents to lie and cover up that fact? Probably not.

What reasons does Jim Marrs give for not believing Madeleine Brown's theory about the assassination?

(L10) Gary Mack published an account of Madeleine Brown's story on 14th May, 1997.

Madeleine has claimed over the years that she attended a party at Clint Murchison’s house the night before the assassination and LBJ, Hoover and Nixon were there. The party story, without LBJ, first came from Penn Jones in Forgive My Grief. In that version, the un-credited source was a black chauffeur whom Jones didn’t identify, and the explanation Jones gave was that it was the last chance to decide whether or not to kill JFK. Of course, Hoover used only top FBI agents for transportation and in the FBI of 1963, none were black. Actually, there is no confirmation for a party at Murchison’s. I asked Peter O’Donnell because Madeleine claimed he was there, too. Peter said there was no party. Madeleine even said there was a story about it in the Dallas Times Herald some months later (which makes no sense), but she had not been able to find it. Val Imm (Society Editor of the Dallas Times Herald) told Bob Porter (of the Sixth Floor Museum at Dealey Plaza staff) recently she had no memory of such an event and even looked through her notes - in vain.

Could LBJ have been at a Murchison party? No. LBJ was seen and photographed in the Houston Coliseum with JFK at a dinner and speech. They flew out around 10pm and arrived at Carswell (Air Force Base in northwest Fort Worth) at 11:07 Thursday night. Their motorcade to the Hotel Texas arrived about 11:50 and LBJ was again photographed. He stayed in the Will Rogers suite on the 13th floor and Manchester (William Manchester - author of The Death of a President) says he was up late. Could Nixon have been at Murchison’s party? No. Tony Zoppi (Entertainment Editor of The Dallas Morning News) and Don Safran (Entertainment Editor of the Dallas Times Herald) saw Nixon at the Empire Room at the Statler-Hilton. He walked in with Joan Crawford (Movie actress). Robert Clary (of Hogan’s Heroes fame) stopped his show to point them out, saying “... either you like him or you don’t.” Zoppi thought that was in poor taste, but Safran said Nixon laughed. Zoppi’s deadline was 11pm, so he stayed until 10:30 or 10:45 and Nixon was still there.

Does Gary Mack believe Madeleine Brown's story (L6) about what happened the night before the assassination?

(L11) Barr McClellan, Blood Money and Power: How L.B.J. Killed J.F.K. (2003)

Soon after, there was another private meeting at Johnson's ranch. The vice president was certain he would be dumped, and he had to know what Clark was planning. He needed to know when action would be taken. After all, two years had passed and the politics for Johnson had only worsened. Something had to be done.

Clark was not about to let Johnson know any of the details. The assassination had to be a complete surprise to Johnson. Under no circumstances would he know what was planned. This time, when Johnson called for Clark, the lawyer decided to "woodshed" the vice president. The process was like taking a child out behind the woodshed to paddle him until he learned to do the right thing. In the case of witnesses for lawsuits, the woodshedding was to be sure they said the right thing, that they told the correct story before a jury. What the witness said and did had to be shaded just right...

Clark had one more worry detail, a small one in the overall scheme of things but an important one. He knew how pleased, even ecstatic, Johnson would be when the assassination occurred. He wanted Johnson to react with surprise and then express the correct condolences for the Kennedy family with appropriate assurances to the nation. The best approach for Johnson would be the usual one, to say and do nothing. As things turned out, Johnson would react in good form except on three minor but telling occasions. As Clark had feared, Johnson would overreact.

Why did Edward A. Clark not give Lyndon Johnson details of the planned assassination?

(L12) Phil Brennan, Some Relevant Facts About the JFK Assassination (2003)

There's an explosive new book that lays out a very detailed - and persuasive - case for the probability that the late President Lyndon Baines Johnson was responsible for the assassination of President John F. Kennedy.

I say persuasive because the author, Barr McClellan, was one of LBJ's top lawyers, and he provides a lot of information hitherto unknown to the general public - much more of which he says is buried in secret documents long withheld from the American people....

McClellan and others before him have discussed the fact that LBJ faced some pretty awful prospects, including not only being dumped from the 1964 ticket but also spending a long, long time in the slammer as a result of his role in the rapidly expanding Bobby Baker case - something few have speculated about because the full facts were never revealed by the media, which didn't want to know, or report, the truth...

Bobby Kennedy, called five of Washington's top reporters into his office and told them it was now open season on Lyndon Johnson. It's OK, he told them, to go after the story they were ignoring out of deference to the administration.

And from that point on until the events in Dallas, Lyndon Baines Johnson's future looked as if it included a sudden end to his political career and a few years in the slammer. The Kennedys had their knives out and sharpened for him and were determined to draw his political blood - all of it.

In the Senate, the investigation into the Baker case was moving quickly ahead. Even the Democrats were cooperating, thanks to the Kennedys, and an awful lot of really bad stuff was being revealed - until Nov. 22, 1963.

By Nov. 23, all Democrat cooperation suddenly stopped. Lyndon would serve a term and a half in the White House instead of the slammer, the Baker investigation would peter out and Bobby Baker would serve a short sentence and go free. Dallas accomplished all of that.

Bobby Baker was Lyndon Johnson's secretary and political adviser. In November 1963 Baker was under investigation for corruption. Why do some people believe this case played an important role in the assassination of President John F. Kennedy?

(L13) Bobby Baker, interviewed in 1990.

Clint Murchison owned a piece of Hoover. Rich people always try to put their money with the sheriff, because they're looking for protection. Hoover was the personification of law and order and officially against gangsters and everything, so it was a plus for a rich man to be identified with him. That's why men like Murchison made it their business to let everyone know Hoover was their friend. You can do a lot of illegal things if the head lawman is your buddy.

Clint Murchison was a Texas oil billionaire. What is the significance of the comments made by Bobby Baker?

(L14) Peter Dale Scott, Deep Politics and the Death of JFK (1993)

According to President Kennedy's secretary, Evelyn Lincoln, Bobby Kennedy was also investigating Bobby Baker for tax evasion and fraud. This had reached the point where the President himself discussed the Baker investigation with his secretary, and allegedly told her that his running mate in 1964 would not be Lyndon Johnson. The date of this discussion was November 19, 1963, the day before the President left for Texas.

A Senate Rules Committee investigation into the Bobby Baker scandal was indeed moving rapidly to implicate Lyndon Johnson, and on a matter concerning a concurrent scandal and investigation. This was the award of a $7-billion contract for a fighter plane, the TFX, to a General Dynamics plant in Fort Worth. Navy Secretary Fred Korth, a former bank president and a Johnson man, had been forced to resign in October 1963, after reporters discovered that his bank, the Continental National Bank of Fort Worth, was the principal money source for the General Dynamics plant.

What motives did Lyndon Johnson have for wanting John F. Kennedy dead?

(L15) Matthew Smith, JFK: The Second Plot (1992)

Interestingly, there were several arrests made in the Dal Tex building (on the 22nd November, 1963). The third man arrested there was extremely interesting. He was Jim Braden, also known as Eugene Hale Brading, a known Mafia courier. He said he had had an appointment to meet Lamar Hunt, son of H.L. Hunt, the oil millionaire, on oil business. Braden was with a friend, Morgan H. Brown, who bolted when he heard he had been taken in for questioning. A man with 30 arrests to his record, Braden had been staying at the Kabanya Motor Hotel, where Jack Ruby - who was to kill Lee Harvey Oswald in the Police Headquarters basement two days after the assassination - had met some of his Chicago friends the night before the President was killed. Braden was not detained. Five years later, however, Braden was to turn up in Los Angeles when Senator Robert Kennedy was murdered.

What was Jim Braden's connection with the H. L. Hunt? What is Matthew Smith suggesting in this account?

(L16) John Kelin, review of Noel Twyman's book, Bloody Treason (1998)

When Twyman finally names his real villains, we recognize three men whose involvement has been alleged for years: Lyndon Johnson, J. Edgar Hoover, and H.L. Hunt. The author says they acted from that oldest of motivations, self-preservation, and that "they had the the power and the money to make it happen and cover it up." It is amusing, in a sick sort of way, when Twyman says that Hoover seems to be the one person involved who had no redeeming qualities. "I have searched the literature and... if there was something likable about him I haven't found it."

What does John Klein mean when he says Lyndon Johnson, J. Edgar Hoover, and H.L. Hunt acted from that "oldest of motivations, self-preservation"?

(L17) Edward Jay Epstein, Esquire Magazine (December, 1966)

In January of 1964 the Warren Commission learned that Don B. Reynolds, insurance agent and close associate of Bobby Baker, had been heard to say the FBI knew that Johnson was behind the assassination. When interviewed by the FBI, he denied this. But he did recount an incident during the swearing in of Kennedy in which Bobby Baker said (in January, 1961) words to the effect that the s.o.b. would never live out his term and that he would die a violent death.
0
joeb

Registered:
Posts: 8,417
Reply with quote  #39 
Yea, retired FBI  agents go to work for the phone companies when they retire from the FBI.
Say what? Yea running the phone companies security departments, eh?

Not bad for the FBI crime family.
Having your cake and eating it.

see link for full story
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2013/04/verizon-rigmaiden-aircard/


Secrets of FBI Smartphone Surveillance Tool Revealed in Court Fight

    04.09.13


A legal fight over the government’s use of a secret surveillance tool has provided new insight into how the controversial tool works and the extent to which Verizon Wireless aided federal agents in using it to track a suspect.

Court documents in a case involving accused identity thief Daniel David Rigmaiden describe how the wireless provider reached out remotely to reprogram an air card the suspect was using in order to make it communicate with the government’s surveillance tool so that he could be located.

Rigmaiden, who is accused of being the ringleader of a $4 million tax fraud operation, asserts in court documents that in July 2008 Verizon surreptitiously reprogrammed his air card to make it respond to incoming voice calls from the FBI and also reconfigured it so that it would connect to a fake cell site, or stingray, that the FBI was using to track his location.

Air cards are devices that plug into a computer and use the wireless cellular networks of phone providers to connect the computer to the internet. The devices are not phones and therefore don’t have the ability to receive incoming calls, but in this case Rigmaiden asserts that Verizon reconfigured his air card to respond to surreptitious voice calls from a landline controlled by the FBI.

The FBI calls, which contacted the air card silently in the background, operated as pings to force the air card into revealing its location.

In order to do this, Verizon reprogrammed the device so that when an incoming voice call arrived, the card would disconnect from any legitimate cell tower to which it was already connected, and send real-time cell-site location data to Verizon, which forwarded the data to the FBI. This allowed the FBI to position its stingray in the neighborhood where Rigmaiden resided. The stingray then “broadcast a very strong signal” to force the air card into connecting to it, instead of reconnecting to a legitimate cell tower, so that agents could then triangulate signals coming from the air card and zoom-in on Rigmaiden’s location.

To make sure the air card connected to the FBI’s simulator, Rigmaiden says that Verizon altered his air card’s Preferred Roaming List so that it would accept the FBI’s stingray as a legitimate cell site and not a rogue site, and also changed a data table on the air card designating the priority of cell sites so that the FBI’s fake site was at the top of the list.

Rigmaiden makes the assertions in a 369-page document he filed in support of a motion to suppress evidence gathered through the stingray. Rigmaiden collected information about how the stingray worked from documents obtained from the government, as well as from records obtained through FOIA requests filed by civil liberties groups and from open-source literature.

During a hearing in a U.S. District Court in Arizona on March 28 to discuss the motion, the government did not dispute Rigmaiden’s assertions about Verizon’s activities.

The actions described by Rigmaiden are much more intrusive than previously known information about how the government uses stingrays, which are generally employed for tracking cell phones and are widely used in drug and other criminal investigations.

The government has long asserted that it doesn’t need to obtain a probable-cause warrant to use the devices because they don’t collect the content of phone calls and text messages and operate like pen-registers and trap-and-traces, collecting the equivalent of header information.

The government has conceded, however, that it needed a warrant in his case alone — because the stingray reached into his apartment remotely to locate the air card — and that the activities performed by Verizon and the FBI to locate Rigmaiden were all authorized by a court order signed by a magistrate.

The Electronic Frontier Foundation and the American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California, who have filed an amicus brief in support of Rigmaiden’s motion, maintain that the order does not qualify as a warrant and that the government withheld crucial information from the magistrate — such as identifying that the tracking device they planned to use was a stingray and that its use involved intrusive measures — thus preventing the court from properly fulfilling its oversight function.

“It shows you just how crazy the technology is, and [supports] all the more the need to explain to the court what they are doing,” says EFF Staff Attorney Hanni Fakhoury. “This is more than just [saying to Verizon] give us some records that you have sitting on your server. This is reconfiguring and changing the characteristics of the [suspect's] property, without informing the judge what’s going on.”

The secretive technology, generically known as a stingray or IMSI catcher, allows law enforcement agents to spoof a legitimate cell tower in order to trick nearby mobile phones and other wireless communication devices like air cards into connecting to the stingray instead of a phone carrier’s legitimate tower.

When devices connect, stingrays can see and record their unique ID numbers and traffic data, as well as information that points to the device’s location.

By moving the stingray around and gathering the wireless device’s signal strength from various locations in a neighborhood, authorities can pinpoint where the device is being used with much more precision than they can get through data obtained from a mobile network provider’s fixed tower location.

Use of the spy technology goes back at least 20 years. In a 2009 Utah case, an FBI agent described using a cell site emulator more than 300 times over a decade and indicated that they were used on a daily basis by U.S, Marshals, the Secret Service and other federal agencies.

The FBI used a similar device to track former hacker Kevin Mitnick in 1994, though the version used in that case was much more primitive and passive.

A 1996 Wired story about the Mitnick case called the device a Triggerfish and described it as “a technician’s device normally used for testing cell phones.” According to the story, the Triggerfish was “a rectangular box of electronics about a half a meter high controlled by a PowerBook” that was essentially “a five-channel receiver, able to monitor both sides of a conversation simultaneously.” The crude technology was hauled around in a station wagon and van. A black coaxial cable was strung out of the vehicle’s window to connect the Triggerfish to a direction-finding antenna on the vehicle’s roof, which had four antenna prongs that reached 30 centimeters into the sky.

The technology has become much sleeker and less obtrusive since then, but still operates under the same principles.

In Rigmaiden’s case, agents apparently used two devices made by a Florida-based company called Harris. One was the company’s StingRay system, which is designed to work from a vehicle driven around a neighborhood to narrow a suspect’s location to a building. Once agents tracked the signals from Rigmaiden’s air card to the Domicilio Apartments complex in Santa Clara, California, they apparently used another device made by Harris called the KingFish — a handheld system that allowed them to walk through the complex and zero-in on Rigmaiden’s air card in apartment 1122.

Although a number of companies make stingrays, including Verint, View Systems, Altron, NeoSoft, MMI, Ability, and Meganet, the Harris line of cell site emulators are the only ones that are compatible with CDMA2000-based devices. Others can track GSM/UMTS-based communications, but the Harris emulators can track CDMA2000, GSM and iDEN devices, as well as UMTS. The Harris StingRay and KingFish devices can also support three different communication standards simultaneously, without having to be reconfigured.
0
joeb

Registered:
Posts: 8,417
Reply with quote  #40 
Understanding the FBI  Octopus and the FBI  overall crime family
model is absolutely critical.
Part of the FBI  Crime family includes county , state and local law enforcement agencies. It is a two way street where the FBI  recruits new FBI  agents from local law enforcement, and FBI  agents go on to run local, county and state law enforcement agencies when they retire from the FBI.
Perhaps the best way to illustrate the problems associated with
this model is to discuss the President kennedy, Robert Kennedy and Martin Luther King assassination.
The Dallas Police worked closely with the FBI in destroying evidence
in the President Kennedy assassination including allowing Jack Ruby to kill Lee Harvey Oswald.
In the Martin Luther King assassination the Memphis Police Chief
at the times was a former FBI  agent. see  http://crdl.usg.edu/collections/holloman/?Welcome
The Los Angeles Police destroyed evidence in the Robert kennedy assassination.  see http://www.trutv.com/conspiracy/assassinations/rfk/lapd-cia-lapdog.html




see link for full story

http://www.oanow.com/news/article_a6500934-a2e0-11e2-a40b-001a4bcf6878.html

McEachern to be sworn in Monday


0
joeb

Registered:
Posts: 8,417
Reply with quote  #41 

see link for full story

http://www.cleveland.com/metro/index.ssf/2013/04/cuyahoga_county_prosecutors_of_3.html


Cuyahoga County Prosecutor's Office computer system still not fully functioning, study finds

 

on April 12, 2013 at 9:05 PM
 
 
 
  
 
 

CLEVELAND, Ohio -- Cuyahoga County spent more than $5 million over nearly eight years to develop a computer system for its prosecutor's office that is still not being fully used and is not linked to the system used by the courts, a new study concludes.

The inability of the two systems to communicate has resulted in "significant duplication of effort," according to the study, which was produced by a team that included local attorney and former FBI agent John McCaffrey and former County Administrator Tom Hayes.

0
joeb

Registered:
Posts: 8,417
Reply with quote  #42 
TWO READS


1st read
see link for full story
http://www.sacbee.com/2013/04/15/5341723/qa-top-cop-herb-brown-moves-from.html


Q&A: Top cop Herb Brown moves from FBI to regional intelligence center
Monday, Apr. 15, 2013

Herb M. Brown, the region's top cop, has left the FBI to become the head of the area's anti-terrorism agency.

Brown led the FBI's counterintelligence operations in Iraq in 2005 and helped rescue American hostage Roy Hallums. He has been special agent in charge of the FBI's Sacramento division since January 2011. On April 30, he becomes the next executive director of the Central California Intelligence Center, devoted to the collection, analysis and response to potential terrorist threats and other criminal enterprises in the state.

What exactly is the Central California Intelligence Center?

It's an an analytical hub for receiving, gathering, analyzing and eventually disseminating critical intelligence information at all levels. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has allocated $2.5 million to the center and I have a staff of 100 analysts, contractors and law enforcement experts. We have analysts at our center 24/7 to take a look at intelligence on domestic and foreign terrorism, gangs, drugs and sex trafficking. They will immediately see if there are emerging threats, then put out a "suspicious activity report" to patrol officers in the field and detectives at various law enforcement agencies.

We have 84 law enforcement coordinators throughout the Eastern District (of California) and close to 3,000 officers in the field that have a direct connection to the center. We've turned every officer in the state into a counterterrorism agent. That network never existed before 9/11.

Read more here: http://www.sacbee.com/2013/04/15/5341723/qa-top-cop-herb-brown-moves-from.html#storylink=cpy


2nd read

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/660197443/Nichols-says-bombing-was-FBI-op.html?pg=all


 Nichols says bombing was FBI op
Detailed confession filed in S.L. about Oklahoma City plot
Published: Thursday, Feb. 22 2007

The only surviving convicted criminal in the April 19, 1995,
bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City is
saying his co-conspirator, Timothy McVeigh, told him he was taking
orders from a top FBI official in orchestrating the bombing.

The only surviving convicted criminal in the April
19, 1995, bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma
City is saying his co-conspirator, Timothy McVeigh, told him he was
taking orders from a top FBI official in orchestrating the bombing.



A declaration from Terry Lynn Nichols, filed in U.S.
District Court in Salt Lake City, has proven to be one of the most
detailed confessions by Nichols to date about his involvement in the
bombing as well as the involvement of others.

Read more here: http://www.sacbee.com/2013/04/15/5341723/qa-top-cop-herb-brown-moves-from.html#storylink=cpy
0
joeb

Registered:
Posts: 8,417
Reply with quote  #43 

http://www.wsls.com/story/21993126/ex-fbi-agent-chief-of-bin-laden-unit-vts-kevin-foust-reacts-to-boston



Ex-FBI agent, chief of Bin Laden unit, VT's Kevin Foust reacts to Boston

Apr 16, 2013 

Former FBI agent, and chief of the Bin Laden unit, Kevin Foust said it was unfortunate that early media reports claiming investigators in Boston found and destroyed several unexploded devices were untrue.

Foust, now a major with the Virginia Tech Police Department, was the resident-agent-in-charge of the Roanoke office of the FBI before he retired.

He was also chief of the Bin Laden unit on September 11, 2001.

Foust said, the fact that investigators haven't linked the bombings to international terrorists yet, leaves a strong possibility it was a case of domestic terrorism.

He also said agents in the field would be looking hard at social media for videos and cell phone pictures taken at the scene.

0
joeb

Registered:
Posts: 8,417
Reply with quote  #44 

Ex-FBI Agent, Solyndra CRO Named 'Girls Gone Wild' Trustee

Law360, Chicago (April 17, 2013, 8:22 PM ET) -- R. Todd Neilson, a forensic accountant and former FBI agent that headed the internal investigation into Solyndra LLC's bankruptcy, has been tapped as Chapter 11 trustee for the company behind the raunchy "Girls Gone Wild" videos.
0
joeb

Registered:
Posts: 8,417
Reply with quote  #45 
April 21, 2013
see link for full story
http://blog.sfgate.com/matierandross/2013/04/21/new-u-c-berkeley-police-chiefs-made-for-tabloid-past/?plckItemsPerPage=10&plckSort=TimeStampDescending&plckFindCommentKey=CommentKey:281a43b5-bb20-4e31-bb0d-8d3ffffd84fe

New U.C. Berkeley police chief’s made-for-tabloid past

 

UC Berkeley’s new Police Chief Margo Bennett has a storied past that could have been a true-crime novel.

The tale, recounted in various newspaper, magazine and TV accounts — even a book — started back in 1991 when Bennett, then an instructor in interrogation at the FBI Academy, met and had an affair with best-selling author Patricia Cornwall, who was researching a novel at the Quantico, Va., headquarters.

That affair fueled an already explosive relationship Margo had with her FBI agent husband, Eugene Bennett, who she had fingered to the FBI as trying to defraud the agency of more than $17,000.

He was indicted for fraud, and Margo promised to testify at the trial. But just a few days before she was to go on the stand, Margo says her husband shot her repeatedly with a stun gun, gagged and blindfolded her and stuffed her in the trunk of a car. She said he then drove her to a remote location, telling her that others involved in the fraud had kidnapped their two kids and that she need to recant her story.

She did, leaving prosecutors stunned.

But after confiding to a friend and her attorney that she had feared for her children’s safety, a new trial was ordered. Following a plea deal, husband Gene landed in prison for a year.

In 1996, after he had been released and their divorce was still in progress, Gene showed up at Margo’s church. He donned a ski mask and pulled a gun on the minister, shackling the man’s arms and legs and placing explosives around the man’s waist. Gene ordered the minister to telephone Margo and lure her to the church.

When a suspicious Margo arrived, her masked estranged husband came lunging toward her. She pepper sprayed him, then ran into back office before reaching for her pistol and firing.

“There was no way I was going to get out of there without firing a shot,’’ she said. “It missed him by less than an inch.’’

Her husband fled.

He was soon arrested, and at his subsequent trial it was revealed that he had been plotting to murder and torture Margo and frame her for bombing the minister. He was convicted of several charges, including attempted murder, and sentenced to 23 years in prison.



Boston Suspect Arrested Stripped Naked so WHEN was he shot and killed?

Global Research, April 21, 2013

http://www.globalresearch.ca/boston-suspect-arrested-stripped-naked-so-when-was-he-shot-and-killed/5332316






http://www.globalresearch.ca/boston-black-ops-manufacturing-terror/5332223
Boston Black Ops: Manufacturing Terror?
By Stephen Lendman
Global Research, April 21, 2013


What’s ongoing resembles post-9/11 events.

Fear-mongering, lies and misinformation replace truth and full disclosure. Muslims became public enemy number one. Who’ll suffer most with them this time?

Vital information is suppressed. Fingers point the wrong way. Innocent victims are blamed for state-sponsored terror. More on that below.

National emotions are aroused. At issue is enlisting public support.

Post-9/11, Bush addressed an Episcopal National Cathedral prayer and remembrance ceremony.

“(O)ur country was attacked with deliberate and massive cruelty,” he said. “We have seen the images of fire and ashes and bent steel.”

He omitted what’s most important. Washington bore full responsibility. The worst of all possible worlds followed.

On April 18, Obama addressed a Holy Cross Cathedral interfaith prayer service. “(I)n an instant, the day’s beauty was shattered,” he said. “A celebration became a tragedy. And so we come together to pray and mourn and measure our loss.”

“We will find you,” he added. “And yes, you will face justice. We will hold you accountable.” Truth and full disclosure always loses out.

Early Friday, newly released FBI photos showed alleged bombing suspects. They brothers. They were called “armed and extremely dangerous.” Allegedly they had “explosives and guns.” Official reports lack credibility.

One suspect was arrested. The other fled. He’s now hospitalized in serious condition. Police discovered his whereabouts and shot him. Officials later said the one taken into custody died. Allegedly he was killed in a “violent standoff.” Cold-blooded murder is more likely.

A “massive manhunt” continues. Officials said suspects came from Chechnya or nearby. MSNBC’s Chris Matthews alleged they’re Arabs. Perhaps from Yemen, he said.

Mossad-connected DEBKAfile called them “Chechen Wahhabi cell” members. Saudi Arabia funds it, it said. Older brother Tamerlan was 26. Police likely killed him in cold blood. He was a boxer and Bunker Hill Community College engineering student.

Younger brother Dzhokhar fled. He’s 19 years old. He’s a Cambridge Rindge and Latin School graduate. His father calls him a “true angel.”He’s a Greater Boston League all-star wrestler.

He won a city of Cambridge $2,500 scholarship. He’s a second year medical student. His father said both brothers were “set up.” They “killed my older son Tamerlan,” he added.

Over 10 years ago, both brothers came to America with their family. They’re not terrorists.

Officials said greater Boston public transportation shut down. The FAA ordered a no-fly zone over a 3.5 mile radius of the bombing site. Watertown, Cambridge, Newton, Brookline, Waltham, Belmont, and other suburban area residents were advised to stay home.

Colleges and universities closed for the day. Local businesses were told not to open. Thousands of officers made house-to-house searches. Swat teams are involved. Some areas were evacuated. Helicopters patrol overhead. Police cars are everywhere.

Greater Boston’s never seen anything like this before. It’s surreal. It resembles a bad film plot. It gets round-the-clock coverage. Managed news misinformation substitutes for cold hard facts.

Infowars headlined “Did Boston Bombing Suspect Try to Surrender?” An image showed him lying prone with his arms outstretched. He held no weapon. None appeared near him.

One suspect killed. Perhaps another to follow. What better way to bury truth. Dead men tell no tales. Exculpating evidence perhaps won’t surface. Media scoundrels won’t report what does.

Lots more went on. On marathon day, eyewitnesses reported bomb drills, training exercises and rooftop snipers. Authorities denied them.

University of Mobile cross country coach Alastair Stevenson contradicted them, saying:

“At the starting line this morning, they had bomb sniffing dogs and the bomb squad out there. They kept announcing to runners not to be alarmed, that they were running a training exercise.”

On April 17, Anthony Gucciardi headlined “Craft International Private Military Forces at Boston Marathon?”

Images showed two men “with earpieces and military-esque gear….(T)hey may likely be employees of the Blackwater-style private military/security firm Craft International.”

Their attire was later “revealed to be standard issue Craft International clothing.” The skull logo on one man’s cap identifies Craft.

Why were both men and others with them in Boston? Images show around 10 wearing similar attire. Nearly all had on black backpacks. They resembled those alleged to contain pressure cooker bombs.

Investigators said they contained explosives, nails and ball bearings. They detonated moments apart.

Four or more Craft operatives wore tan combat boots, tan BDUs (battle dress uniforms), black jackets, and had tactical communications gear. At least one had an “inspector radiation alert.” It’s used to detect dirty bomb or nuclear attack emissions.

Why were they near the marathon’s finish line? Perhaps their mission was a black ops. They’re experts in these type operations.

Why did FBI operatives join them? Images show them talking. An FBI truck was visible. Why were FBI agents searching for one bombing suspect before the incident took place?

These and related questions demand answers. Coverup and denial reflect official policy. Vital facts are suppressed. What’s most important isn’t reported.

Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago. He can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net.

His new book is titled “Banker Occupation: Waging Financial War on Humanity.”

http://www.claritypress.com/LendmanII.html

Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com.

see link for full story
http://inewp.com/?p=15139

April 21, 2013


Higinio Ochoa AKA W0rmer’s Words To The World
My name is Higinio Ochoa and until recently I have been also known as higochoa and w0rmer. I have spent the last few months fighting along side some of the best in the world.

 

On march 20th 2012 @ 10:30 am around 8 agents from the FBI stormed my apartment and put me under arrest. Shortly after I was taken to the Texas City field office where I turned over all evidence I had collected on myself,over the course of the last few months. I then spent the subsequent hours going over w0rmers timeline and confirming or denying my participation in various attacks.

 

After FBI Agent Scott Jenson was done explaining how unimpressed he was with both my expressed skills, and information I provided the systems administrator for the texas DPS. He then proceeded to interview me for the exact information concerning the breach of the texas DPS site.

 

( It would seem to me niether the DPS administrator nor the FBI fully understand the “complexity” of SQL injections.) After faIling to get the printer from which my fingerprints were to get printed from, to work, they proceded to fonger print me “old school style” as one agent elequently put it. Hand cuffed and guarded by two U.S. marshalls I was led to a car and driven to the Houston federal detention center.

 

Once there, I was once again finger printed and processed to be held until my court date the following morning. I want to express that the young cocky FBI agent (mr. Jenson) aside ;everyone who I had contact with was both understanding and curtious in their actions. the following morning I was once again dressed out and led by two marshals to the Southern District Fedral court house where I was to await trial. After the marshals turned me over though, all curtisies were thrown out the window. As an epileptic I was required to take 2 medications twice daily.

 

One medication was provided the first day while the second was witheld. The following day niether were even offered to me; even after the medication was both provided and the courthouse marshals were informed of my condition.
The marshal that processed me had no issue calling me dumb after I failed to provide a single piece of contact Information to anyone on the outside because of my personal operation security measures allowing plausable denyability thus ensuring the protection of both my family and friends.

 

After seeing the judge and having my bond set, this same agent then proceeded to stall my release by holding me and refusing to let me go until even the guards had left.

 

On the 23rd after talking with my public defender I had a name trial waved and all subsequent proceedings moved to Austin, home of the orginating charges. Let it be a matter of public record that not a single marshal there showed anything but fear and aggression towards me; someone charged with neither a violent nor drug based crime. Y U mad Bro?

 

Let me take this time now to clarify a couple of things I know many of you are questioning.

 

1. Where is my natural urge for self preservation? I have none. I did not “join” this movement out of personal interest, I did not get paid to hack these sites, I simply took donations in case any supporters of this cause could donate towards my protection. In fact my main source of currency was ‘bit coins’ as the american dollar continues to drop in value. When I abandoned my mask i was fully aware of the consiquences and know full well that someday i may infact have to pay for my activism. My life from that day on was about protecting my fellow activist, not myself, which is why I stand here today and you do-not. I was asked by the agents if I thought other anon’s caught would feel the same as I do, and if i expected others to not, rat me out. To this I responded: “of course not” But the problem i see in the world today is apathy and a willingness to protect oneself over others, something I myself took a personal oath to not follow. Americans and the world no less, need to wake up, turn off their T.V’s and notice a real change is comming.

 

2. Were you ever approached to be a confidential informant? Of course I was! Some body such as myself who not only participated in the occupy movement but knew many and knew the inner workings of the “infamous” cabin crew would not be just put away without wondering if he could be turned. I did how ever tell FBI that I would participate in the capture of my fellow crew mates, a play which undoubtfully both satisfied and confused the FBI. Those however who know me best would vouch for me undoutfully that doing so would put this movement at risk, something that i wish more anon’s would not only consider but place higher than themselves and those around them. ALL information provided to the FBI merely made MY case weaker and caused internal confusion showing the inherent weakness in the system. It was only because of this play that I believe I was allowed to not only get bond but keep those closest to me safe. I gave the FBI plenty of time to come up with more questions that I may have considered answering but alas they failed even that simple task. I turned over all accounts in my control and forfieted any protection I personally may have had to ensure they believed I was cooperating.

 

3. and last on my list, what did I hope to accomplish by speaking out as I am? This is simple. As our nation continues to grow more worldly and anonymous continues to spread our reach, our country will continue to wage war. This time however it will not only be our civial rights but our human rights. This country, one based on a failing system, not only continues to mis-manage our rights and resources but our internal infrastructure. If there was ever a time when helping others was needed, yesterday was that time. As millions go homeless, many millions of houses lay vacant, as millions go hungery, tons of food go wasted. Let me stand here, as many have before , and call out to you to request not that you vote a certain way, or even risk what you currently have as I have done, but to educate yourselves and reach out to those unconditionally who truly need help so that when you stand in need, that same help will be available to you.






0
joeb

Registered:
Posts: 8,417
Reply with quote  #46 

http://mywabashvalley.com/fulltext?nxd_id=306372
see link for full story

Retired FBI Agent Says There are Lessons to be Learned in Wake of Boston Tragedy

By: Kellie Bartoli
Updated: April 25, 2013
 
 
 
Last week's deadly Boston bombings and eventual capture of the brothers responsible are still on many people's minds.

But before all of those questions are answered, one Valley professor says there are lessons to be learned from it all.

Collaboration was key to identifying - and finding - the suspects, and a Vincennes University professor says law enforcement and everyday citizens can learn a lot from what happened in Boston.
 
Louis Caprino is molding the minds of dozens of students at Vincennes University.

He's a professor and department chair of Homeland Security and Public Safety/Emergency Management and Planning.

His expertise is the field is practically unparalleled: serving as a special agent in the FBI for nearly three decades, overseeing dozens of special missions, security for  the Emmy's and Oscars, and terrorism task forces - experiences that have never left him.

"We need to constantly reassess our ability to address threat. In the classroom, I am constantly aware of what's going on," said Caprino.

And when Boston became the center of everyone's attention last week, he literally brought it to the classroom.

"We virtually investigated the case. I mean we actually pulled us a crime scene photos, remnants of the pressure cooker, the batteries that were found at the scene," he explains. "Identifying things that investigators would be doing."

And that's what could be the silver lining in the tragedy that took four innocent lives.



"I think it sensitizes our communities and our citizens to the high risk that we face every day," said Caprino.

The FBI is constantly adding to its international database of weapons of mass destruction, and by paying attention and remaining vigilant...you could help play a role in that list - and perhaps prevent another tragedy.

"Rely on your gut instinct. Many times your gut will tell you that just doesn't look right. And if something doesn't look right, report it," said Caprino.

"We see a far better security footprint then we did then, don't we? So I think America has really learned it's lesson, I believe, and I think America has become much better for it."

Caprino says the number of prospective students interested in his program at VU has risen dramatically since last week.
0
joeb

Registered:
Posts: 8,417
Reply with quote  #47 
Bob Ricks was an important figure in the Oklahoma City bombing and WACO.
There is to much to tell about this evil man.
watch the video WACO RULES OF ENGAGEMENT on youtube


see link for full story
http://www.edmondsun.com/local/x730860785/Police-chief-shares-lessons-learned-with-AGs

April 25, 2013

Police chief shares lessons learned with AGs

EDMOND — Social media is a must-use tool for reaching certain audiences in today’s information age, Edmond Police Chief Bob Ricks said Thursday.

Ricks was one of the featured speakers during a Thursday-Friday conference at the Skirvin Hilton Hotel on law enforcement in a new age of public safety. It is being sponsored by the National Association of Attorneys General. Oklahoma AG Scott Pruitt is chairman of the association’s 11-state Midwestern Region.

Topics being addressed include crime prevention best practices, lessons from law enforcement, the dramatic reduction in crime in New York City, emerging solutions with domestic violence homicides, breaking the cycle of criminal behavior and the true costs and benefits of reducing violent crime.

In addition to offering a list of public safety lessons learned, Ricks discussed aspects of the investigation of the Oklahoma City bombing and the Boston Marathon bombing. It was the 18th anniversary for the OKC bombing and the 20th for the fiery end of the Branch Davidian stand off near Waco, Texas.

On April 19, 1995, Ricks was special agent in charge of the FBI’s Oklahoma City office. While driving back from a law enforcement charity event, he was briefed on what had happened. A colleague asked him if he knew what day it was. Ricks asked why. He was reminded about Waco.

“At that point, my heart somewhat sank,” Ricks said. “We’d all been on high alert the year after. The right-wing militant groups were really beating the drums very strongly.”

In Oklahoma City, Ricks was escorted downtown where he met the city’s police chief and fire chief. They met in front of the shell of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building. They tried to estimate what the number of fatalities would be.

“We had estimates as high as 500 when we first arrived,” Ricks said.

Regarding jurisdictional authority, officials at the time were operating under Presidential Decision Directive 2, which said the FBI would coordinate response to a terrorist event on U.S. soil, Ricks said. Ricks and the officials agreed it was terrorism and they offered to give him all the support he needed.

“Then I’m standing there in front of this building and I say, ‘Where do you go from here?’” Ricks recalled.

The first thing he did, coming from a perspective that valued religion, was to say a prayer seeking guidance and asking that justice would be revealed through their work that day.

“Then we had to swing into action,” he said.

Officials expanded an outside perimeter of more than 16 blocks wide, Ricks said. Bombing debris was collected up to a half-mile away. A permanent command post was established and by the end of that day Southwestern Bell had installed more than 200 phone lines.

On the morning of April 20, 1995, Ricks was near the building when he was told about the discovery of a rear axle from the Ryder truck that contained the bomb. Ricks told them to guard it with their lives, knowing it would probably be the key piece of evidence.
0
joeb

Registered:
Posts: 8,417
Reply with quote  #48 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/capitalbusiness/cybersecurity-counsel-to-fbi-director-joins-hunton-and-williams/2013/04/26/93b003e6-adef-11e2-8bf6-e70cb6ae066e_print.html


Cybersecurity counsel to FBI director joins Hunton & Williams

  Sunday, April 28, 4:38 PM

Paul Tiao, a senior cybersecurity adviser to FBI Director Robert Mueller, has joined national law firm Hunton & Williams as a partner in the Washington office, the firm announced last week.

Tiao is joining the firm’s privacy and data security practice at time many major law firms are building or expanding data protection practices to meet demand from companies as they increasingly grapple with moving sensitive data onto Internet-based systems and keeping their information secure.

Tiao advised Mueller on cybersecurity, electronic surveillance and other national security issues, and helped form cybersecurity policy positions and legislative language. He was previously a trial attorney in the Justice Department’s civil rights division, and in private practice at District law firm WilmerHale. In 2010, he was nominated by President Obama to serve as inspector general of the Labor Department, but the nomination was later withdrawn.

0
joeb

Registered:
Posts: 8,417
Reply with quote  #49 




SEE THIS (see photo)


 

LEADS TO THIS( SEE PHOTO)




see link for story
http://www.myfoxdetroit.com/story/22110007/students-at-miller-elementary-in-dearborn-graduate-from-mock-fbi-training-program



As I mentioned before about 6 months ago I saw the just released documentary film
CHASING ICE on the big screen. I can only think of a couple of jaw dropping moments I have had in
life and this was one of them.



Also see

chasing ice youtube





http://www.voltairenet.org/article178337.html




"Before our very eyes"

The Boston Marathon Mysteries

by Thierry Meyssan
Two weeks after the attacks in Boston, the U.S. authorities continue to release piecemeal the clues they claim to have found. Everything revolves around the Chechen origin of the "guilty" parties and the conclusions to be drawn. Meanwhile, Internet users and the Russian press are depicting a different story, one in which the main "culprit" is a CIA agent.
Voltaire Network | Damascus (Syria) | 28 April 2013
Two weeks after the Boston bombings (April 15, 2:49 p.m.), the U.S. authorities have designated brothers Tamerlane and Dzhokhar Tsarnaev as the perpetrators. They declared that they killed the elder of the two and arrested his brother and accomplice. The young man, aged 19, was hospitalized, but his injuries prevent him from communicating except through nodding. Regardless, he has allegedly admitted the facts.
However, nothing is known about the circumstances under which Tamerlane was killed, or about those surrounding the arrest of Dzhokhar. The two accomplices are said to have succumbed to the "Oswald syndrome" and wanted to distinguish themselves by killing, without reason or witnesses, a university campus police officer. Then they are supposed to have hijacked a Mercedes with its anonymous driver and allegedly forced him to withdraw $ 800 from an automatic teller. This man testified to the police that the brothers had acknowledged to him responsibility for the attack.
So far, the press has not met the suspect, or interviewed the witness. It simply relays the statements of his parents and friends who are all surprised to see the suspects involved in this case.
Anyway, Judge Marianne B. Bowler indicted Dzhokhar for "use of weapons of mass destruction", namely pressure cookers packed with nails. This is the first time the term "weapon of mass destruction" is applied to a common household appliance.
For his part, Democratic leader of the House Intelligence Committee, Dutch Ruppersberger, said, after a closed-door meeting with officials from three intelligence services, that the Tsarnaevs had used a toy remote control to detonate their two bombs. He saw this as proof that the suspects had learned to make their devices by reading Inspire, the online magazine reportedly published by "Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula." However, if the first issue of the magazine (dated "Summer 2010") contains a detailed recipe for how to build a bomb from a pressure cooker, at no time does it show how to use a toy remote control to set off the explosive material inside the closed pot.
All this hubbub revolves around a single conclusion: the Chechen origin of the Tsanaev brothers places Russia at the heart of the debate. President Vladimir Putin discretely dodged questions on the subject at a long public answer session held last Thursday. There are Chechen terrorists in Syria who just kidnapped two Orthodox bishops. And it is likely there will be some in Sochi during the Olympics. It is in Russia’s interest to strengthen counter-terrorism cooperation with the United States, especially if she really intends deploying troops from the Organization of Collective Security in Syria.
Meanwhile, Internet surfers are split between those who align themselves with the FBI and those who challenge its narrative. There are two major counter-arguments circulating on the Web.
Is "Jeff Bauman" actually Nick Vogt?
The first accuses the security services of contriving a scenario with characters with emotion-charged histories. Images extracted from a video show two individuals trying to manipulate the body of Jeff Bauman, whose legs were allegedly amputated. The person in question would actually appear to be Nick Vogt, a lieutenant in the U.S. Army who lost his legs in Kandahar in November 2011. Indeed, one can only be amazed by the fact that "Jeff Bauman" always carries his head high and does not seem to suffer from hemorrhage when carried on a wheelchair without his thighs being strongly secured. The whole thing is all the more significant because it is the testimony of "Jeff Bauman," which enabled the identification of the suspects (press conference April 18, 5:20 p.m.).
Craft International mercenaries on the explosion site.
The second relates to the presence of a private security team, probably from Craft International LLC, which seem to wear the same backpack that was displayed by the FBI as having contained one of the pressure cookers.
But what is most astounding lies elsewhere. A bombing drill was conducted at the Boston Marathon two hours before the tragedy at the exact location where the real bombs exploded. But when a reporter asked about this at the press conference, FBI special agent Richard Deslauriers refused to answer and sought another question.
Izvestia: "Tamerlane Tsarnaev recruited by a Georgian Foundation. One of the perpetrators of the Boston terrorist attack attended the seminar organized by the United States together with Georgian special services."
Finally, according to Itzvestia (April 24), Tamerlane Tsarnaev participated in a Caucusus Fund for Georgia seminar, a front for the Jamestown Foundation, created by the CIA. He underwent training to "increase instability in Russia." In a protest letter, the Fund denied the reports, alleging a case of mistaken identity.
It is too early to conclude what actually happened in Boston. One thing is certain however: the police version is false.
Translation
Roger Lagassé




see link for full story

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/04/28/graham-says-fbi-should-confront-people-who-view-islamist-websites/


Graham says FBI should confront people who view ‘Islamist’ websites

Sunday, April 28, 2013

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC), appearing Sunday on CBS’s “Face the Nation,” said that he believes Americans would be made safer if Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI) agents would physically confront non-criminals over their web surfing activities, especially if that person is on a watch list and has been looking at “Islamist” sites online.

Explaining that there were warning signs known to various U.S. law enforcement agencies that one of the accused Boston bombers may have been a threat, Graham said the attack was pulled off because of “a failure to share information and missing warning signs — we’re going back to the pre-9/11 stovepiping.”

He added that if someone federal agencies had received tips about “goes on the Internet for the whole world to see, to interact with radical Islamic websites, how do we miss that?”

“So, we’re going to have to up our game,” Graham continued. “When one of these guys goes into the system and then leaves the country, we need to make sure we know where they’re going and interview them. And when somebody in a database like this begins to openly interact with radical Islamist websites, an FBI agent should knock on his door and say, ‘You told us before you wanted to be an Olympic boxer, that you love this country. What the hell is going on here? We’re watching.’”

Graham’s comments illustrate not just the astonishing level of monitoring foreign nationals within the U.S. can be subjected to, but also the type of policing preferred by one of the Senate’s foremost advocates of drone bombing and the system of military justice set up by the Bush administration for terror war prisoners.

In the wake of the Boston Marathon attack, Graham has been adamantly calling for a more militarized response to domestic terrorism incidents, joining with fellow Sens. John McCain (R-AZ) and Kelly Ayotte (R-NH) to urge fellow lawmakers to expand the definition of terrorism so that anyone with a connection to “radical Islam” would automatically be classified as an “enemy combatant” with practically no legal rights.

Similarly, Graham has emerged as one of the Senate’s loudest voices on the Boston bombing, calling for the Obama administration to send the surviving suspect, 19-year-old Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, to a military prison despite any evidence that he or his brother were linked to a terrorist organization.

Former CIA Deputy Director Phillip Mudd, appearing on Fox News last week, took a position contrary to Graham’s, saying that Tsarnaev should be charged as a murderer instead of a terrorist. “This looks more to me like Columbine than it does al Qaeda,” he said. “Two kids who radicalized between themselves in a closed circle go out and commit murder. I would charge these guys as murders, not terrorists.”

Considering the militarized response to the Boston bombings, which involved massive surveillance, aerial drones with heat detection sensors and door-to-door searches that virtually shut the city down, it’s hard to imagine what Graham’s vision for a more overwhelming response would actually look like on the ground.

Still, it should be noted that authorities later credited the media for Tsarnaev’s capture, saying the turning point came when photos of the suspects were widely publicized on the Internet. The Obama administration has said that Tsarnaev will not be charged as an enemy combatant.

This video is from “Face the Nation,” aired Sunday, April 28, 2013.










0
joeb

Registered:
Posts: 8,417
Reply with quote  #50 

Former Norfolk police chief nearly dies in Belize

http://hamptonroads.com/2013/04/former-norfolk-police-chief-nearly-dies-belize


Former Norfolk Chief of Police Bruce Marquis.
 
 
May 1, 2013

Former Norfolk Police Chief Bruce P. Marquis was training police in Central America as a contractor for the State Department when he got sick about three weeks ago.

What started with flulike symptoms quickly worsened, and Marquis was flown from a hospital in Belize City, Belize, to one in Florida to be treated for a rare pneumonia. His wife, Traci Marquis, said that a nurse told her he nearly died, and that a doctor said he was lucky to be alive.

"He's getting better, but anyone who has seen him in his heyday - a very healthy individual - he is not the same individual today," she said.

"It's been horrific."

Marquis, 61, retired April 1, 2011, after about seven years as Norfolk police chief. He was previously an FBI agent and chief of police in Hartford, Conn. His wife said he began working for several companies with State Department contracts, and the work took him to Europe, South America, Central America, Africa and the former Soviet republic of Georgia. Countries he worked in included Moldova, Uganda, Ecuador, Tunisia and India. He arrived in Belize City in mid-March to help train officers in policing and investigations.

0
Previous Topic | Next Topic
Print
Reply

Easily create a Forum Website with Website Toolbox.

? ?
Copyright ? 2001-2004 Who?s A Rat. All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or in part in any form or medium without express written permission is prohibited.
?