« September 2012 | Main | November 2012 »

With RICO 3x multiplier, damages now total $219T (at least): Abeel et al. v. Bank of America N.A. et al., USDC/EDNY Case No. 1:12-cv-04269-JBW-RML

Teknosis needs your help. * Ways to help Teknosis

___

 

Post main:

----- Forwarded Message -----
From: Paul Andrew Mitchell
Sent: Sunday, October 28, 2012 5:00 PM
Subject: 
w/ RICO 3x multiplier, damages now total $219T (at least): 
Abeel et al. v. Bank of America N.A. et al., 
USDC/EDNY Case No. 1:12-cv-04269-JBW-RML



Excerpt from FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT, 
Abeel et al. v. Bank of America N.A. et al.
USDC/EDNY Case No. 1:12-cv-04269-JBW-RML

http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/abeel/
http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/abeel/Excerpt.First.Amended.Complaint.htm  (HTML)
http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/abeel/Excerpt.First.Amended.Complaint.doc  (MS WORD 2003)


See in particular:  

[begin quote]

1. General and special damages according to proof, as set forth 
in the applicable causes of action against defendants named therein, 
in the sum of at least $73 trillion ($73,000,000,000,000.00);
 
...
 
3. Treble damages according to proof, as set forth in the 
applicable causes of action against defendants named therein;

 
[end quote]
 

 
See in particular:
 
TWELFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
 Civil Racketeering – 18 U.S.C. §1962[c]
 
 
THIRTEENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
CIVIL RACKETEERING – 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1962(d)
By All Plaintiffs Against All Defendants 
 
 
FOURTEENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
CIVIL RACKETEERING - 18 U.S.C. 1962(c), 1503
By All Plaintiffs Against Defendants Joseph Lawrence Dunn, 
Dannielle A. Lee, Thomas  Layton, Kamala Harris, 
Maya West,Tony West, Peter Krause, Joseph Crudo, Jr., 
Joseph Crudo, Sr., Michael Brosnan, Bank of America, and Citigroup.
 
18 U.S.C. 1962 prohibits racketeering:
 
18 U.S.C. 1503 prohibits obstruction of justice:
 
1503 is also defined as a RICO "predicate act" at 18 U.S.C. 1961:
section 1503 (relating to obstruction of justice)
 
 
That brings the total damages to $73T x 3  =  $219T (at least)
-- 
Sincerely yours,
/s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S.
Private Attorney General, 18 U.S.C. 1964
http://www.supremelaw.org/decs/agency/private.attorney.general.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/reading.list.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/index.htm (Home Page)
http://www.supremelaw.org/support.policy.htm (Support Policy)
http://www.supremelaw.org/guidelines.htm (Client Guidelines)
http://www.supremelaw.org/support.guidelines.htm (Policy + Guidelines)

All Rights Reserved without Prejudice

October 28, 2012 in Current Affairs | Permalink

Abeel et al. v. Bank of America N.A. et al., USDC/EDNY Case No. 1:12-cv-04269-JBW-RM

Teknosis needs your help. * Ways to help Teknosis

___

 

Post main:

----- Forwarded Message -----
From: Paul Andrew Mitchell 
Sent: Saturday, October 27, 2012 3:59 PM
Subject: 
Abeel et al. v. Bank of America N.A. et al., USDC/EDNY Case No. 1:12-cv-04269-JBW-RML

 

Complaint1_12 Cv 04269 Jbw Rm Copy

 

Related: 

http://tekgnosis.typepad.com/tekgnosis/2012/10/43t-major-banks-government-officials-and-comrade-capitalists-targets-of-spire-law-groups-ricomoney-l.html

http://tekgnosis.typepad.com/tekgnosis/2012/10/re-james-n-fiedler-sbn-36643-dba-managing-partner-of-spire-law-group-llp.html

http://tekgnosis.typepad.com/tekgnosis/2012/10/bombshell-rod-class-gets-fourth-administrative-ruling-all-government-offices-are-vacant-all-governme.html

 

October 28, 2012 in Current Affairs | Permalink

Re: James N. Fiedler SBN #36643 dba Managing Partner of Spire Law Group, LLP

----- Forwarded Message -----

From: Paul Andrew Mitchell
Sent: Thursday, October 25, 2012 7:41 PM
Subject: Re: James N. Fiedler SBN #36643 dba Managing Partner of Spire Law Group, LLP

"the public should be protected -- at all costs -- from corruption
in whatever form it presents itself."



Mr. Fiedler will need to produce a true and correct copy
of his license to practice law, as required by sections 6067 and 6068
of the California Business and Professions Code:

http://www.supremelaw.org/ref/cbpc/6067.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/ref/cbpc/6068.htm


Here's the front side only of one such license:

http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/rainmaker/azar/State.Bar.License.1.JPG

The law in question was enacted in 1939, so it was in force
when Mr. Fiedler was first "admitted" to The State Bar of California.


FYI:  The State Bar of California are now IN CONTEMPT of this
SUBPOENA IN A CIVIL CASE:


http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/statebar/



I may have some high-stakes work for your firm,
if Mr. Fiedler can prove that he complied with
the State Bar Act in California back in January 1965
;
otherwise, I'll be legally obligated to obey 18 U.S.C. 4:

http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/aol2/criminal.complaint.4.htm


the federal lawsuit now impending in the United States District Court
in Brooklyn, New York (Case No. 12-cv-04269-JBW-RML)


My office has already investigated the missing and defective
credentials required of all U.S. District Judges in New York State
e.g. Brooklyn:


"JBW" is Jack B. Weinstein: 
he is known to be missing the OPM SF-61 APPOINTMENT AFFIDAVITS
required by 5 U.S.C. 3331:

http://www.supremelaw.org/rsrc/commissions/weinstein.jack/nad.missing.credentials.htm

http://www.supremelaw.org/rsrc/commissions/evidence.folders.2004-03-16.htm#NDNY
http://www.supremelaw.org/rsrc/commissions/evidence.folders.2004-03-16.htm#SDNY
http://www.supremelaw.org/rsrc/commissions/evidence.folders.2004-03-16.htm#EDNY
http://www.supremelaw.org/rsrc/commissions/evidence.folders.2004-03-16.htm#WDNY

In this context, see also the
NOTICE OF MISSING AND/OR DEFECTIVE CREDENTIALS
here:


http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/hedges/
http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/hedges/United.States.Notice.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/hedges/United.States.Notice.pdf


Thank you.

--
Sincerely yours,
/s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S.
Private Attorney General, 18 U.S.C. 1964
http://www.supremelaw.org/decs/agency/private.attorney.general.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/reading.list.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/index.htm (Home Page)
http://www.supremelaw.org/support.policy.htm (Support Policy)
http://www.supremelaw.org/guidelines.htm (Client Guidelines)
http://www.supremelaw.org/support.guidelines.htm (Policy + Guidelines)

All Rights Reserved without Prejudice


On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 7:19 PM, Admin <info@spirelawgroupllp.com> wrote:
Hi Mr. Mitchell,
 
Thank you for your below email.  How may we assist you?
 
 
___________________________________________________________________________________
SPIRE LAW GROUP, LLP
 
 
 
 
From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [mailto:supremelawfirm@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, October 25, 2012 5:56 PM
To: info@spirelawgroupllp.com
Cc: josephzernik@humanrightsalertngo.org
Subject: Re: James N. Fiedler SBN #36643 dba Managing Partner of Spire Law Group, LLP
 
About Spire Law Group
Spire Law Group, LLP is a national law firm whose motto is "the public should be protected -- at all costs -- from corruption in whatever form it presents itself." The Firm is comprised of lawyers nationally with more than 250-years of experience in a span of matters ranging from representing large corporations and wealthy individuals, to also representing the masses. The Firm is at the front lines litigating against government officials, banks, defunct loan pools, and now the very offshore entities where the corruption was enabled and perpetrated.

James N. Fiedler [is] Managing Partner of Spire Law Group, LLP

James N. Fiedler is a registered "member" of The State Bar of California, however:

http://members.calbar.ca.gov/fal/Member/Detail/36643

1/22/1965  Admitted to The State Bar of California

http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/aol/contest.ehlers.htm

See Statutes of California, 1939, c. 34, p. 354, sec. 1, 53rd Session, approved by the Governor on February 3, 1939 (“A certificate of oath shall be indorsed upon his license.” [bold emphasis added])


All 200,000+ past and present "members" were formally charged here
with multiple State and Federal felonies:

http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/aol2/criminal.complaint.4.htm


--
Sincerely yours,
/s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S.
Private Attorney General, 18 U.S.C. 1964
http://www.supremelaw.org/decs/agency/private.attorney.general.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/reading.list.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/index.htm (Home Page)
http://www.supremelaw.org/support.policy.htm (Support Policy)
http://www.supremelaw.org/guidelines.htm (Client Guidelines)
http://www.supremelaw.org/support.guidelines.htm (Policy + Guidelines)

All Rights Reserved without Prejudice
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Paul Andrew Mitchell <supremelawfirm@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 5:43 PM
Subject: $43T -- Major Banks, Government Officials and Comrade Capitalists Targets of Spire Law Group's RICO/Money Laundering Lawsuit Seeking Return of $43 Trillion to U.S. Treasury
To: josephzernik@humanrightsalertngo.org


Thanks, Dr. Zernik!

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Supreme Law Firm <paulandrewmitchell2004@yahoo.com>
Date: Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 5:41 PM
Subject: $43T -- Major Banks, Government Officials and Comrade Capitalists Targets of Spire Law Group's RICO/Money Laundering Lawsuit Seeking Return of $43 Trillion to U.S. Treasury
"bankster" = bank + gangster
 
 
----- Forwarded Message -----
From: Paul Andrew Mitchell
Sent: Thursday, October 25, 2012 5:40 PM
Subject: $43T -- Major Banks, Government Officials and Comrade Capitalists Targets of Spire Law Group's RICO/Money Laundering Lawsuit Seeking Return of $43 Trillion to U.S. Treasury
 
NEW YORK, Oct. 25, 2012 /PRNewswire via COMTEX/ -- Spire Law Group, LLP's national home owners' lawsuit, pending in the venue where the "Banksters" control their $43 trillion racketeering scheme (New York) 

October 25, 2012 in Current Affairs | Permalink

James N. Fiedler SBN #36643 dba Managing Partner of Spire Law Group, LLP

 

"the public should be protected -- at all costs -- from corruption
in whatever form it presents itself.
"

-- motto of
Spire Law Group, LLP

----- Forwarded Message -----
From: Paul Andrew Mitchell
Sent: Thursday, October 25, 2012 5:55 PM
Subject: Re: James N. Fiedler SBN #36643 dba Managing Partner of Spire Law Group, LLP

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/major-banks-governmental-officials-and-their-comrade-capitalists-targets-of-spire-law-group-llps-racketeering-and-money-laundering-lawsuit-seeking-return-of-43-trillion-to-the-united-states-treasury-2012-10-25
About Spire Law Group
Spire Law Group, LLP is a national law firm whose motto is "the public should be protected -- at all costs -- from corruption in whatever form it presents itself." The Firm is comprised of lawyers nationally with more than 250-years of experience in a span of matters ranging from representing large corporations and wealthy individuals, to also representing the masses. The Firm is at the front lines litigating against government officials, banks, defunct loan pools, and now the very offshore entities where the corruption was enabled and perpetrated.

James N. Fiedler [is] Managing Partner of Spire Law Group, LLP

James N. Fiedler is a registered "member" of The State Bar of California, however:

http://members.calbar.ca.gov/fal/Member/Detail/36643

1/22/1965  Admitted to The State Bar of California

http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/aol/contest.ehlers.htm

See Statutes of California, 1939, c. 34, p. 354, sec. 1, 53rd Session, approved by the Governor on February 3, 1939 (“A certificate of oath shall be indorsed upon his license.” [bold emphasis added])


All 200,000+ past and present "members" were formally charged here
with multiple State and Federal felonies:


http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/aol2/criminal.complaint.4.htm


--
Sincerely yours,
/s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S.
Private Attorney General, 18 U.S.C. 1964
http://www.supremelaw.org/decs/agency/private.attorney.general.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/reading.list.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/index.htm (Home Page)
http://www.supremelaw.org/support.policy.htm (Support Policy)
http://www.supremelaw.org/guidelines.htm (Client Guidelines)
http://www.supremelaw.org/support.guidelines.htm (Policy + Guidelines)

All Rights Reserved without Prejudice

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Paul Andrew Mitchell <supremelawfirm@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 5:43 PM
Subject: $43T -- Major Banks, Government Officials and Comrade Capitalists Targets of Spire Law Group's RICO/Money Laundering Lawsuit Seeking Return of $43 Trillion to U.S. Treasury


Thanks, Dr. Zernik!


---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Supreme Law Firm <paulandrewmitchell2004@yahoo.com>
Date: Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 5:41 PM
Subject: $43T -- Major Banks, Government Officials and Comrade Capitalists Targets of Spire Law Group's RICO/Money Laundering Lawsuit Seeking Return of $43 Trillion to U.S. Treasury


"bankster" = bank + gangster


----- Forwarded Message -----
From: Paul Andrew Mitchell
Sent: Thursday, October 25, 2012 5:40 PM
Subject: $43T -- Major Banks, Government Officials and Comrade Capitalists Targets of Spire Law Group's RICO/Money Laundering Lawsuit Seeking Return of $43 Trillion to U.S. Treasury

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/major-banks-governmental-officials-and-their-comrade-capitalists-targets-of-spire-law-group-llps-racketeering-and-money-laundering-lawsuit-seeking-return-of-43-trillion-to-the-united-states-treasury-2012-10-25

NEW YORK, Oct. 25, 2012 /PRNewswire via COMTEX/ -- Spire Law Group, LLP's national home owners' lawsuit, pending in the venue where the "Banksters" control their $43 trillion racketeering scheme (New York) - known as the largest money laundering and racketeering lawsuit in United States History and identifying $43 trillion ($43,000,000,000,000.00) of laundered money by the "Banksters" and their U.S. racketeering partners and joint venturers - now pinpoints the identities of the key racketeering partners of the "Banksters" located in the highest offices of government and acting for their own self-interests.

In connection with the federal lawsuit now impending in the United States District Court in Brooklyn, New York (Case No. 12-cv-04269-JBW-RML) - involving, among other things, a request that the District Court enjoin all mortgage foreclosures by the Banksters nationwide, unless and until the entire $43 trillion is repaid to a court-appointed receiver - Plaintiffs now establish the location of the $43 trillion ($43,000,000,000,000.00) of laundered money in a racketeering enterprise participated in by the following individuals (without limitation): Attorney General Holder acting in his individual capacity, Assistant Attorney General Tony West, the brother in law of Defendant California Attorney General Kamala Harris (both acting in their individual capacities), Jon Corzine (former New Jersey Governor), Robert Rubin (former Treasury Secretary and Bankster), Timothy Geitner, Treasury Secretary (acting in his individual capacity), Vikram Pandit (recently resigned and disgraced Chairman of the Board of Citigroup), Valerie Jarrett (a Senior White House Advisor), Anita Dunn (a former "communications director" for the Obama Administration), Robert Bauer (husband of Anita Dunn and Chief Legal Counsel for the Obama Re-election Campaign), as well as the "Banksters" themselves, and their affiliates and conduits. The lawsuit alleges serial violations of the United States Patriot Act, the Policy of Embargo Against Iran and Countries Hostile to the Foreign Policy of the United States, and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (commonly known as the RICO statute) and other State and Federal laws.

In the District Court lawsuit, Spire Law Group, LLP -- on behalf of home owner across the Country and New York taxpayers, as well as under other taxpayer recompense laws -- has expanded its mass tort action into federal court in Brooklyn, New York, seeking to halt all foreclosures nationwide pending the return of the $43 trillion ($43,000,000,000.00) by the "Banksters" and their co-conspirators, seeking an audit of the Fed and audits of all the "bailout programs" by an independent receiver such as Neil Barofsky, former Inspector General of the TARP program who has stated that none of the TARP money and other "bailout money" advanced from the Treasury has ever been repaid despite protestations to the contrary by the Defendants as well as similar protestations by President Obama and the Obama Administration both publicly on national television and more privately to the United States Congress. Because the Obama Administration has failed to pursue any of the "Banksters" criminally, and indeed is actively borrowing monies for Mr. Obama's campaign from these same "Banksters" to finance its political aspirations, the national group of plaintiff home owners has been forced to now expand its lawsuit to include racketeering, money laundering and intentional violations of the Iranian Nations Sanctions and Embargo Act by the national banks included among the "Bankster" Defendants.

The complaint - which has now been fully served on thousands of the "Banksters and their Co-Conspirators" - makes it irrefutable that the epicenter of this laundering and racketeering enterprise has been and continues to be Wall Street and continues to involve the very "Banksters" located there who have repeatedly asked in the past to be "bailed out" and to be "bailed out" in the future.

The Havens for the money laundering schemes - and certain of the names and places of these entities - are located in such venues as Switzerland, the Isle of Man, Luxembourg, Malaysia, Cypress and entities controlled by governments adverse to the interests of the United States Sanctions and Embargo Act against Iran, and are also identified in both the United Nations and the U.S. Senate's recent reports on international money laundering. Many of these entities have already been personally served with summons and process of the complaint during the last six months. It is now beyond dispute that, while the Obama Administration was publicly encouraging loan modifications for home owners by "Banksters", it was privately ratifying the formation of these shell companies in violation of the United States Patriot Act, and State and Federal law. The case further alleges that through these obscure foreign companies, Bank of America, J.P. Morgan, Wells Fargo Bank, Citibank, Citigroup, One West Bank, and numerous other federally chartered banks stole trillions of dollars of home owners' and taxpayers' money during the last decade and then laundered it through offshore companies.

This District Court Complaint -- maintained by Spire Law Group, LLP -- is the only lawsuit in the world listing as Defendants the Banksters, let alone serving all of such Banksters with legal process and therefore forcing them to finally answer the charges in court. Neither the Securities and Exchange Commission, nor the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, nor the Office of the Attorney General, nor any State Attorney General has sued the Banksters and thereby legally chased them worldwide to recover-back the $43 trillion ($43,000,000,000,000.00) and other lawful damages, injunctive relief and other legal remedies.

James N. Fiedler, Managing Partner of Spire Law Group, LLP, stated: "It is hard for me to believe as a 47-year lawyer that our nation's guardians have been unwilling to stop this theft. Spire Law Group, LLP stands for the elimination of corruption and implementation of lawful strategies, and that is what we're doing here. Spire Law Group, LLP's charter is to not allow such corruption to go unanswered."

Comments were requested from the Attorney Generals' offices in NY, CA, NV, NH , OH, MA and the White House, but no comment was provided.

--
Sincerely yours,
/s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S.
Private Attorney General, 18 U.S.C. 1964
http://www.supremelaw.org/decs/agency/private.attorney.general.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/reading.list.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/index.htm (Home Page)
http://www.supremelaw.org/support.policy.htm (Support Policy)
http://www.supremelaw.org/guidelines.htm (Client Guidelines)
http://www.supremelaw.org/support.guidelines.htm (Policy + Guidelines)

All Rights Reserved without Prejudice

October 25, 2012 in Current Affairs | Permalink

$43T -- Major Banks, Government Officials and Comrade Capitalists Targets of Spire Law Group's RICO/Money Laundering Lawsuit Seeking Return of $43 Trillion to U.S. Treasury

"bankster" = bank + gangster


----- Forwarded Message -----
From: Paul Andrew Mitchell
Sent: Thursday, October 25, 2012 5:40 PM
Subject: $43T -- Major Banks, Government Officials and Comrade Capitalists Targets of Spire Law Group's RICO/Money Laundering Lawsuit Seeking Return of $43 Trillion to U.S. Treasury

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/major-banks-governmental-officials-and-their-comrade-capitalists-targets-of-spire-law-group-llps-racketeering-and-money-laundering-lawsuit-seeking-return-of-43-trillion-to-the-united-states-treasury-2012-10-25

NEW YORK, Oct. 25, 2012 /PRNewswire via COMTEX/ -- Spire Law Group, LLP's national home owners' lawsuit, pending in the venue where the "Banksters" control their $43 trillion racketeering scheme (New York) - known as the largest money laundering and racketeering lawsuit in United States History and identifying $43 trillion ($43,000,000,000,000.00) of laundered money by the "Banksters" and their U.S. racketeering partners and joint venturers - now pinpoints the identities of the key racketeering partners of the "Banksters" located in the highest offices of government and acting for their own self-interests.
 
In connection with the federal lawsuit now impending in the United States District Court in Brooklyn, New York (Case No. 12-cv-04269-JBW-RML) - involving, among other things, a request that the District Court enjoin all mortgage foreclosures by the Banksters nationwide, unless and until the entire $43 trillion is repaid to a court-appointed receiver - Plaintiffs now establish the location of the $43 trillion ($43,000,000,000,000.00) of laundered money in a racketeering enterprise participated in by the following individuals (without limitation): Attorney General Holder acting in his individual capacity, Assistant Attorney General Tony West, the brother in law of Defendant California Attorney General Kamala Harris (both acting in their individual capacities), Jon Corzine (former New Jersey Governor), Robert Rubin (former Treasury Secretary and Bankster), Timothy Geitner, Treasury Secretary (acting in his individual capacity), Vikram Pandit (recently resigned and disgraced Chairman of the Board of Citigroup), Valerie Jarrett (a Senior White House Advisor), Anita Dunn (a former "communications director" for the Obama Administration), Robert Bauer (husband of Anita Dunn and Chief Legal Counsel for the Obama Re-election Campaign), as well as the "Banksters" themselves, and their affiliates and conduits. The lawsuit alleges serial violations of the United States Patriot Act, the Policy of Embargo Against Iran and Countries Hostile to the Foreign Policy of the United States, and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (commonly known as the RICO statute) and other State and Federal laws.
 
In the District Court lawsuit, Spire Law Group, LLP -- on behalf of home owner across the Country and New York taxpayers, as well as under other taxpayer recompense laws -- has expanded its mass tort action into federal court in Brooklyn, New York, seeking to halt all foreclosures nationwide pending the return of the $43 trillion ($43,000,000,000.00) by the "Banksters" and their co-conspirators, seeking an audit of the Fed and audits of all the "bailout programs" by an independent receiver such as Neil Barofsky, former Inspector General of the TARP program who has stated that none of the TARP money and other "bailout money" advanced from the Treasury has ever been repaid despite protestations to the contrary by the Defendants as well as similar protestations by President Obama and the Obama Administration both publicly on national television and more privately to the United States Congress. Because the Obama Administration has failed to pursue any of the "Banksters" criminally, and indeed is actively borrowing monies for Mr. Obama's campaign from these same "Banksters" to finance its political aspirations, the national group of plaintiff home owners has been forced to now expand its lawsuit to include racketeering, money laundering and intentional violations of the Iranian Nations Sanctions and Embargo Act by the national banks included among the "Bankster" Defendants.
 
The complaint - which has now been fully served on thousands of the "Banksters and their Co-Conspirators" - makes it irrefutable that the epicenter of this laundering and racketeering enterprise has been and continues to be Wall Street and continues to involve the very "Banksters" located there who have repeatedly asked in the past to be "bailed out" and to be "bailed out" in the future.
 
The Havens for the money laundering schemes - and certain of the names and places of these entities - are located in such venues as Switzerland, the Isle of Man, Luxembourg, Malaysia, Cypress and entities controlled by governments adverse to the interests of the United States Sanctions and Embargo Act against Iran, and are also identified in both the United Nations and the U.S. Senate's recent reports on international money laundering. Many of these entities have already been personally served with summons and process of the complaint during the last six months. It is now beyond dispute that, while the Obama Administration was publicly encouraging loan modifications for home owners by "Banksters", it was privately ratifying the formation of these shell companies in violation of the United States Patriot Act, and State and Federal law. The case further alleges that through these obscure foreign companies, Bank of America, J.P. Morgan, Wells Fargo Bank, Citibank, Citigroup, One West Bank, and numerous other federally chartered banks stole trillions of dollars of home owners' and taxpayers' money during the last decade and then laundered it through offshore companies.
 
This District Court Complaint -- maintained by Spire Law Group, LLP -- is the only lawsuit in the world listing as Defendants the Banksters, let alone serving all of such Banksters with legal process and therefore forcing them to finally answer the charges in court. Neither the Securities and Exchange Commission, nor the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, nor the Office of the Attorney General, nor any State Attorney General has sued the Banksters and thereby legally chased them worldwide to recover-back the $43 trillion ($43,000,000,000,000.00) and other lawful damages, injunctive relief and other legal remedies.
James N. Fiedler, Managing Partner of Spire Law Group, LLP, stated: "It is hard for me to believe as a 47-year lawyer that our nation's guardians have been unwilling to stop this theft. Spire Law Group, LLP stands for the elimination of corruption and implementation of lawful strategies, and that is what we're doing here. Spire Law Group, LLP's charter is to not allow such corruption to go unanswered."
 
Comments were requested from the Attorney Generals' offices in NY, CA, NV, NH , OH, MA and the White House, but no comment was provided.

--
Sincerely yours,
/s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S.
Private Attorney General, 18 U.S.C. 1964
http://www.supremelaw.org/decs/agency/private.attorney.general.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/reading.list.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/index.htm (Home Page)
http://www.supremelaw.org/support.policy.htm (Support Policy)
http://www.supremelaw.org/guidelines.htm (Client Guidelines)
http://www.supremelaw.org/support.guidelines.htm (Policy + Guidelines)

All Rights Reserved without Prejudice

October 25, 2012 in Current Affairs | Permalink

RE: THE GOVERNMENT HAS NOW CONCEDED THE CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUE OF THE INVALIDITY OF TITLE 18! Re: [TheFinePrint] MOST INTERESTING::::::: Tuesday: Tony Davis

Yes Clyde,
 
You wrote ...
>  now I'm wondering how many of the other USC Sections that would also be invalidated
Lots!  
When you master the distinction between Federal MUNICIPAL laws
and Federal NATIONAL laws, you'll start seeing lots of examples
of Federal statutes which are MUNICIPAL in scope
but cleverly disguised to appear as if they are NATIONAL in scope:
When Congress uses the term "individual", very often you will
find a definition which limits the meaning of that term ONLY to
federal citizens and resident aliens e.g. Privacy Act, 5 U.S.C. 552a:

(2) the term “individual” means a citizen of the United States or
an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence;
Here, "citizen of the United States" means federal citizen;
"alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence" means "resident alien".
IRC 7701(a)(30) is notorious in this regard, because the correct definition
of "U.S. Individual" -- as that term occurs on all IRS Forms 1040 --
can be inferred from 7701(a)(1) and 7701(a)(30):
Begin reading at:  Meaning of “United States person”
Thus, "U.S. Individual" is the living, breathing human variant
of "United States person";  all other variants are artificial,
juristic entities like corporations.
A "United States individual" is the "United-States-type" of human being,
and 7701(a)(30) clearly repeats the terms "citizen of the United States"
and "resident of the United States":

(30) United States person
The term “United States person” means—
(A) a citizen or resident of the United States,
... as does the implementing Regulation at 26 CFR 1.1-1(b):
    (b) Citizens or residents of the United States liable to tax.
In general, all citizens of the United States, wherever resident, and 
all resident alien individuals are liable to the income taxes imposed by the 
Code whether the income is received from sources within or without the 
United States.
For another example, we originally found a second "Abrogation Clause"
in the Rules Enabling Act at 28 U.S.C. 2072(b):
(b) Such rules shall not abridge, enlarge or modify any substantive right.
All laws in conflict with such rules shall be of no further force or effect
after such rules have taken effect.
For another example, the Federal Jury Selection and Service Act
is also unconstitutional -- for expressly discriminating against
State Citizens:
There are currently two (2) classes of citizens, NOT one (1) class:
Note how this discrimination flatly violates the "policy" at 28 U.S.C. 1861:
It is the policy of the United States that all litigants in Federal courts entitled to trial by jury shall have the right to grand and petit juries selected at random from a fair cross section of the community in the district or division wherein the court convenes. It is further the policy of the United States that all citizens shall have the opportunity to be considered for service on grand and petit juries in the district courts of the United States, and shall have an obligation to serve as jurors when summoned for that purpose.
And, the USDC can ONLY exercise jurisdiction when it is expressly
conferred upon that Court:
     The term  "District Courts of the United States," as used in
     Criminal Appeals  Rules, without  an addition  expressing  a
     wider  connotation,   had  its   historic  significance  and
     described courts  created under  article 3  of Constitution,
     and did not include territorial courts.

                           [Mookini et al. v. U.S., 303 U.S. 201]
                             [headnote 2. Courts, emphasis added]


     Where statute authorized Supreme Court to prescribe Criminal
     Appeals Rules  in  District  Courts  of  the  United  States
     including named  territorial courts,  omission in rules when
     drafted of  reference  to  District  Court  of  Hawaii,  and
     certain other  of the  named courts, indicated that Criminal
     Appeals Rules were not to apply to those [latter] courts.

                           [Mookini et al. v. U.S., 303 U.S. 201]
                             [headnote 4. Courts, emphasis added]


The following paragraph from Mookini is extraordinary for several
reasons:  (1) it refers to the "historic and proper sense" of the
term "District Courts of the United States",  (2)  it makes a key
distinction between such courts and application of their rules to
territorial courts;   (3)  the application  of the maxim inclusio
unius est exclusio alterius is obvious here, namely, the omission
of territorial courts clearly shows that they were intended to be
omitted:

     Not only  did the  promulgating order  use the term District
     Courts of  the United  States in  its  historic  and  proper
     sense, but the omission of provisions for the application of
     the  rules  to  the  territorial  courts  and  other  courts
     mentioned  in   the  authorizing   act  clearly   shows  the
     limitation that was intended.

                           [Mookini et al. v. U.S., 303 U.S. 201]
                                                 [emphasis added]


     The words  "district court  of the  United States"  commonly
     describe constitutional  courts created under Article III of
     the Constitution, not the legislative courts which have long
     been the courts of the Territories.

           [Int'l Longshoremen's and Warehousemen's Union et al.]
                     v. Juneau Spruce Corp., 342 U.S. 237 (1952)]
                                                 [emphasis added]


     The phrase "court of the United States", without more, means
     solely courts  created by  Congress under Article III of the
     Constitution and not territorial courts.


           [Int'l Longshoremen's and Warehousemen's Union et al.]
             [v. Wirtz, 170 F.2d 183 (9th Cir. 1948), headnote 1]
                                                 [emphasis added]


     United States District Courts have only such jurisdiction as
     is conferred  by an  Act of Congress under the Constitution.
     U.S.C.A. Const. art. 3, sec. 2;  28 U.S.C.A. 1344]

            [Hubbard v. Ammerman, 465 F.2d 1169 (5th Cir., 1972)]
                                             [headnote 2. Courts]


     The  United States district courts are not courts of general
     jurisdiction.     They  have   no  jurisdiction   except  as
     prescribed by  Congress  pursuant  to  Article  III  of  the
     Constitution.  [many cites omitted]

                  [Graves v. Snead, 541 F.2d 159 (6th Cir. 1976)]


     The question  of jurisdiction  in the  court either over the
     person, the  subject-matter or the place where the crime was
     committed  can   be  raised  at  any  stage  of  a  criminal
     proceeding;   it is  never  presumed,  but  must  always  be
     proved;  and it is never waived by a defendant.

                      [U.S. v. Rogers, 23 F. 658 (D.C.Ark. 1885)]


     In a criminal proceeding lack of subject matter jurisdiction
     cannot be  waived  and  may  be  asserted  at  any  time  by
     collateral attack.

                [U.S. v. Gernie, 228 F.Supp. 329 (D.C.N.Y. 1964)]


     Jurisdiction of  court may be challenged at any stage of the
     proceeding, and  also may be challenged after conviction and
     execution of judgment by way of writ of habeas corpus.

              [U.S. v. Anderson, 60 F.Supp. 649 (D.C.Wash. 1945)]


     The United  States District Court has only such jurisdiction
     as Congress confers.
                                 [Eastern Metals Corp. v. Martin]
                                 [191 F.Supp 245 (D.C.N.Y. 1960)]
All Rights Reserved without Prejudice



From: Clyde Young <clydeeyoung@yahoo.com>
To: Supreme Law Firm <paulandrewmitchell2004@yahoo.com>
Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2012 3:08 PM
Subject: Re: [TheFinePrint] MOST INTERESTING::::::: Tuesday: Tony Davis ...

   Thank you for your response, But now I'm wondering how many of the other USC Sections that would also be invalidated, as there are some that very clearly articulate what I had experienced with the local death squad.
 
:Clyde-Earl: Young  
:AUTOGRAPH: COPYCLAIM: 

From: Supreme Law Firm <paulandrewmitchell2004@yahoo.com>
To: Clyde Young <clydeeyoung@yahoo.com>
Cc: "MM@YourRemedyIsInTheLaw.com" <MM@YourRemedyIsInTheLaw.com>; "orgmaster@charter.net" <orgmaster@charter.net>
Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2012 10:43 AM
Subject: Re: [TheFinePrint] MOST INTERESTING::::::: Tuesday: Tony Davis ...
 
___

Related: http://tekgnosis.typepad.com/tekgnosis/2013/10/paul-andrew-mitchell-constitution-citizens-and-the-united-states.html

October 24, 2012 in Current Affairs | Permalink

One proposal actually been put forward in Congress is to cancel all government debt the FED is currently holding

 ----- Forwarded Message -----
From: Paul Andrew Mitchell
Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2012 11:49 AM
Subject: One proposal actually been put forward in Congress is to cancel all government debt the FED is currently holding

This proposal is almost identical to the DECLARATION OF INSOLVENCY
filed by the United States ex rel. in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the
Eastern District of Washington (State):


http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/fox2/insolvency.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/fox2/insolvency.explained.htm


http://theeconomiccollapseblog.com/archives/what-if-we-adopted-a-system-where-the-banks-did-not-create-our-money


What If We Adopted A System Where The Banks Did Not Create Our Money?

One proposal that has actually been put forward in Congress is to
cancel all of the government debt that the Federal Reserve is currently holding. 
Right now, the Fed is holding more than 1.6 trillion dollars of U.S. government debt...


That would seem to make a lot of sense.  

That would immediately wipe more than 1.6 trillion dollars from the U.S. national debt without any real harm being done.

[end quote]


--
Sincerely yours,
/s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S.
Private Attorney General, 18 U.S.C. 1964
http://www.supremelaw.org/decs/agency/private.attorney.general.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/reading.list.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/index.htm (Home Page)
http://www.supremelaw.org/support.policy.htm (Support Policy)
http://www.supremelaw.org/guidelines.htm (Client Guidelines)
http://www.supremelaw.org/support.guidelines.htm (Policy + Guidelines)

All Rights Reserved without Prejudice

October 24, 2012 in Current Affairs | Permalink

THE GOVERNMENT HAS NOW CONCEDED THE CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUE OF THE INVALIDITY OF TITLE 18! Re: [TheFinePrint] MOST INTERESTING::::::: Tuesday: Tony Davis

>  Did you know anything about this?
Yes:  there are other very serious problems with 18 U.S.C. 3231.
Such statutes conferring original jurisdiction upon Federal District courts
must be STRICTLY construed:  section 3231 confers original
jurisdiction upon the Article III District Courts of the United States ("DCUS"),
NOT upon the Article IV United States District Courts ("USDC"):

The district courts of the United States shall have original jurisdiction,
exclusive of the courts of the States, of all offenses against the laws of the United States.
Check out the Historical and Revision Notes also:
Senate Revision Amendment

 

The text of this section was changed by Senate amendment.
See Senate Report No. 1620, amendment No. 10, 80th Cong.

No vote by the House of Representatives, and no signature by the President!
The rest of the story is here:
In particular, see Willy v. Coastal Corp.:
In adopting rules, federal courts are not free to extend or restrict jurisdiction conferred by statute.
 
The FRCP must be deemed to apply to a particular Federal District Court civil proceeding only if the application of the rules will not impermissibly expand the judicial authority conferred on federal courts by the Federal Constitution’s Article III ‑‑ which describes the subjects over which federal courts have jurisdiction ‑‑ because the caveat that federal courts, in adopting rules, are not free to extend or restrict the jurisdiction conferred by a statute applies a fortiori to any effort to extend by rule the judicial power described in Article III of the Constitution.
 
[Willy v. Coastal Corp., 503 U.S. 131, 112 S.Ct. 1076]
[117 L.Ed.2d 280 (USDC, S.D. Texas 1992), headnote 3]
Here's that full decision:
But in Sibbach v. Wilson, 312 U.S. 1 (1941), we observed that federal courts, in adopting rules, were not free to extend or restrict the jurisdiction conferred by a statute. Id., at 10. Such a caveat applies a fortiori to any effort to extend by rule the judicial power of the United States described in Article III of the Constitution. The Rules, then, must be deemed to apply only if their application will not impermissibly expand the judicial authority conferred by Article III. We must therefore examine petitioner's second, and related, contention that the District Court action in this case lies outside the range of action constitutionally permitted to an Article III court.
[end excerpt]
 
All Rights Reserved without Prejudice

From: Clyde Young <clydeeyoung@yahoo.com>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, October 23, 2012 8:41 PM
Subject: Fw: [TheFinePrint] MOST INTERESTING::::::: Tuesday: Tony Davis ...

Did you know anything about this?  Most of the criminal charges I could have brought against local government was based in it.
 
:Clyde-Earl: Young  
:AUTOGRAPH: COPYCLAIM: 
----- Forwarded Message -----
From: JesusIsTHETruth <orgmaster@charter.net>
To: Undisclosed-Recipient@yahoo.com
Sent: Tuesday, October 23, 2012 9:29 AM
Subject: [TheFinePrint] MOST INTERESTING::::::: Tuesday: Tony Davis ...

 
 
 
 
 
 
  
REMEMBER: CHECK FOR THE NEW PHONE AND PIN NUMBER FOR THESE CALLS BY LOGGING INTO YRIITL AND CLICKING ON THE FREE TELE-CONFERENCES TAB
 
Public Service Announcement:
THIS Tuesday CALL
 
 
 
CONFERENCE CALL
 
S P E C I A L
A N N O U N C E M E N T
~*~
A  MAJOR  ANOUNCEMENT
THE GOVERNMENT HAS NOW CONCEDED
THE CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUE 
OF THE INVALIDITY OF TITLE 18!!

UPDATE ON TITLE 18 CLASS ACTION
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT FILED ON SEPTEMBER 27, 2012
            September 27, 2012
            A Motion for Summary Judgment was docketed by the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit Court, requesting immediate relief for anyone on the petition.
            The Motion is based on the un-refuted affidavits and proof that no Constitutional passage occurred for Title 18, the criminal code in the 80th Congress (1947-1948).
            Since the Title also includes the only authorization to allow federal courts jurisdiction in any criminal case, whether Title 18, Title 21, or Title 26, 18 USC section 3231, then the motion requests relief for each person on the petition.  
            You have a limited amount of time to get on the petition. 
Contact us immediately!

In a challenge to the Validity of Title 18 (Public Law 80-772), the government has now admitted that Public Law 80-772 is unconstitutional. These admissions can be used in the Class Action on Title 18 and in other federal criminal cases. 

The original class action petition was filed in the DC court on 2/23/2012. The judge refused to rule on the merits or make findings of fact and conclusions of law and now it is on appeal. An opening brief, a reply brief, and a Motion for Summary Judgment have been filed by our group. The government has waived argument on the issues presented. 
A verified request for proof of claim was filed in a separate case on August 27, 2012 by our group. 18 stipulated answers were provided, to which the government waived argument on all stipulations, thus admitting the stipulations.  
Included in those admissions were that “no quorum existed on May 12, 1947 and June 22 and 23, 1948”, rendering 18 USC section 3231, which is the only statute which gives the district court jurisdiction to prosecute any federal crime, invalid.  
The government also admitted that the quorum issue has never been heard on the merits; that no Supreme Court precedent exists for the government; and that the  US attorney is violating the law by prosecuting any crime.  
The government also admitted that no prior statute gives the federal courts jurisdiction; that the indictment is void on any federal criminal case; that the  UNITED STATES OF AMERICA is a corporation; and that pursuant to the Administrative Procedures Act (APA), the government was required to answer the proof of claims.  
Since the government violated the APA, then their silence can only be equated with fraud. See  U.S. v. Pruden, 424 F.2d 1021 (1970). Under the authority of the Administrative Procedures Act, 5 USC section 556(D)-Burden of Proof, “the proponent of a rule or order bears the burden of proof.” The Supreme Court has stated that “if any tribunal (court) finds absences of proof of jurisdiction over person or subject matter, that case must be dismissed.”  Louisville & Nashville R.R. v. Motley, 211  U.S. 149 (1908).  
The Attorney General was given 3 opportunities to respond to affidavits of fact and a request for a certified question of law related to the invalidity of Title 18. No response was made. In  U.S. v. Kis, 658 F.2d 526 (7th Cir. 1981), the court held: “Indeed, no more than that, [Affidavits], is necessary to make the prima facie case.” Id at 536. “Moreover the threshold of relevance is a low one.” Id at 537. “The burden is therefore on the Respondent who must come forward with special facts to support a legally sufficient rebuttal or defense.” Id at 538-39. The stipulated answers are now admitted.  
Included in the stipulated facts the government has now admitted are: 
1. An internal memorandum by Harley G. Lappin to Department Heads of the Bureau of Prisons on July 27, 2009 in which he states that “In order for any bill to be valid the Journals of both Houses must show that iw was passed in the presence of a Quorum. See  United States v. Balin, Joseph & Co., 144  U.S. 1, 3 (1892). The Clerk of the House states that the May 12, 1947 voe was a ‘voice vote,’ but the Parliamentarian of the House states that a voice vote is only valid when the Journal shows that a quorum is present and that it’s unlawful for the Speaker of the House o sign any enrolled bill in the absence of a quorum. On May 12, 1947, a presence of 218 Members in the hall of the House was required to be entered on the Journal in order for the 44 Member 38 to 6 voice vote to be legal.”  
2. A letter from Jeff Trandahl, clerk of the House to Mr. Charles R. Degan dated June 28, 2000, in which he states: “Congress was in session on June 1,3,4,7-12 and 14-19, 1948, however Title 18 was not voted on at this time.”  
3. A letter from Karen L. Haas, clerk of the House, dated September 11, 2008, in which she stated: “After conducting a thorough examination of the journals, I found no entry in the journal of the House of any May 12, 1947 vote on the H.R. 3190 bill…”  
4. A letter by Nancy Erickson to Mr. Wayne E. Matthews dated March 9, 2009 in which she stated that “I asked the Senate Historian’s office to review the correspondence you enclosed, and they were able to verify that no action was taken by the Senate on H.R. 3190 prior to the December 19, 1947 sine die adjournment.  
5. A letter dated August 24, 2010 from the Office of the Clerk of the House of Representatives which stated: “Our office has conducted research of the House Journal and the Congressional Record in regards to HR 3190 and the voice vote that was taken on May 12, 1947. After researching these official proceedings of the US House of Representatives we have been unable to find the names of the 44 Members who responded to the voice vote.”  
Pursuant to their oath of office, the courts are required to follow the Constitution and Supreme Court precedent.   
~*~
YRIITL has been serving the American community for over 7 years to secure the very best in Information Providers to assist you and teach you to deal with court related matters.  Our Students are simply the best informed, bar none.       
~*~ 
For more information ....... 

Contact Martin Michaelsson:  MM@YourRemedyIsInTheLaw.com. 
Brought to you by....
www.AmericansRestoringAmerica. com
 
 
The Phone Numbers and Pins are published at http://www.YourRemedyIsInTheLaw.com behind the Free Tele-Conference tab. Enter with your User Name and Password. If you don’t have one, click on “New? REGISTER HERE” and create your unique User Name and Password. Information is available only to registered members. Click on Free Tele-Conference Calls and you will see the correct information.
 
PLEASE FORWARD TO ALL YOUR GROUPS AND LISTS
 
So, if you want to learn how you can accomplish this Offensive Posture for yourself, listen to and participate in the Free Tele-Conference Calls most every evening of the week. See the 'Free Tele-Conferences' TAB at www.YourRemedyIsInTheLaw.com, AND THE NEW CALENDAR TAB. There are also the Archives to view two years of historical conference calls!

Best regards,

ME

Click one of the links below to learn more about our self-help courses, or to order your copy today:

 
The Leader in Step-by-Step Lawsuit Self-Help . . . On the Web Since 1997
Case-Winning Lawsuit Procedure for Non-Lawyers ... Learn How-to-Win In Just 24 Hours !

I also encourage you to purchase the 24 hour JurisDictionary Course found at the products and services page at www.YourRemedyIsInTheLaw.com. This course is the absolute minimum entry level for anyone who is anticipating having to deal with a lawful issue. It will be the best 24 hours you have ever spent! I have heard it said this course, when completely understood by you, could put you on par with 85% of the lawyers you may come across.
 
 
DISCLAIMER: Legal Information is NOT the same as Legal Advice This site provides entertainment/educational information about law designed to help users safely cope with their own legal needs. But legal educational information is not the same as legal advice. The application of law varies with an individual's specific circumstances. The laws of every state are in constant change, and although we go to great lengths to make sure our information is accurate and useful, we recommend you consult a lawyer if you want professional assurance that our information, and your interpretation of it is appropriate to your particular situation.

Related: http://tekgnosis.typepad.com/tekgnosis/2013/10/paul-andrew-mitchell-constitution-citizens-and-the-united-states.html

October 24, 2012 in Current Affairs | Permalink

Cuban Missile Crisis Communications Yield New Information on Back-Channel to Fidel Castro to Avoid Nuclear War

      14 October 2012

Cuban Missile Crisis Communications

A response to the National Security Archive release on October 12, 2012: "Cuban Missile Crisis Reveleations: Kennedy's Secret Approach to Castro -- Declassified RFK Documents Yield New Information on Back-Channel to Fidel Castro to Avoid Nuclear War."

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB395/

Related on Russian SIGINT:
http://cryptome.org/jya/rusigint.htm

http://cryptome.org/conus-sigint.htm

 


To: coldwarcomms[at]yahoogroups.com
From: "OZOB99" <ozob99[at]yahoo.com>
Date: Sun, 14 Oct 2012 13:54:33 -0000
Subject: [coldwarcomms] Cuban Missile Crisis Comms

As the 50th anniversery of this event approaches, here is an update to a post I made 10 years ago,with anecdotes of activities at the AT&T Norfolk Central Office, arguably the epicenter of military telco circuit activity for this crisis.

"Norfolk probably had more involvment in telecommunications than Washington because it was the STC (serving test center) for CINCLANT/SACLANT, TAC HQ Langley AFB, and CONARC Ft. Monroe; with augmented circuits to their subordinate commands and bases, as well to the NCA and other NS/EP entities.

An unusual increase in expedited new circuits,mainly to Southern bases, was evident in the week or so prior to 10-22-62; but we had no way of knowing the nature or gravity of the situation, just that South Florida was a "hotspot", & Cuba was likely involved due to previous sabre rattling in the news.

By the time Kennedy made his announcement we had established a hand-picked 24/7 "task force" of tech's (including many additional brought in) expediting circuit provisioning (C&P Telco had similar groups installing on local channels and the customer premises). Circuits that normally had a 3-5 week interval were being established in 3 days or less!; all circuit info & engineering (with the Government Communications sales & engineering folks on an unprecedented 24/7 schedule also) was phoned/TTY in day & night, & posted on a large status chalk board, with the various workgroups copying their portion & running with it; an unbelievable beehive of activity that actually worked well considering the confusion, because we all knew now this was possibly a doomsday scenario without being told so specifically.

The small AT&T office at Key West, along with Homestead, were overwhelmed with circuits from TAC & CINCLANT; these normally "sleepy" little offices had never seen anything like this! The quantities of circuits weren't as great as Norfolk but the intensity of activities certainly was. Naturally there were additional employees brought in to handle the workload.

In the space of a few weeks hundreds of new circuits were established radiating out of Norfolk, most to Southeastern military bases. A large number of the voice circuits were "C2" conditioned (amplitude & envelope delay) for KY9 encryption, utilizing strings of delay equalizers at various points on the layout. Despite lengthy & detailed calculations for these equalizers many circuits would not support encrypted voice (going green) due to having to use any channel available and many sections in tandem. These were re-engineered by trial & error/SWAG on the spot as they were being installed, some would only work with no equalization! (an anomaly explained by a chance combo of facilities that happened to have the right characteristics of delay. There were a few circuits on C carrier(open wire) that never could be conditioned for encryption.

Many existing voice circuits were upgraded to C2 conditioning for encryption; some of the voice grade data circuits required C2 conditioning but were more forgiving.

Many of the telegraph grade circuits were encrypted for KW-8 et al; these didn't require conditioning but were difficult to trouble shoot.

A portable "Quick Start" package of Lenkurt 76 radio and 45B carrier was shipped in for additional local channels to the Norfolk Naval Base in case cable pairs ran out; also a wide band Quick Start package of LMX modems & 303 data sets for additional wide band channels to the Naval Base, presumably for KY-3 encryption.

AT&T also loaned DOD (Army I believe) some transportable microwave to fill in some gaps in their networks. (I've never found out whether it was TD-2,TE or the Lenkurt Quick start; nor where it was needed.)

In the course of implementing & troubleshooting these circuits we overheard some scary dialog, along with some intense salty curses & oaths.

Being "insiders" to a degree, we were more scared than the general public, and more relieved than most when the Russians blinked.

If asked ahead of time if that quantity of circuits could be established in those few days I think everyone would have said "no way"!; it seems even a stodgy heirarchy can do anything when you have to, replacing the bell shaped heads with virtual helmets."      

 

Ref: http://cryptome.org/2012/10/cuban-crisis-comms.htm

October 23, 2012 in Current Affairs | Permalink

Federal Government Supported Tor Being Used by Thousands of Bradley Mannings,.

      8 October 2012

Tor Being Used by Thousands of Bradley Mannings

 


A writes:

TOR management seems deathly quiet about US Navy funding. Any further background?

Cryptome:

We found several documents which describe the Navy's current funding for Tor-related research in order to boost Tor's use by the Navy for communications. More fully described at the web page of DARPA's SAFER program.

From that page we traced the the Navy contract to SRI International as pass-through to Tor as well as to several research projects aimed at enhancing Tor. Many of these included Tor researchers on the team.

For these see the five listings on Cryptome's offsite section.

Following five items relate to DoD Tor Project funding and research through Navy
pass-through SRI International Contract No. N66001-11-C-4002 for $1,230,571 of which
$503,706 (below) went to the Tor Project.

2012-00685            Safer Warfighter Communications Program          October 6, 2012
2012-00685            Safer Warfighter Communications Solicitation     October 6, 2012
2012-00684            Evading Censorship with Browser-Based Proxies    October 6, 2012
2012-00683            StegoTorus: A Camouflage Proxy for Tor           October 6, 2012
2012-00682            Bootstrapping Comms into Anti-Censorship System  October 6, 2012

http://cryptome.org/2012/10/tor-financial-2011.pdf (downloaded from Tor Project)

[Image]

Further, you may recall the Tor inventors' and later developers' assertion that the greater the number of Tor users the better the camouflage for cloaking Tor users in the roiling tumult.

And, as well, Tor developers crowing about submerging millions of users of other programs into the Tor torrent -- with or without their knowledge. For example, Mike Perry proposed grabbing the data of millions of users of Do-Not Track (not sure if that was done, maybe explained on the Tor fora).

I would guess that the open disclosure of Navy funding indicates success at establishing sufficient camouflage for military, government and their contractors/NGOs use as well as having established sufficient means to covertly monitor Tor to assure security against breaches and attacks.

It would also put on public notice that the military has a protective role in Tor, for defensive or aggressive possibilities against abusers, attackers and skeptics. It provides a USG warning of don't cyber-mess with Tor or cruise missiles/drones will be heading toward your server farms, power grids and GPS'd log-on locations.

As a US patriot taxed for unending warmongering and profiteering I am comforted that most of Tor's funds now openly come from USG outsourcing by military, diplomatic and scientific research, that Tor is now a wholly, openly Tor.gov.com. No need to protest innocence, it is now an NGO bribery done deal among many others duped into cloaking Tor's patriotic mission to propagandize and advance USG's interests above all others through procurement of the unpaid services thousands of volunteers as grunts.

The disclosure could be ruse, to be sure, as with anything associated with the military or government.

A beffuddled mind might suspect a cyberwar is going on in Tor between those running it and those which are using it for anti-government purposes not to the liking of the USG, by going deeper into the onion than the onion inventors envisioned to covertly monitor Tor users. That the Navy has discovered the betrayal of the betrayers and is engaged in cyberwar yet to be disclosed, maybe not fully understood. Could be that thousands of Bradley Mannings are continuing to do the right thing with Tor.

Hillary Clinton said recently that is what freedom of speech means.

Approved for unlimited distribution.

 


 

Ref: http://cryptome.org/2012/10/tor-bradley-mannings.htm

      19 October 2012. A2 sends:

The response to the TOR piece here:

http://cryptome.org/2012/10/tor-letter.htm

and the referrals offered still do not indicate the extent of the USG funding of TOR.

The revelation that the USN uses TOR is hardly news, after all the USN holds the TOR patent. What Cryptome did reveal was just how much the USN was pouring into TOR. This is above the already significant funding by the Department of State, and other USG entities.

Keep the data coming John, TOR is not a street wise hacker collective.

12 October 2012

Letter to A on Tor

 


Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2012 01:14:04 +0000
From: frihetnull <frihetnull@tormail.org>
To: <cryptome@earthlink.net>, <tor-talk@lists.torproject.org>
Subject: Letter to A at cryptome.org

Dearest A,

How are you this morning, my dear?  With great interest I read your question to dear John Young of Cryptome dated 8 October 2012, published here,

http://cryptome.org/2012/10/tor-bradley-mannings.htm.

John Young may wish to note that Tor boldly states it is from the US Navy on their Overview page, see

https://www.torproject.org/about/overview.html.en.

They also boldly state past funding from the US Navy on their sponsors page, see

https://www.torproject.org/about/sponsors.html.en.

Take a bespectacled gander at "Past Sponsors". And I quote for your reference, "DARPA and ONR via Naval Research Laboratory (2001-2006)". What a curious way to hide an affiliation. Perhaps A should call up "tor management" and ask direct questions. Contact info can be found at

https://www.torproject.org/about/contact.html.en.

They even list an old-fashioned telephone for direct voice to voice communications.

My genitals would quiver with glee if you published this information months before Tor published the information on their website. Andrew Lewman published the financial statements and Dept of Commerce Data Collection Form on Friday, October 5, 2012, see

https://lists.torproject.org/pipermail/tor-commits/2012-October/047018.html.

Having recovered from a powerful conspriacy-gasm, you clicked links for half of an hour reframing these documents to sound like a fantastic conspiracy of control and puppeteering. You will also note all of these data is easily found, gathered, and published in the name of US Government transparency. The Dept of Commerce Data Collection Form gives you all the source programs one needs to learn to find this information online. You will note very few of such DCF forms are published ever. Why would Tor publish this if for not to create such an easy-to-follow trail?

Rather, I think the real conspiracy is that Tor published the documents at all. Plausibly, they did so in the name of transparency and to the horror of their funding organizations. I do so applaud the Tor Project's transparency and commitment to such an ideal. They far outweigh and garner more trust than Wikileaks could ever hope to do. Now if Jacob would with Julian into the Ecuadorian embassy with Julian, the two could bro-code and have endless recursion of bro-love for life. Sadly, my genitals are left wanting for your publishing of such documents means you did not do the faintest bit of work, rather Tor did it all for you. Investigation, my dear, takes time, effort, and disclosure of something the world doesn't already know.

Further, your own bro-love slave in Alan Taylor of PGPBOARD (CAPS WERE FUN IN THE 1970s SIR), selectively used copy and paste to reframe your own reframing of said financials and funding for maximal paranoia. You two are aware that Al Gore, nay, DARPA invented the Internet, correct? Your entire means of propagation is due to DARPA research and funding. Imagine the backdoors in TCP, IP, Manchester encoding, and such other protocols on which we rely every day.

If you want to recover some higher probability of quivering genitals, publish Tor's 2011 990 before they do.

As a former American taxpayer, I do so wish I could direct my taxes towards more projects like Tor. I much rather more Tor and Tor-like projects exist than in lieu of the United States Government spending more money on $22 billion dollar F-22 fighters that cannot fly and are easily copied by the Chinese in 50% of the time for 25% of the cost. If the US Navy and other military branches do wish to spend more money on Tor, I say godspeed sirs. All governments should spend money on Tor. Tor works, unlike smart ships, fancy jets, and other DHS/TSA boondoggles bankrupting what was once a fine society.

Freedom sir, is a dish best served to all equally. Thankfully, elements within governments are funding such projects rather than simply funding more fantasies they copied from Metropolis, 1984, Brave New World, Farenheit 451, and Kallocain.

I cross posted this letter to tor-talk because I know the Tor Project will publish it unredacted. Unlike sirs John and Alan who selectively edit for maximal conspiracy value.

Cheers bretheren, the fight for freedom continues aghast at your apathy and ignorance.

Frihet Null

 


 

Ref: http://cryptome.org/2012/10/tor-letter.htm

October 23, 2012 in Current Affairs | Permalink