LEST WE FORGET - The Science of World Domination

By Denis Boneau - Posting #204 - Excellent :)

Communication sciences, whose development have been monitored by the CIA since the 50s, have been a key instrument in the “psychological warfare” waged against pro-Soviet governments and the countries that could follow the socialist block.

Texas A&M University, the army and the secret services gathered information on “the enemy,” drew up NATO’s propaganda, prevented the emergence of liberation movements opposed to Washington and even served as torture advisers. Out of this “alliance between science and politics” a mechanism still used by the U.S. was created.

Since 1945, Presidents Harry Truman and Dwight Eisenhower institutionalized the propaganda agencies founded during WWII and gave them their new mission: to fight the Soviet Union and the socialist republics, labeled as satellites. “Containment”, the general strategy designed by Truman and his advisers, consisted in blocking the expansion of communism through the control of the national emancipation movements that could give the power to pro-Soviet or pro-socialist leaders. This ambitious project demanded the collaboration of experts capable of providing geographical, economic, cultural, psychological and sociological data useful to the army and the secret services. In this context, certain behavioral “scientists”, some of which had already worked against the Third Reich, were included in the new Cold War propaganda services.

In November 1945, General John Magruder proposed the military intelligence to be in charge of a “peace time” ambitious propaganda project based on the achievements of human sciences. However, his initiative did not convince American President Truman who decided to dismantle Donovan (Wild Bill)’ OSS [1], Roosevelt protégée. On its side, the Office of War Information (OWI) [2] was dismantled too on the ground of favoring Roosevelt’s 1944 reelection. In January 1946, Truman founded the Central Intelligence Group (CIG) which was renamed several weeks later the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) whose operations were unmentionable and unimaginable: «propaganda, economic war, direct preventive action, sabotage, anti-sabotage, destruction, subversion against hostile States, assistance to clandestine liberation movements, guerrilla, murders, assistance to indigenous groups opposed to the enemy countries of the ’free world’...». The Office of Policy Coordination (OPC) [3] was the office in charge of implementing all these activities under the command of OSS veteran, Franck Wisner.

Theoretically speaking, the OPC depended on the CIA. But in real life, Wisner, backed up by George Kennan, had an enormous freedom of action. The OPC was in charge of a considerable part of “psychological warfare” operations. Wisner recruited scientists to guarantee data search, to convince “neutral” intellectuals and, obviously, to draw up NATO’s propaganda.

What is Psychological Warfare?

Psychological warfare includes a number of actions that range from radio propaganda to torture and require comprehensive information on the targeted populations. In a document written in 1948, American ground forces defined “psychological warfare” in the following way: «It is based on moral and physical means different from those upon which orthodox military techniques are based on. Its purpose is:

• To destroy the will and the fighting spirit of the enemy and avoid its allies support.
• To encourage our troops and our allies’ will of being victorious.

The psychological warfare uses every possible weapon to have an influence on the will of the enemy. The weapons are labeled as psychological because of their effect and not because of their own nature. This is the reason why, open propaganda (white), secret (black) or grey propaganda -subversion, sabotage, murders, special operations, guerrilla, espionage, political, economic and racial pressures- are considered as useful weapons [in the psychological warfare] ». To implement this program of “psychological warfare” the secret services recruit specialists on behavioral sciences capable of inventing the “simple, clear and repetitive” white propaganda and the black propaganda aimed at provoking «disorder, confusion and... terror» within the enemy forces.

Projects Troy and Camelot

Project Tory consisted in mobilizing scholars to identify the available means to transmit “Truth” (American propaganda) to the other side of the Iron Curtain [4]. Its objective was to strengthen the Voice of America (VOA), the broadcasting network founded by the International Information Service (IIS) which was an institution established by Truman to replace OWI. The Voice of America was a “white” propaganda operation whose objective was to promote the U.S. (“democracy”, “the American way of life”, “freedom”, were obviously the leitmotiv of the VOA discourse). One of the main leaders of Project Troy was James Webb, adviser to Secretary of State Dean Acheson and a quick follower of “psychological warfare” who suggested university experts and the government to work closer.

The scientists of Project Troy wrote a report in which they affirmed that Voice of America would not be enough to penetrate the Iron Curtain. Therefore, they suggested other means. Project Troy had to focus first on broadcasting and propaganda. Once they analyzed the purposes of their sponsors -the armed forces, the navy and probably the CIA- they decided to go further and proposed other channels to implement their “white” propaganda: university exchanges, publications of books... and affirmed that information could be transmitted by simply using the mail, through professional journals and other commerce or industrial publications. The report included very precise recommendations such as the centralization of propaganda operations and, consequently, Truman founded the Psychological Strategy Board, encouraged the studies on the “Soviet society” [program of interviews with dissidents] and favored the establishment of CENIS [5].

After this first important collaboration, the air force demanded a report on the Korean population in 1950. Wilbur Schramm (considered as the founding father of the mass communication paradigm), John Ridley and Fredericks Williams were given the mission of interviewing anti-communist refugees to draw up a propaganda strategy on Korea. The study produced two kinds of documents: publications in Public Opinion Quarterly (POQ), the official magazine of «psychological warfare» followers, a book titled The Reds Take a City and a secret report for the ground forces.

Another expression of the «psychological warfare», was the Camelot Project during the 60s. It was about defining models of the processes that led to national revolutions in Third World countries to facilitate counter-insurgence operations. Camelot was a real example of the strengthening ties between behavioral scholars and the American secret services. Begun in 1963, this project was aimed at facilitating interventions in Yemen, Cuba and Congo and -theoretically speaking- foreseeing and preventing the risk of revolution. In Chile, some left-wing newspapers denounced the American government involvement which directed Camelot through the Special Operations Research Office (SORO). The “yankee espionage plan” failed partially for, it seemed, the conclusions of the report were used by the American secret services to overthrow Allende and establish General Pinochet junta [6].

College Involvement: My Posting On This :)

The understanding between a number of university graduates and the ground forces brought about the emergence of a new science used by the secret services. Communication sciences and the paradigm of “mass communication”, financed by the air force, the navy, the CIA, the State Department (...) led to an effective propaganda that was to penetrate the Iron Curtain through different ways: (leaflets, broadcasting...). The discipline’s field of study was wide: persuasion techniques, opinion polls, interviews, military and political mobilizations, dissemination of ideology... In order to satisfy the demand of scientific data, several institutions were financed:

• Paul Lazarsfeld’s Bureau of Applied Social Research (BASR), located in Columbia university

• Hadley Cantril’s Institute for International Social Research (IISR) [.pdf]

• Ithiel de Sola Pool’s Center for International Studies (CENIS) (Massachusetts Institute of Technology) whose funds were distributed by the Ford Foundation [7], but were actually provided by the CIA.

• Bureau of Social Science Research (BSSR), directly financed by the CIA which wanted to improve its interrogation techniques.

• Torture was considered a research field in social sciences [8]. During the Korean war, the BSSR (main “black” propaganda research center) was in charge of carrying out studies for the army. It had to identify Eastern Europe population’s “vulnerability targets and factors” while defining different “aspects of psychological violence”. To be precise, BSSR wrote reports on the effects of traditional interrogation techniques -electric shocks, blows, drugs... Financed by the CIA (50% of the center’s social budget), these studies gathered information, especially on the populations of Viet Nam and Africa with the purpose of improving torture effectiveness [9].

A Magazine: Public Opinion Quarterly

In 1937, De Witt Poole, of Princeton University, founded the Public Opinion Quarterly (POQ) magazine. It published articles on “psychological warfare”, mainly written by the people working for the OWI, studies on civil Germans’ morale, essays on troop training, reflections on war propaganda...Certain researches seemed to be directly inspired in the concerns of the secret services and propaganda agencies (opinion polls in France and Italy...) The magazine board of directors comprised specialists working for the psychological project of the CIA: Paul Lazarsfeld, Hadley Cantril, Rensis Likert and De Witt Poole (who later became the president of the National Committee for a Free Europe).

The study on the systems of communication of the countries controlled by the Soviet Union or the countries that could be conquered by the communist groups allowed for information gathering to be used immediately by the ground forces’ strategists and the directions -usually very precise - on the propagation modalities of “white” propaganda and the «black» methods of terror. Communications sciences, considered as means of surveillance and coercion had therefore a purely manipulative nature.

The Sciences of Coercion against Neutralism

The paradigm of mass communication, brought into being due to the financing of the Cold War services, was inserted in a broader intellectual plan consisting in the division of the world map based on the American strategists’ logic. The thesis defended by the patriarch of this discipline, Wilbur Schramm, offered a perspective of this reductionist dimension of communication sciences.

Schramm’s system (as Leo Strauss’) was based on the «good guys/bad guys» antagonism. This moral principle (communism symbolized Evil and America symbolized Good) was shared by the majority of the intellectual and scientists committed to the American government in the fight against the Soviet expansion. In this fight, neutralism was considered treason.

The intellectual struggle went beyond convincing communism followers to involve neutrals. In the Congress for the Freedom of Culture, the New York Intellectuals followed by a bunch of European NATO’s defenders, such as Raymond Aron in France, pointed neutralism as the key target of “their” work. Communication scholars worked on the general plan designed by the CIA and the OPC. In an article published in POQ by Daniel Lemer different aspects of neutralism were questioned and a “model” of the individuals included in this category was designed. Lemer’s response to question: How to identify a neutral? was: «[For a neutral] to choose between the U.S. and the USSR is not the same as choosing between freedom and slavery». Lemer defined several elements of neutralism: “Peace, security, détente of international relations”.

Apart from the similarities between the ideological lines of «psychological warfare» and those of the Congress for the Freedom of Culture which showed the relative coherence of the plan designed by Wisner and CIA leaders, it could also be noted that the specialists of “masses manipulation” were usually reformed Marxists. An example of this was Paul Lazarsfeld’s career who would become one of the main ideologues of “mass communication” and during the late 20s was an active socialist. Special Note: See NBIC Report

In France, he had relations with the SFIO and Leo Lagrange. In 1932, the Rockefeller Foundation offered him a scholarship to study in the U.S. Based on the idea that there was a “methodological relation between the act of buying soap and the socialist vote”, he became famous by writing articles about marketing. The government and the secret services quickly noticed him and asked his collaboration in a research program on the effects of radio broadcasting (the Radio Research Program) financed by the Ford Foundation and founded by BASR whose fundings came from the army and the CIA.

In 1951, he was appointed Ford Foundation’s Social Sciences adviser. Then, he facilitated the foundation of the Institute of Advanced Studies on Social Sciences in Austria and the beginning of an exchange program with Yugoslavia and Poland. During the 60s, he was appointed for expert posts in UNESCO and OCDE [10]. Therefore, Paul Lazarsfeld broke relations with the socialist groups to join the “psychological warfare” scientific teams. But he was not the only one to do this, something commendable by the New York Intellectuals [11]. Leo Lowenthal, one of the main contributors of POQ participated actively too in the drawing up of the “psychological” techniques to fight his former Marxists’ friends.

The scientific field of “behavioral scholars” was the study of the systems of communication of the “risky” countries. Consequently, the relationship between the history of this discipline and the conflicts in which the U.S. was involved during the Cold War (Korea, Viet Nam... and secretly, Chile and Angola...) was not surprising.

The Validity of the “Psychological Warfare”

The mechanism founded by Wisner was still in force at the end of the Cold War. While “behavioral scholars” were being recruited, the CIA was financing numerous international research centers or “study areas” with the purpose of gathering information on the “risky” geographical zones. In 1947, the Carnegie Foundation provided the necessary funds for the establishment of the Russian Research Center. Since 1953, one of the main CIA’s fronts, the Ford Foundation, provided funds to 34 universities to carry out international researches.

This project was not only implemented in the U.S. The Rockefeller Foundation financed several «Area studies» in France, once the financed researchers’ political beliefs were carefully verified. The VI Section of the Practical School of Higher Studies, which later became the “Ecole des Hautes Études en Sciences Sociales” (EHESS), welcomed several research teams that produced works on China, Russia and other regions of interest for the American services. Even today, international studies are still an essential part of the EHESS’ concerns.

On its side, the Voice of America, the American broadcasting network, -the favorite toy of project Troy’s behavioral scholars- is still in effect. The law, passed by the Congress in 1960, and enacted by President Ford stipulated that: «direct radio communication [white propaganda] with the peoples of the world is useful in the long term for the American interests (...) the news of the VOA will be precise, objective and complete (...) The VOA will present the American policy in a clear and effective way!». Today, the VOA programs broadcasted through the transmitter in Greenville (North Carolina), are aimed at African countries and essentially seem to counteract the French influence in the region (the VOA founded its French broadcasting services in 1960). [To include the American public]

By proclaiming its independence, the VOA ended its charter in the following way: «In the world, and especially in Africa, radio is still the main information mean. Today, as in the past (sic), our purpose is to broadcast programs with reliable and unbiased information to our listeners». In general, communications sciences favored the emergence of a new form of war propaganda adapted to the Cold War that was not conceived for a classical confrontation but for the ideological struggle between the East and the West and the low-intensity conflicts that took place in the Third World.

In 2001, the Bush Administration reactivated the Cold War mechanisms not to fight the Soviet Union but to impose a New World Order. Since September 11, 2001, the excuse for this reactivation has been the “war against terror”. In this context, the CIA turns again to universities. The director of scientific researches in the Agency, John Philips, took control of the Rochester Institute of Technology; Michael Crowl, vice director of the joint economic association of CIA in the computer sector, was appointed rector of the University of Arizona whereas Robert Gates (former CIA patron under Bush Senior) has become the director of Texas A&M University.

WAKE UP AMERICA!!!....Its "OUR" country!!!

Love "Light" and Energy

_Don 　

References:

[1] The OSS (Office of Strategic Services) is an intelligence and foreign action secret service founded during WWI. It used personalities of the social sciences such as Herbert Marcuse o Margaret Mead

[2] The Office of War Information was directed by Elmer Davis

[3] The OPC (Office of Policy Coordination) is the executive committee of the “stay-behind” network. See Thierry Meyssan: «Stay-behind, les réseaux d’ingérence américains», Voltaire, August 20, 2001

[4] Alan Needell: «Project Troy and the Cold war annexation», in Universities and Empire, Money and politics in the social sciences during the Cold war, The New Press, 1998

[5] The Center for International Studies (CENIS) is a department within the famous MIT (Massachusetts Institute of Technology) directed by Max Millikan

[6] Ellen Herman: «Project Camelot and the Career of Cold War Psychology», ibid

[7] «La Fondation Ford, paravent philanthropique de la CIA», Voltaire, April 5, 2004

[8] Arthur Lepic: «Les manuels de torture de l’armée des États-Unis», Voltaire, May 26, 2004

[9] Christopher Simpson: Science of Coercion, Communication Research and Psychological Warfare, 1945-1960, Oxford university press, 1994

[10] Michael Pollack: «Paul Lazarsfeld, fondateur d’une multinationale scientifique», in Actes de la recherche en sciences sociales, n° 25, January, 1979

[11] Denis Boneau: «Les New York Intellectuals et l’invention du néo-conservatisme», Voltaire, November 26, 2004

[12] Boundary Displacement: Area Studies and International Studies after the Cold War

[13] Behavioral and Social Sciences (BSSR)

[14] Bureau of Applied Social Research-War Documentation Project Records, 1950-1956.

[15] Bureau of Applied Social Research Records, 1944-1976

[16] Institute For Social Research ISR

[17] Hadley Cantril

[18] The CIA and the Founding Fathers of Communication Studies

[19] "Worldview Warfare" and The Science of Coercion

[20] New World War

[21] The Ace Menace

[22] Coalition for an Ethical Psychology

[23] The Torture Report Diary

Is the SEC Covering Up Wall Street Crimes? Duhhh

By Matt Taibbi - Posting #204 - A little dated, but, good info ;)

A whistle blower says the agency has illegally destroyed thousands of documents, letting financial crooks off the hook.

Imagine a world in which a man who is repeatedly investigated for a string of serious crimes, but never prosecuted, has his slate wiped clean every time the cops fail to make a case. No more Lifetime channel specials where the murderer is unveiled after police stumble upon past intrigues in some old file – "Hey, chief, didja know this guy had two wives die falling down the stairs?" No more burglary sprees cracked when some sharp cop sees the same name pop up in one too many witness statements. This is a different world, one far friendlier to lawbreakers, where even the suspicion of wrongdoing gets wiped from the record.

That, it now appears, is exactly how the Securities and Exchange Commission has been treating the Wall Street criminals who cratered the global economy a few years back. For the past two decades, according to a whistle-blower at the SEC who recently came forward to Congress, the agency has been systematically destroying records of its preliminary investigations once they are closed. By whitewashing the files of some of the nation's worst financial criminals, the SEC has kept an entire generation of federal investigators in the dark about past inquiries into insider trading, fraud and market manipulation against companies like Goldman Sachs, Deutsche Bank and AIG. With a few strokes of the keyboard, the evidence gathered during thousands of investigations – "18,000 ... including Madoff," as one high-ranking SEC official put it during a panicked meeting about the destruction – has apparently disappeared forever into the wormhole of history.

Under a deal the SEC worked out with the National Archives and Records Administration, all of the agency's records – "including case files relating to preliminary investigations" – are supposed to be maintained for at least 25 years. But the SEC, using history-altering practices that for once actually deserve the overused and usually hysterical term "Orwellian," devised an elaborate and possibly illegal system under which staffers were directed to dispose of the documents from any preliminary inquiry that did not receive approval from senior staff to become a full-blown, formal investigation. Amazingly, the wholesale destruction of the cases – known as MUIs, or "Matters Under Inquiry" – was not something done on the sly, in secret. The enforcement division of the SEC even spelled out the procedure in writing, on the commission's internal website. "After you have closed a MUI that has not become an investigation," the site advised staffers, "you should dispose of any documents obtained in connection with the MUI."

Many of the destroyed files involved companies and individuals who would later play prominent roles in the economic meltdown of 2008. Two MUIs involving con artist Bernie Madoff vanished. So did a 2002 inquiry into financial fraud at Lehman Brothers, as well as a 2005 case of insider trading at the same soon-to-be-bankrupt bank. A 2009 preliminary investigation of insider trading by Goldman Sachs was deleted, along with records for at least three cases involving the infamous hedge fund SAC Capital.

The widespread destruction of records was brought to the attention of Congress in July, when an SEC attorney named Darcy Flynn decided to blow the whistle. According to Flynn, who was responsible for helping to manage the commission's records, the SEC has been destroying records of preliminary investigations since at least 1993. After he alerted NARA to the problem, Flynn reports, senior staff at the SEC scrambled to hide the commission's improprieties.

As a federally protected whistle-blower, Flynn is not permitted to speak to the press. But in evidence he presented to the SEC's inspector general and three congressional committees earlier this summer, the 13-year veteran of the agency paints a startling picture of a federal police force that has effectively been conquered by the financial criminals it is charged with investigating. In at least one case, according to Flynn, investigators at the SEC found their desire to bring a case against an influential bank thwarted by senior officials in the enforcement division – whose director turned around and accepted a lucrative job from the very same bank they had been prevented from investigating. In another case, the agency farmed out its inquiry to a private law firm – one hired by the company under investigation.

The outside firm, unsurprisingly, concluded that no further investigation of its client was necessary. To complete the bureaucratic laundering process, Flynn says, the SEC dropped the case and destroyed the files.

Much has been made in recent months of the government's glaring failure to police Wall Street; to date, federal and state prosecutors have yet to put a single senior Wall Street executive behind bars for any of the many well-documented crimes related to the financial crisis. Indeed, Flynn's accusations dovetail with a recent series of damaging critiques of the SEC made by reporters, watchdog groups and members of Congress, all of which seem to indicate that top federal regulators spend more time lunching, schmoozing and job-interviewing with Wall Street crooks than they do catching them. As one former SEC staffer describes it, the agency is now filled with so many Wall Street hotshots from oft-investigated banks that it has been "infected with the Goldman mindset from within."

The destruction of records by the SEC, as outlined by Flynn, is something far more than an administrative accident or bureaucratic fuck-up. It's a symptom of the agency's terminal brain damage. Somewhere along the line, those at the SEC responsible for policing America's banks fell and hit their head on a big pile of Wall Street's money – a blow from which the agency has never recovered. "From what I've seen, it looks as if the SEC might have sanctioned some level of case-related document destruction," says Sen. Chuck Grassley, the ranking Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee, whose staff has interviewed Flynn. "It doesn't make sense that an agency responsible for investigations would want to get rid of potential evidence. If these charges are true, the agency needs to explain why it destroyed documents, how many documents it destroyed over what time frame and to what extent its actions were consistent with the law."

How did officials at the SEC wind up with a faithful veteran employee – a conservative, mid-level attorney described as a highly reluctant whistle-blower – spilling the agency's most sordid secrets to Congress? In a way, they asked for it.

On May 18th of this year, SEC enforcement director Robert Khuzami sent out a mass e-mail to the agency's staff with the subject line "Lawyers Behaving Badly." In it, Khuzami asked his subordinates to report any experiences they might have had where "the behavior of counsel representing clients in... investigations has been questionable."

Khuzami was asking staffers to recount any stories of outside counsel behaving unethically. But Flynn apparently thought his boss was looking for examples of lawyers "behaving badly" anywhere, including within the SEC. And he had a story to share he'd kept a lid on for years. "Mr. Khuzami may have gotten something more than he expected," Flynn's lawyer, a former SEC whistle-blower named Gary Aguirre, later explained to Congress.

Flynn responded to Khuzami with a letter laying out one such example of misbehaving lawyers within the SEC. It involved a case from very early in Flynn's career, back in 2000, when he was working with a group of investigators who thought they had a "slam-dunk" case against Deutsche Bank, the German financial giant. A few years earlier, Rolf Breuer, the bank's CEO, had given an interview to Der Spiegel in which he denied that Deutsche was involved in übernahmegespräche – takeover talks – to acquire a rival American firm, Bankers Trust. But the statement was apparently untrue – and it sent the stock of Bankers Trust tumbling, potentially lowering the price for the merger. Flynn and his fellow SEC investigators, suspecting that investors of Bankers Trust had been defrauded, opened a MUI on the case.

A Matter Under Inquiry is just a preliminary sort of look-see – a way for the SEC to check out the multitude of tips it gets about suspicious trades, shady stock scams and false disclosures, and to determine which of the accusations merit a formal investigation. At the MUI stage, an SEC investigator can conduct interviews or ask a bank to send in information voluntarily. Bumping a MUI up to a formal investigation is critical, because it enables investigators to pull out the full law-enforcement ass-kicking measures – subpoenas, depositions, everything short of hot pokers and waterboarding. In the Deutsche case, Flynn and other SEC investigators got past the MUI stage and used their powers to collect sworn testimony and documents indicating that plenty of übernahmegespräche indeed had been going on when Breuer spoke to Der Spiegel. Based on the evidence, they sent an "Action Memorandum" to senior SEC staff, formally recommending that the agency press forward and file suit against Deutsche.

Breuer responded to the threat as big banks like Deutsche often do: He hired a former SEC enforcement director to lobby the agency to back off. The ex-insider, Gary Lynch, launched a creative and inspired defense, producing a linguistic expert who argued that übernahmegespräche only means "advanced stage of discussions." Nevertheless, the request to proceed with the case was approved by several levels of the SEC's staff. All that was needed to move forward was a thumbs-up from the director of enforcement at the time, Richard Walker.

But then a curious thing happened. On July 10th, 2001, Flynn and the other investigators were informed that Walker was mysteriously recusing himself from the Deutsche case. Two weeks later, on July 23rd, the enforcement division sent a letter to Deutsche that read, "Inquiry in the above-captioned matter has been terminated." The bank was in the clear; the SEC was dropping its fraud investigation. In contradiction to the agency's usual practice, it provided no explanation for its decision to close the case.

On October 1st of that year, the mystery was solved: Richard H. Walker was named general counsel of Deutsche. Less than 10 weeks after the SEC shut down its investigation of the bank, the agency's director of enforcement was handed a cushy, high-priced job at Deutsche. Duhhhhhhh

Deutsche's influence in the case didn't stop there. A few years later, in 2004, Walker hired none other than Robert Khuzami, a young federal prosecutor, to join him at Deutsche. The two would remain at the bank until February 2009, when Khuzami joined the SEC as Flynn's new boss in the enforcement division. When Flynn sent his letter to Khuzami complaining about misbehavior by Walker, he was calling out Khuzami's own mentor.

The circular nature of the case illustrates the revolving-door dynamic that has become pervasive at the SEC. A recent study by the Project on Government Oversight found that over the past five years, former SEC personnel filed 789 notices disclosing their intent to represent outside companies before the agency – sometimes within days of their having left the SEC. More than half of the disclosures came from the agency's enforcement division, who went to bat for the financial industry four times more often than ex-staffers from other wings of the SEC.....continued p.4, p.5, p.6, p.7, p.8, p.9

WAKE UP AMERICA!!!....Its "OUR" country!!!

Love "Light" and Energy

_Don 　

References: SAIC Files New 8k No Mentions of Law Suits! Shocker! Just New CEO $ Package!

Episode 198 – Further Down the 9/11 Money Trail MO Anyone?

SEC Office Destroyed:IPO Probe in Jeopardy MO Anyone?

The Mysterious Leveling of Building 7 MO Anyone?

SEC & EEOC: 9/11 Attack Delays Investigations

SEC Claims No Clue On Case Files Lost On 911 When WTC7 Collapsed Due To Paper Fires!!

SEC: No Records Whatsoever Regarding Destroyed WTC 7 Investigation Files

The State of the Nation's Financial Markets in the Wake of Recent Terrorist Attacks

SEC: Government Destroyed Documents Regarding Pre-9/11 Put Options

Special Note: Docket No. 97-6195 Richard H. Walker/Judge John M. Walker

Bush Davis Walker Family Political Line

Gary J. Aquirre: After earning his second law degree, he applied for a job with the SEC, where he became the lead investigator on an insider trading case involving Pequot Capital Management. Suspecting the leaked information came from John J. Mack, a Wall Street titan and major contributor to the 2004 campaign contribution of George W. Bush, Aguirre wanted to subpoena Mack, but supervisors told him Mack had too much "political clout" and would not be pursued. Aguirre complained to a superior about the preferential treatment being given Mack and was fired without warning. A Senate investigation later found his termination to have been an illegal reprisal.[1] In May 2010, Pequot Capital settled its insider trading charges with the SEC for $28 million[2] and a month later, the SEC settled the wrongful termination suit filed by Aguirre for $755,000.[3] Aguirre returned to private practice in San Diego in 2008, specializing in securities law. He has emerged as a major critic of the SEC, calling it an agency that was set up to protect the public from Wall Street, but now protects Wall Street from the public.[4][5] He represents Darcy Flynn, also an SEC whistleblower, who in summer 2011, was interviewed by staff from three congressional committees. He said that the SEC had destroyed thousands of records of preliminary investigations and that SEC investigators trying to pursue a case against Deutsche Bank were thwarted by Richard H. Walker, then SEC director of enforcement, who shortly thereafter, took a job at Deutsche Bank as general counsel.[6]

NSA Managers Modified or Supressed Studies on ThinThread/Trailblazer

By: Emptywheel - Posting #203

As bmaz reported while I was looking at flowers in Northern MI, POGO liberated via FOIA the Inspector General report central to the Thomas Drake case.

While much of the report is redacted (except for, perhaps unsurprisingly, a number of comments about limitations to ThinThread that have been decontextualized by redactions), a few interesting details remain. First, the management control program (see PDF 48) was not included in the scope of the review; it appears that privacy protections were not a significant part of the review (even while this article claims they were included in the investigation). That’s interesting because both do show up in Siobhan Gorman’s reporting. Further, the government was trying to withhold Drake’s own materials that might not have related to the substance of the initial IG complaint (and it destroyed a notebook Drake had submitted). While all that is very vague and now mooted by the plea deal in the case, it suggests the government tried hard to prevent Drake from providing evidence of further problems with Trailblazer beyond those laid out–and endorsed–in the IG complaint.

I’m much more interested, however, in a claim not made in Gorman’s reporting that is left unredacted in the IG Report: that NSA management modified or suppressed studies on the program. As a threshold matter, Michael Hayden and his buddies seem to have been cognitively unaware at times of where DOD’s IG cited the initial Hotline complaint that launched this investigation (the report cites the complaint on PDF 5 and PDF 11; on PDF 122, the IG Report notes NSA management’s conflation of the complaint with the report results specifically with regard to claims about cost) and where it confirmed that complaint. Yet the extensive discussion of test results starting on PDF 21 make it clear the investigation examined test results in detail. Furthermore, this IG response to Management complaints on PDF 123 make it clear that the IG confirmed the complaint that management fiddled with studies.

(C) Management Comments. NSA management comments also questions [sic] the Executive Summary’s statement that “NSA modified or suppressed studies and [redacted] and stated that the audit report did not identify where the information was obtained.

(C) Audit Response. We have documented information to support this statement; however, because of fear of reprisal, we agreed to keep the sources anonymous.

In other words, not only did the IG confirm the tests showed ThinThread performed better than Trailblazer, but it appears to confirm that NSA management tried to hide that fact. [WHY]

While Gorman’s reporting doesn’t say the studies were suppressed, she did report on the existence and results of those studies.

In what intelligence experts describe as rigorous testing of ThinThread in 1998, the project succeeded at each task with high marks. For example, its ability to sort through massive amounts of data to find threat-related communications far surpassed the existing system, sources said. It also was able to rapidly separate and encrypt U.S.-related communications to ensure privacy.

[snip]

A number of independent studies, including a classified 2004 report from the Pentagon’s inspector-general, in addition to the successful pilot tests, found that the program provided “superior processing, filtering and protection of U.S. citizens, and discovery of important and previously unknown targets,” said an intelligence official familiar with the program who described the reports to The Sun. The Pentagon report concluded that ThinThread’s ability to sort through data in 2001 was far superior to that of another NSA system in place in 2004, and that the program should be launched and enhanced.

NSA management’s apparent suppression of studies showing ThinThread’s better performance is all the more interesting given the reference–on PDF 48–of an earlier NSA Inspector General report concluding that Trailblazer had had “improperly based contract cost increases, non-conformance in the management of the Statement of Work, and excessive labor rates for contractor personnel.” In other words, SAIC–which implemented Trailblazer and had close ties to Michael Hayden’s aides–was bilking the federal government at the same time as Hayden and others were apparently suppressing studies showing that SAIC’s solution was not the most effective solution.

Our Intelligence Industrial Complex in action!

The evidence that NSA management was suppressing studies that showed ThinThread performed better than Trailblazer adds one more wrinkle to the government’s attempt to prosecute Thomas Drake. The IG clearly worried that revealing who made this complaint would lead to retaliation from NSA management. Yet, as it turns out, one of the documents for which Drake was charged was titled, “Trial and Testing,” suggesting it pertained to such testing issues.

I guess the IG had reason to worry after all.

WAKE UP AMERICA!!!....Its "OUR" country!!!

Love "Light" and Energy

_Don 　　　

References: NSA/SAIC: The Trailblazer Cover-Up, 9/11, And Iraq War PLAN(S)

Carlyle, Kissinger, SAIC and Halliburton: A 9/11 Convergence

Connect The Dots

LIGNET [Players]

SAIC DARPA

SAIC TrailBlazer

STELLAR WIND [B]

SAIC ThinThread [B]

Washington's $8 Billion Shadow

The Ominous Parallels Report

Truax Arrest Warrent James H. Bush

Thomas Drake Proved To Be Bloody Well Right

More High-level Fraud at NSA Uncovered

“Collections Sites” and the Thomas Drake Case

NSA Killed System That Sifted Phone Data Legally

US Government Releases DoD Report Critical of NSA

Nsa Thinthread/Trailblazer Systems - Report 05-INTEL-03

NSA Whistleblowers on 60 Minutes: 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented

Did Thomas Drake Include Privacy Concerns in His Complaints to DOD’s IG?

DoD Inspector General Report: Requirements of ThinThread and Trailblazer Systems

Thomas Drake Complained about Michael Hayden Spending $1B to Do What $3M Could Do

SAIC City Time Class Action Law Suit Filed in NYC Shareholders :o

By Suzannah B. Troy :) - Posting #202 - Valcichs Letter

Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP File Law Class Action SAIC Law Suit!!!

Folks three law suits against SAIC CityTime...Hello NYC!

Excerpt: "The complaint alleges that during the Class Period defendants issued materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's financial performance and future prospects. Specifically, defendants misrepresented and/or failed to disclose the following adverse facts:

(a) that SAIC had overbilled New York City hundreds of millions of dollars on the CityTime Project, a project associated with the modernization of New York City's employee payroll system, over a multi-year period;

(b) that, as a result of SAIC's known, but undisclosed, overbilling practices, its operating results during the Class Period were materially misstated;

(c) that SAIC's overbilling practices subjected the Company to numerous undisclosed risks, including monetary risks and reputational risks, particularly because government agencies are SAIC's primary customers and any harm to its reputation and/or relationships with such agencies would adversely affect its future revenues and growth prospects;

(d) that, as a result of the foregoing circumstances, SAIC violated applicable accounting standards associated with the recognition of revenue and the disclosure and accounting for loss contingencies;

(e) that the Company's financial statements were not fairly presented in conformity with generally accepted accounting principles and were materially false and misleading;

(f) that certifications issued by defendants Kenneth C. Dahlberg and Mark W. Sopp associated with the Company's internal and disclosure controls were materially false and misleading; and

(g) that, based on the foregoing, defendants lacked a reasonable basis for their positive statements about the Company and its business and prospects.

"The revelation that SAIC would incur a probable loss on CityTime was significant because, pursuant to applicable accounting rules, it served as an acknowledgement that, once the Company could reasonably estimate the amount, SAIC would incur a charge against its earnings for the wrongful conduct alleged herein on CityTime. "

CityTime SAIC Update Stampede of Law Firms File NY Class Action Law Suits

Watch this for bigger picture, the cover-ups from the fact this went on way back and CityTime massive fraud as exposed in NYC gov office of payroll letter -- feb 2003 where Richard Valcich sites even more correspondence and communications with SAIC that indicate less than ethical behavior and my guess back in time Rudy Time because system was always flawed. Mije should have thrown out CityTime the way Mike threw out Rudy's Maximus. Mike instead pushed over 700 million over ride of tax payer money on the books. Rudy and Mike forget white house jobs; Note media protecting Team Bloomberg and Christine Quinn all implicated CityTime besides illegal slushy 3rd term. SAIC also protected.

1. SAIC, Inc. : The Law Firm of Levi & Korsinsky Notifies Investors with Losses on Their Investment in SAIC, Inc. of Class Action Lawsuit and the Deadline of April 23, 2012 to Seek a Lead Plaintiff Position

Levi & Korsinsky announces that a class action lawsuit has been commenced in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of investors who purchased SAIC, Inc. ("SAIC" or the "Company") (NYSE: SAI) stock between April 11, 2007 and September 1, 2011 (the "Class Period").

More information here: http://www.zlk.com/saic-sai. There is no cost or obligation to you.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period defendants issued materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's financial performance and business prospects. Specifically, defendants misrepresented and/or failed to disclose the following adverse facts: (a) that SAIC overbilled New York City hundreds of millions of dollars on the CityTime Project, a project associated with the modernization of New York City's employee payroll system, over a multi-year period; (b) that, as a result of SAIC's overbilling practices, its operating results during the Class Period were materially misstated; (c) that SAIC's overbilling practices subjected the Company to numerous undisclosed risks, including monetary and reputational risks; (d) that, as a result of the foregoing circumstances, SAIC violated applicable accounting standards associated with the recognition of revenue and the disclosure and accounting for loss contingencies; (e) that the Company's financial statements were not presented in conformity with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles and were materially false and misleading; (f) and that certifications issued by defendants Kenneth C. Dahlberg and Mark W. Sopp associated with the Company's internal and disclosure controls were materially false and misleading.

On August 31, 2011, SAIC announced a decline of approximately 6% in revenue and 23% in operating margin for the second quarter of 2012, ending July 31, 2011. Following this announcement, defendants also disclosed that the Company would likely have to make restitution to New York City for wrongful conduct on the CityTime Project. In response to this disclosure, shares of SAIC common stock dropped from $15.00 per share on August 31, 2011 to $12.97 on September 1, 2011 on heavy volume.

If you suffered a loss in SAIC, you have until April 23, 2012 to request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff. To obtain additional information, contact Joseph E. Levi, Esq. either via email at jlevi@zlk.com or by telephone at (877) 363-5972, or visit http://www.zlk.com.

Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.

Levi & Korsinsky, LLP
Joseph Levi, Esq. or Eduard Korsinsky, Esq., (212) 363-7500
Toll Free: (877) 363-5972
Fax: (212) 363-7171
www.zlk.com

2. SAIC, Inc. : Rigrodsky & Long, P.A. Announces A Securities Fraud Class Action Lawsuit Has Been Filed Against SAIC.

Rigrodsky & Long, P.A. announces that a lawsuit has been filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of all persons or entities that purchased the common stock of SAIC, Inc. ("SAIC" or the "Company") (NYSE:SAI) between April 11, 2007 and September 1, 2011 (the "Class Period"), alleging violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Complaint").

If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions concerning this notice or your rights or interests, please contact Timothy J. MacFall, Esquire or Scott J. Farrell, Esquire of Rigrodsky & Long, P.A., 825 East Gate Boulevard, Suite 300, Garden City, NY at (888) 969-4242, by e-mail to info@rigrodskylong.com, or at http://www.rigrodskylong.com/investigations/saic-inc-sai.

SAIC describes itself as a scientific, engineering, and technology applications company that uses its deep domain knowledge to solve problems of importance to the nation and the world, in national security, energy & environment, health, and cybersecurity. The Complaint names SAIC and certain of the Company's officers and/or directors as defendants, and alleges that during the Class Period, defendants made materially false and misleading statements concerning the Company's business and prospects. Specifically, the Complaint alleges defendants misrepresented and/or failed to disclose that: (1) over a multi-year period, SAIC had overbilled New York City hundreds of millions of dollars on the CityTime project - an initiative associated with the modernization of New York City's employee payroll system; (2) as a result of these overbilling practices, its operating results during the Class Period were materially misstated; (3) SAIC's overbilling practices subjected the Company to numerous undisclosed risks, including monetary risks and risks to the Company's reputation; (4) as a result of the foregoing, SAIC violated applicable accounting standards associated with the recognition of revenue and the disclosure and accounting for loss contingencies; (5) the Company's financial statements were not fairly presented in conformity with generally accepted accounting principles and were materially false and misleading; (6) certifications associated with the Company's internal and disclosure controls, issued by defendants Dahlberg and Sopp, were materially false and misleading; and (7) based on the foregoing, defendants lacked a reasonable basis for their positive statements about the Company and its business and prospects.

Following the Company's 2012 fiscal second quarter earnings announcement on August 31, 2011, defendants held a conference call with analysts and investors, and disclosed, for the first time, that the Company's revenues were, in part, impacted by the "wind[ing] down" of the CityTime contract, and while the Company could not quantify the amount, it believed that it was "probable" that it would have to make restitution to New York City for wrongful conduct on CityTime.

As a result of the foregoing disclosures, the price of SAIC common stock fell approximately 14%, from $15.00 per share on August 31, 2011 to $12.97 per share on September 1, 2011.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than April 23, 2012. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. In order to be appointed lead plaintiff, the Court must determine that the class member's claim is typical of the claims of other class members, and that the class member will adequately represent the class. Your ability to share in any recovery is not, however, affected by the decision whether or not to serve as a lead plaintiff. Any member of the proposed class may move the court to serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member.

While Rigrodsky & Long, including claims for breach of fiduciary duty and proxy violations in the Delaware Court of Chancery and in state and federal courts throughout the United States.

Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.

Rigrodsky & Long, P.A.
Timothy J. MacFall, Esquire
Scott J. Farrell, Esquire
888-969-4242
516-683-3516
Fax: 302-654-9430
info@rigrodskylong.com
http://www.rigrodskylong.com

3. SAIC, Inc. : Law Offices of Howard G. Smith Announces Class Action Lawsuit Against SAIC.

Law Offices of Howard G. Smith announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of purchasers of the common stock of SAIC, Inc. ("SAIC" or the "Company") (NYSE:SAI) between April 11, 2007 and September 1, 2011, inclusive (the "Class Period"), seeking to pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York.

SAIC provides scientific, engineering, systems integration and technical services and solutions to the U.S. Department of Defense, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, other U.S. Government civil agencies, the intelligence community and customers in selected commercial markets. Since 2000, the Company has developed and implemented an automated timekeeping and workforce management system ("CityTime") for certain agencies of the City of New York. The Complaint alleges that defendants misrepresented or failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's financial performance and prospects, including that: (i) SAIC had overbilled New York City hundreds of millions of dollars on the CityTime project over a multi-year period; (ii) as a result of SAIC's overbilling practices, its operating results during the Class Period were materially misstated; (iii) SAIC's overbilling practices subjected the Company to numerous undisclosed risks, including monetary risks and reputational risks, particularly because government agencies are SAIC's primary customers and any harm to its reputation and/or relationships with such agencies would adversely affect its future revenues and growth prospects; (iv) as a result of the foregoing, SAIC violated applicable accounting standards associated with the recognition of revenue and the disclosure and accounting for loss contingencies; (v) the Company's financial statements were not fairly presented in conformity with generally accepted accounting principles and were materially false and misleading; (vi) certifications issued by certain of the defendants associated with the Company's internal and disclosure controls were materially false and misleading; and (vii), based on the foregoing, defendants lacked a reasonable basis for their positive statements about the Company and its business and prospects.

No class has yet been certified in the above action. Until a class is certified, you are not represented by counsel unless you retain one. If you purchased SAIC common stock between April 11, 2007 and September 1, 2011, you have certain rights, and have 60 days from the date of this Notice to move for lead plaintiff status. To be a member of the class you need not take any action at this time, and you may retain counsel of your choice. If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions concerning this Notice or your rights or interests with respect to these matters, please contact Howard G. Smith, Esquire, of Law Offices of Howard G. Smith, 3070 Bristol Pike, Suite 112, Bensalem, Pennsylvania 19020 by telephone at (215) 638-4847, Toll Free at (888) 638-4847, or by email to howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com, or visit our website at http://www.howardsmithlaw.com.

Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.

Law Offices of Howard G. Smith
Howard G. Smith, Esquire
215-638-4847
888-638-4847
howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com
www.howardsmithlaw.com

Holzer Holzer & Fistel, LLC Announces Investigation into Potential Claims for Breaches of Fiduciary Duty by Certain Officers and Directors of SAIC, Inc.

ATLANTA, Mar 02, 2012 (BUSINESS WIRE) -- Holzer Holzer & Fistel, LLC announces that it is investigating potential breaches of fiduciary duty by certain officers and directors of SAIC, Inc. ("SAIC" or the "Company") SAI.

On February 23, 2012, a class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York alleging that SAIC violated the federal securities laws between April 11, 2007 and September 1, 2011 (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit alleges, among other things, that SAIC overbilled New York City by hundreds of millions of dollars in connection with the CityTime Project.

Holzer Holzer & Fistel, LLC's investigation seeks to determine if the allegations contained in the class action complaint also give rise to the separate claims against the Board of Directors for breaches of fiduciary duty, which could be enforced on behalf of the Company through shareholder derivative litigation.

If you are a long term holder of SAI shares and would like to discuss your legal rights, you may contact Michael I. Fistel, Jr., Esq. or Marshall P. Dees, Esq. via email at mfistel@holzerlaw.com, or mdees@holzerlaw.com, or via toll-free telephone at (888) 508-6832.

Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP Announces Class Action Lawsuit Against SAIC, Inc.

SAN FRANCISCO--(EON: Enhanced Online News)--The law firm of Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been brought on behalf of purchasers of the common stock of SAIC, Inc. (“SAIC” or the “Company”) (NYSE: SAI) between April 11, 2007 and September 1, 2011, inclusive (the “Class Period”).

If you purchased SAIC common stock during the Class Period, you may move the Court for appointment as lead plaintiff by no later than April 23, 2012. A lead plaintiff is a representative party who acts on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. Your share of any recovery in the action will not be affected by your decision of whether to seek appointment as lead plaintiff. You may retain Lieff Cabraser, or other attorneys, as your counsel in the action.

SAIC shareholders who wish to learn more about the action and how to seek appointment as lead plaintiff should click here or contact Sharon Lee of Lieff Cabraser toll free at (800) 541-7358.

Hagens Berman Investigates Knowledge of SAIC Top Management of Overbilling Scheme, Encourages Whistleblowers to Contact the Firm

BERKELEY, Calif., Feb. 27, 2012 /PRNewswire via COMTEX/ -- Hagens Berman today announced it is investigating SAIC SAI +0.48% regarding alleged violations of the securities laws and asked that insiders with information relevant to the investigation, or investors desiring to be a lead plaintiff, contact the firm for a consultation.

"We hope to speak to individuals who have non-public information that might be relevant to the investigation," said Hagens Berman Partner Reed R. Kathrein, who is leading the firm's investigation. "We need to dig deeper and uncover who in SAIC's top management knew about the failure to disclose possible overbilling in the CityTime project, which we believe may have artificially inflated the company's stock price."

Whistleblowers and investors can reach Mr. Kathrein by calling (510) 725-3000.

WAKE UP AMERICA!!!....Its "OUR" country!!!

Love "Light" and Energy

_Don 　　　

References:

Giuliani Partners

LeviKorsinsksy

Get More Information

Rigrodsky & Long, P.A.

Law Offices of Howard G. Smith

Mayor Bloomberg SAiC mega suit filed NY?

SAIC CEO Golden Parachute Like Cathie Black

SAIC Stockholder Frequently Asked Questions

Federman & Sherwood [SAIC, Inc. [NYSE: SAI]

SAIC Hit With $4.9B Lawsuit Over TRICARE Data Theft :o

United States Attorney Southern District of NYC Original Complaint

Testimony of Caswell F. Holloway, Deputy Mayor for Operations NYC

United States Attorney Southern District of NYC Charges SAIC Executive

New Details in CityTime Corruption Case: Contractor Arrogance and Incompetence

CityTime Scandal: Bloomberg Wants SAIC, Tech Giant, To Pay City $600M For Failures

Returning Military - Face Job Discrimination by Federal Govt. et al.

By Steve Vogel - Posting #201

"Yo Steve, It's not just returning Veterian's, but, any persons who has "Battlefield" skills that the Federial Government has deemed a threat (if "they" put this country into a state of Marshall Law).

Can ya hear me now? - Obama plan:Hire vets as cops, firefighters

After "years" of containment operations being used against our vets to lock them down, the US government shows it's endgame. Make vets "dependant" on government to survive as to contain and lock down their battlefield skills. [W.H.Y.]

This "transferance" should give all Americans a "heads-up" insomuch as to whats coming down the pike (long-term)."

Every year, more than a thousand National Guard, reserve and active-duty troops coming back from Iraq, Afghanistan or other military duties complain of being denied jobs or otherwise being penalized by employers because of their military obligations.

The biggest offender: the federal government.

It is against federal law for employers to penalize service members because of their military service. And yet, in some cases, the U.S. government has withdrawn job offers to service members unable to get released from active duty fast enough; in others, service members have been fired after absences.

In fiscal 2011, more than 18 percent of the 1,548 complaints of violations of that law involved federal agencies, according to figures obtained under the Freedom of Information Act.

“On the one hand, the government asked me to serve in Iraq,” said retired Army Brig. Gen. Michael Silva, a reservist who commanded a brigade in Iraq and was fired from his job as a U.S. Customs and Border Patrol contractor on his return. “On the other hand, another branch of government was not willing to protect my rights after serving.”

The federal government is the largest employer of citizen-soldiers. About 123,000 of the 855,000 men and women currently serving as Guard members and reservists, or about 14 percent, have civilian jobs with the federal government. Over a fourth of federal employees are veterans.

The Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA), enacted in 1994 to ensure that members of the military do not face a disadvantage in their civilian careers because of their service, calls on the federal government be “a model employer” for service members.

But critics contend that the federal government has been far from perfect, and they fear that with troops back home from Iraq and more on the way from Afghanistan, violations of the law could increase.

Obama “priority”

The problems persist even though the Obama administration has made a priority of cutting the rate of veterans’ unemployment, which is significantly higher among post-9/11 veterans than in the population as a whole.

Advocates for veterans say the system set up for service members to challenge alleged USERRA violations is onerous, with no single agency having oversight. And they note that the federal government doesn’t have much incentive to improve. The federal government can be ordered to pay back wages for being in willful violation of the law, but it incurs no other penalties. A private company, by contrast, could be liable for double an employee’s lost wages.

“There seems to be a feeling that the federal government can get away with what they’re doing,” said Matthew Estes, a USERRA lawyer with the law firm Tully Rinckey.

Some federal employers have forced reservists to leave military service as a condition of their hiring, which is also against the law, according to Samuel Wright, director of the Service Members Law Center at the Reserve Officers Association.

“Federal agencies are routinely doing that,” Wright said. (p.2) (p.3)

WAKE UP AMERICA!!!....Its "OUR" country!!!

Love "Light" and Energy

_Don 　　　

References:

Employment Discrimination Law In The United States - A Fucking Joke!

Iraq War Draws To A Quiet Close

Veterans’ Unemployment Outpaces Civilian Rate

Senators Demand Military Lock Up American Citizens in a "Battlefield" Outside Your Window

Officer Accuses U.S. Military of Vast Afghan Deception/Delusions

By Stephen C. Webster - Posting #200

An internal report on the occupation of Afghanistan, penned by an active-duty military officer and published weeks ago - but not released by the Pentagon - was leaked on Friday by Rolling Stone reporter Michael Hastings, who called the 84-page examination "one of the most significant documents published by an active-duty officer in the past ten years."

The document, written by Lt. Col. Daniel L. Davis, explains there has been a 12-year-long cover-up of the reality on the ground in Afghanistan. Davis was the source of a New York Times feature last Sunday, which cited his report but did not release it.

The Pentagon has since launched an investigation of Davis for possible security violations.

Davis reportedly wrote two versions - one classified and one not - and briefed four members of Congress, both Republican and Democrat. Senior Pentagon officials also have the report, but they've decided not to release it. For that reason, the unclassified report was published by Rolling Stone on Friday afternoon.

"As I will explain in the following pages I have personally observed or physically participated in programs for at least the last 15 years in which the Army's senior leaders have either "stretched the truth" or knowingly deceived the US Congress and American public," Davis explains in his introduction.

"What I witnessed in my most recently concluded 12 month deployment to Afghanistan has seen that deception reach an intolerable low. I will provide a very brief summary of the open source information that would allow any American citizen to verify these claims. But if the public had access to these classified reports they would see the dramatic gulf between what is often said in public by our senior leaders and what is actually true behind the scenes. It would be illegal for me to discuss, use, or cite classified material in an open venue and thus I will not do so; I am no WikiLeaks guy Part II."

He essentially concludes that America's top generals should be placed under oath and questioned about incidents detailed in the report.

WAKE UP AMERICA!!!....Its "OUR" country!!!

Love "Light" and Energy

_Don 　　　

References:

The Afghanistan Report the Pentagon Doesn't Want You to Read

Officer: U.S. paints false picture of Afghan war

Pentagon investigates colonel over critical report on US progress in Afghanistan

The report is available to read here (.pdf)

RICO Court Blocks 9/11 Discovery (Again) - Sanctions Lawyers

By Terry Baynes - Posting #199 - Judge John M. Walker :o

(Reuters) - A federal appeals court sanctioned two California lawyers on Thursday over a lawsuit they filed, dismissed as frivolous, that accused former officials in the Bush administration of allowing the September 11 Pentagon attack to occur as part of a broad conspiracy.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit ordered the two lawyers to pay $15,000 total in sanctions in addition to double an unspecified amount the government spent defending the case.

Three attorneys -- Dennis Cunningham, William Veale and Mustapha Ndanusa -- filed the lawsuit in 2008 on behalf of April Gallop, a member of the U.S. Army injured in the Pentagon attack on September 11, 2001.

The lawyers accused then-Vice President Dick Cheney and then-Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld of allowing the Pentagon attack to occur through inaction, despite having what the suit described as real-time information that a hijacked plane was approaching.

The suit, which also questioned the nature of the attacks, said the inaction rose to the level of conspiracy to create a political atmosphere that would allow the U.S. government to pursue domestic and international policy objectives.

The suit accused the men and others of conspiracy to cause death and bodily harm and a violation of the Antiterrorism Act.

The September 11 attacks, carried out by 19 hijackers from the global militant network al Qaeda, led U.S. forces to invade Afghanistan to topple the Taliban rulers who had harbored al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden.

That war served as a precursor to the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq that toppled Saddam Hussein in 2003, which the administration chiefly justified by citing intelligence that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. No such weapons were subsequently found.

U.S. District Judge Denny Chin dismissed the case in 2010, ruling that the complaint was frivolous and a product of "cynical delusion and fantasy." A three-judge panel of the 2nd Circuit upheld that decision, imposing $15,000 in sanctions on the three lawyers for filing the suit. All three appealed.

In requesting a rehearing, the lawyers asked the court to disqualify the three-judge panel "and any like-minded colleagues" from participating in the decision to grant review, accusing the panel of "severe bias, based in active personal emotions arising from the 9/11 attack."

But the 2nd Circuit took exception to the request, concluding no attorney would make such a demand in good faith.

The court upheld sanctions against Veale and Cunningham but reversed them against Ndanusa, who only served a minor role as local counsel. Ndanusa said all of the lawyers acted in good faith in bringing the lawsuit.

The court also ordered Cunningham, who described himself as "the decider" in developing the case, to inform other federal courts in circuit of the sanctions order for the next year.

"We are not delusional by any means. We have the F.A.C.T.S., and they cannot be explained," said Veale, a former chief assistant public defender for Contra Costa County, California.

Cunningham did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

WAKE UP AMERICA!!!....Its "OUR" country!!!

Love "Light" and Energy

_Don 　　　

References: Why is Senator Maria Cantwell Shielding NIST from Investigation? [Hint]

BFP: Who is Ken, or Kenneth, Wainstein?

The Toronto Hearings

Obama Rewards Judges 5 Feb 2012

PBC Radio Show: 9/11 Case Against Cheney and Rumsfeld [.mp3 podcast]

Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act

Money Trails Lead to Bush Judges :o

Judge John Walker, George Walker Bush’s Cousin, Judges April Gallop’s Suit

List Of Federal Judges Appointed by George W. Bush

U.S. Supreme RICO Court

April Gallop’s Attorney on The Kevin Barrett Show:

German Federal Judge, Deiter Dieseroth, stated in December 2009 that:

“No independent court has applied legal procedures to review the available evidence on who was responsible for the attacks.”

Also, that “it is not acceptable for a constitutional state…to declare war, bomb a foreign country, and place it under military occupation,” without first identifying suspects.

Dieseroth also said the U.S. “was under burden of proof” that Osama bin Laden was responsible for the attacks, yet the FBI admits it has no evidence presentable in court to back this up.

The stakes in this case are epic, including the possibility of an overwhelming transformation of the world’s understanding of history, not to mention American citizens’ relationship with their government.