Attorney Taitz Files Emergency Stay Application with U.S. Supreme Court

Attorney Taitz Files Emergency Stay Application with U.S. Supreme Court

TAITZ

V

ASTRUE

APPLICATION FOR STAY OF CERTIFICATION OF THE 2012 VOTES FOR BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA PENDING CERTIORARI REVIEW BY THE SUPREME COURT OF THE APPEAL OF THE FOIA CASE TAITZ V OBAMA, DEMANDING RELEASE UNDER FOIA OF SS-5 APPLICATION TO CONNECTICUT SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBER 042-68-4425, WHICH OBAMA IS USING ACCORDING TO HIS TAX RETURNS RELEASED BY OBAMA HIMSELF, BUT WHICH WAS NEVER ASSIGNED TO OBAMA ACCORDING E-VERIFY AND SSNVS

APPLICATION FOR AN EMERGENCY STAY BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS

APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE CIRCUIT OF COLUMBIA

case # 11-5304

QUESTIONS FOR THE COURT

1. Can the federal court allow usurpation of the U.S. presidency by a foreign citizen, by sealing his records and aiding and abetting his use of a stolen Social Security number from a state where he never resided.

2. Does criminality in the White House, use of a stolen social Security number by an individual occupying the position of the U.S. president, represent a matter of public interest?

3. Can one claim privacy in a stolen Social Security number or any other stolen property for that matter?

History of the case

1. This case is an appeal of a denial for information requested under FOIA 5USC §552

2. Taitz submitted to the Social Security Administration (Hereinafter "SSA") request for information under the Freedom of Information Act.

3. This request contained information that Barack Hussein Obama, President of the United States, (Hereinafter "Obama") is using a stolen Social Security number xxx-xx-4425, which was issued in the state of Connecticut to another individual, resident of Connecticut, who was born in 1890.

4. Taitz provided the SSA affidavits from a licensed investigator Susan Daniels and retired senior deportation officer John Sampson, (Exhibit 2) which attested to the fact that the SSN in question started with digits 042, which were assigned to the state of Connecticut. Obama was never a resident of Connecticut and there is no possible reason for him to have a Connecticut CCN. Additionally, Taitz provided SSA with information that   in national databases such number is associated with two dates of birth: 1890 and 1961, which is an additional indication that Obama is illegally using a SSN, which was issued to a resident of CT, who was born in 1890, whose death was not reported to the SSA, and whose SSN was illegally assumed by Obama around 1980-1981. Taitz requested  a redacted SS-5 application to the aforementioned SSN. Taitz advised SSA that they are endangering the national security by withholding the information in question. SSA refused to provide the redacted application.

5. Taitz appealed. The case was assigned to judge Royce C. Lamberth in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.

6. Taitz provided judge Lamberth with all of the above information as well as a sworn affidavit from  Deportation officer Sampson, which stated that in case of suspected theft of a Social Security number it is common for the law enforcement to request and receive from the SSA the original application to the number in question, which would show some of the information in relation to the identity of the lawful holder of the SSN in question. Such information would include gender, date of birth, zip code, race. For example, if it shows that the lawful holder was a white  woman, who resided in Stamford, Connecticut area and was born in 1890, but this number was appropriated by Obama, who is an African-American man, born in 1961 and resided in Hawaii, that would not reveal the actual identity of the lawful holder of the number in question, but would provide the ultimate proof in order for Congress to start the impeachment hearing of Obama and for the law enforcement around the country to start criminal prosecution of Obama.

7. Judge Lamberth refused to release the redacted SSN, claiming that it would infringe on Obama's privacy

8. Taitz provided Lamberth with yet another affidavit from Adobe illustrator expert Felicito Papa, showing that Obama posted his full un-redacted SSN on line in 2010 , when he posted his tax returns in 2010 on-line and forgot to "flatten" the PDF file, so the full SSN was visible to the public, was downloaded by millions of people until Obama realized his mistake and took down the file and re-posted it as a "flattened" redacted file. Due to the oversight by Obama, himself, he made his full un-redacted SSN visible and readily available to the whole nation. he no longer has privacy in the number in question.

9. Taitz provided Lamberth with a sworn affidavit by one Linda Jordan, who swore in that she personally ran the SSN in question through the E-Verify, official Social Security verification systems, and it showed that the number used by Obama and posted in his official tax returns, while in the White House,  did not match the name Barack Obama.

10. Taitz argued that at this point there was no privacy attached. Moreover, a thief does not have privacy rights in keeping private stolen identification papers. Actions by Appellee Astrue, U.S. attorneys defending him and judge Lamberth himself  are so outrageous, that they represent criminal complicity and collusion with Obama to defraud the whole nation.  Commissioner Astrue, U.S. attorneys defending him and Judge Lamberth himself are committing high treason against the United States of America, by allowing a criminal with a stolen Social Security number to continue usurping the position of the   President and Commander in Chief.

On January 26, 2012 at an administrative court hearing in Atlanta Georgia a licensed investigator Susan Daniels as well as a senior deportation officer John Sampson testified that Obama is using a Connecticut Social security number, which was assigned to a different individual, resident of the state of Connecticut, born in 1890 (sealed certified transcript was attached). On March 1, 2012 Sheriff of Maricopa County, Arizona, Sheriff Joe Arpaio held a press conference, where he announced results of his 6 months of investigation, where he confirmed that Obama is using forged identification documents, among them a forged computer generated birth certificate and a forged selective service certificate. Due to an enormous level of corruption and censorship there was very little reporting on Arpaio's press conference and so far the Attorney General of the U.S., Attorney General Holder is not taking any action.

11. Appellee in his Motion for Summary Affirmance simply tried to whitewash the Social Security fraud, omit any reference to the subject of FOIA, Barack Obama,  and continued the same debunked theory of privacy, even though as it was shown, the privacy no longer exist, as Obama himself released the number in question and a thief does not have a right in privacy in stolen identification numbers.

12. On 05.25.2012 Judges Rogers, Griffith and Cavanaugh came up with the decision that the redacted Social Security application should not be released for two reasons:

a. it would be an unwarranted invasion of privacy

b. appellant did not demonstrate any valid public interest in disclosure

ARGUMENT

A THIEF DOES NOT HAVE AN EXPECTATION OF PRIVACY IN STOLEN ITEMS

The court ruled that the disclosure would constitute  an unwarranted  invasion of personaI privacy.

The court did not explain, whose privacy? All of the evidence showed that Barack Hussein Obama is using a stolen Social Security number, which was assigned to a resident of Connecticut, who was born in 1890. The court did not provide any rule or precedent, where  a person has an expectation  of privacy in a stolen Social Security number or any other stolen property. Additionally, according to sworn affidavits of Senior Deportation  officer Sampson and licensed investigator Daniels, the individual, who was assigned this number, was born  in  1890, he would  have been 122  years old. Considering that  this number  was made public by Obama and became a matter  of public domain, if such an individual would have been alive, he would have come forward by now. It is safe to presume that the owner of this number is deceased, his death was not reported to the Social Security administration and it was assumed by Obama.

This court  did not explain, whose privacy it protects. The court  did not show why a person, who assumed a number  belonging to another,  has any expectation of privacy in a stolen property.

If for  example, one of the three  judges on the panel were  to encounter  a forger and a thief, who  were  to forge  a deed to their  house and were to demand  that they  leave the  house, would  judges  Rogers, Griffith and Cavanaugh simply give their  house to a forger  and a thief?  Or would  they demand  the  original  deed on file  with  the city or county  recorder? If a clerk in the recorder's  office  is corrupt and  colluded with  the  thief,  would  these  judges  simply  leave  their  homes  or would  they  fight  for  what  they  worked  for  many years? Would  they  go to  the court  and  demand  a Writ of Mandamus, directing the agency to  release the original  deed?

Similarly  we have an individual, who  took  over  the  White  House, the  People's house. Generations  of Americans fought  for the legitimacy  and sovereignty of this house.  Three  judges  have  in  front   of  them  evidence, that  this  house  is being usurped using a stolen Social Security number  and a forged birth  certificate.

Information at hand is no longer private as Obama personally posted it on WhiteHouse.gov and millions of people

downloaded it. Additionally, in Farrar et al v Obama et al  in the Administrative court of the state of Georgia presiding  

judge Michael Malihi allowed the full Social Security number xxx-xx-4425  to be presented in the open court during the   

examination by attorney Taitz and testimony of multiple witnesses. All of the major networks had their cameras in the

courtroom. CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, FOX and others recoded all of the testimony and transmitted it. At this point it is a matter of

common knowledge that according to multiple experts and witnesses Obama is using a Social Security number that was not

attached to him. This matter is no longer a private matter. It is in public domain and a matter of  public interest.

NO PUBLIC INTEREST IN  KNOWING  WHETHER A CRIMINAL  WITH  A STOLEN SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBER  IS USURPING THE POSITION OF THE US PRESIDENT AND COMMANDER IN CHIEF REPRESENTS AN INSULT TO THE INTELLIGENCE OF EVERY AMERICAN CITIZEN.                                                                 

A ruling  by Circuit  judges Rogers, Griffith and Cavanaugh is a slap in the  face of each and every American citizen.

1. If we were talking about  someone who has a corner  bakery or someone who is a janitor somewhere, the judges would  be justified in saying that  there  is no public interest, however we  are  talking  about  an individual, Barack Hussein  Obama (hereinafter Obama)  who  is  using a stolen  Social Security   number, while usurping the position of the US President and commander in Chief, with  his finger on the  red  button, controlling all of our  nuclear  arsenal. How  can these three judges claim that  the  Appellant did not  demonstrate any valid public  interest  in disclosure?  If  not  the  legitimacy  of  the U.S. President,  what other issue would justify public  interest? How  can any judge, how  can any human  being  with  any measure  of brain activity  state that  there  is no public  interest   in knowing whether there is usurpation of  the US Presidency? This statement  completely defies any common sense and any logic.

In United States v. Nixon,  418 U.S. 683 (1974) the United States found that President Nixon did not have an expectation of privacy and had to release the Watergate tapes, which were actually:

a. his

b. private

Now in Taitz v Astrue  we are dealing with

a. a stolen property, Obama using a stolen CT Social Security number  xxx-xx-4425, which was

never assigned to him…

b. information at hand is  no  longer private as  Obama personally  posted  it on WhiteHouse.gov and millions f people downloaded it. Additionally, in Farrar et al v Obama et al in the Administrative court of the state of Georgia presiding judge Michael Malihi allowed the full Social Security number to be presented in the open court during the examination  by Taitz and testimony of multiple witnesses.  All of the major networks had their cameras in the courtroom. CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, FOX and others recoded all of the testimony and transmitted it. At this point it is a matter of common  knowledge  that according  to multiple  experts and witnesses Obama is using a Social Security  number that was not attached to him. This matter is no longer  a private matter. It is in public domain and a matter of   public interest. According  to  multiple  polls  as  many  as  50%  of  Americans  are  questioning Obama's  legitimacy. Even if   nobody would be questioning Obama's legitimacy, this issue would still be the matter of public domain and public interest, as the US Presidency is at stake. The decision is completely void of any reason or common sense.  There  is a serious  suspicion  of   an undue  influence on the court  by the current  administration,  as there is no other explanation  and justification  for the decision…

Moreover,  if this decision  stands, this court will be complicit in violation of 18 USC§1028  Fraud  and  related  activity  with  

identification  documents  as  well as Social Security act 208 18 USC § 1028 -Fraud and  related  activity  in connection  with

identification documents, authentication features, and information…

During   Watergate   over  30  corrupt  high  ranked  governmental  officials   were indicted and  convicted  and  went  to  prison.  ObamaForgeryGate  is much  bigger than  Watergate, as a  number   of  corrupt  high  ranked  governmental  officials, corrupt US attorneys and  corrupt judges  are  complicit in  the  biggest  case of elections  fraud, forgery  and high treason  in the  history of the  United  States of America.

Judges of the  panel made a clear error  of law and fact and abused their  judicial discretion. Their  ruling  did  not  provide  for  any law or  precedent,  which  would state that one has an expectation of privacy in using a Social Security number that he stole  from  another  individual. The judges  of  the  panel  did  not  provide  any explanation or reasoning for their  decision, stating that there is no public interest in knowing whether  we have an individual, who is using a stolen Social Security number  as a basis for his legitimacy  in the position  of the President of the United States.  This decision  actually makes judges  Rogers, Griffith  and Kavanaugh

criminally complicit in the biggest case of Social Security fraud, elections fraud, forgery and treason. It is important that the full court en banc reverses this decision.

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Dr. Orly Taitz, ESQ

10.01.2012

All The President's Victims: Bill Clinton's Long History Of Sexual Violence Against Women

All The President's Victims: Bill Clinton's Long History Of Sexual Violence Against Women

Reprinted from Capitol Hill Blue

3 Feb. 1999

By Daniel J. Harris & Teresa Hampton (Not for commercial use, for education and discussion only.)

Although the White House has successfully intimidated NBC News into deep sixing an explosive interview with an Arkansas woman who says Bill Clinton raped her 20 years ago, Capitol Hill Blue has confirmed that the charge is but one of many allegations of sexual assault by the President.

A five month investigation into the President's questionable sexual history reveal incidents that go back as far as Clinton's college days, with more than a dozen women claiming his sexual appetites leave little room for the word ''no.''

Juanita Broaddrick, an Arkansas woman who worked on Bill Clinton's campaign when he was attorney general, told NBC's Lisa Meyers two weeks ago she was raped by Clinton. NBC, under intense pressure by the White House, shelved the interview.

The White House also threatened Fox News Tuesday after it reported the story. But Broaddrick's story is only one account of many sexual assaults by Clinton. Among the other incidents: A 1969 charge by a 19-year-old English woman who said Clinton assaulted her after she met him at a pub near the Oxford University campus where the future President was a student.

A retired State Department employee, who asked not to be identified, confirmed this week that he spoke with the family of the girl and filed a report with his superiors. Clinton admitted having sex with the girl, but claimed it was consensual. The victim's family declined to pursue the case.

In 1972, a 22-year-old woman told campus police at Yale University that she was sexually assaulted by Clinton, who was a law student at the college. No charges were filed. In 1974, a female student at the University of Arkansas complained that then- law professor Bill Clinton tried to prevent her from leaving his office during a conference. She said he groped her and forced his hand inside her blouse. Clinton claimed the student ''came on'' to him and she left the school shortly after the incident.

Broaddrick, a volunteer in Clinton's attorney general campaign, said he raped her in 1976. From 1976-1980, during Clinton's first term as governor of Arkansas, state troopers assigned to protect the governor reported seven complaints from women who said Clinton forced, or attempted to force, himself on them sexually.

Elizabeth Ward, the Miss Arkansas who won the Miss America crown in 1982, told friends she was forced by Clinton to have sex with him shortly after she won her state crown. Last year, Ward, who is now married with the last name of Gracen, told an interviewer she did have sex with Clinton but said it was consensual. She later recanted that interview and said had been threatened by Clinton supporters into claiming the sex was consensual.

Paula Corbin, an Arkansas state worker, filed a sexual harassment case against Clinton after an encounter in a Little Rock hotel room where the then-governor exposed himself and demanded oral sex. Clinton settled the case with Jones recently with a cash payment. A former Washington, DC, political fundraiser says Presidential candidate-to-be Clinton invited her to his hotel room during a political trip to the nation's capital in 1991, pinned her against the wall and stuck his hand up her dress. She says she screamed loud enough for the Arkansas State Trooper stationed outside the hotel suite to bang on the door and ask if everything was all right, at which point Clinton released her and she fled the room.

When she reported the incident to her boss, he advised her to keep her mouth shut if she wanted to keep working. The woman has since married and left Washington.

In an interview with Capitol Hill Blue this week, the retired State Department employee said he believed the story of the young English woman who said Clinton raped her in 1969. ''There was no doubt in my mind that this young woman had suffered severe emotional trauma,'' he said. ''But we were under tremendous pressure to avoid the embarrassment of having a Rhodes Scholar charged with rape. I filed a report with my superiors and that was the last I heard of it.''

Capitol Hill Blue also spoke with the former Washington fundraiser who confirmed the incident, but said she would not go public because anyone who does so is destroyed by the Clinton White House. ''My husband and children deserve better than that,'' she said.

The other encounters were confirmed with more than thirty interviews with retired Arkansas state employees, former state troopers and former Yale and University of Arkansas students. Like others, they refused to go public because of fears of retaliation from the Clinton White House.

Likewise, the mainstream media has shied away from the Broaddrick story. Only The Drudge Report and other Internet news sites have actively pursued it. The White House did not return calls for comment Tuesday night. Capitol Hill Blue All the news that fits...

And then there was MONICA.

The CAFR Swindle - The Biggest Game In Town

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1pRPBKJQnyU

Taxes are no longer necessary. This video exposes a deliberate and massive swindle that is perpetrated by every government agency from your local school district all the way up to the Federal government. 
This is the second Version of this expose' on public finance. Similar to first version, but incorporating input from Walter Burien and Clint Richardson.
See their sites for much more info:
cafr1.com
thecorporationnation.com
realitybloger.wordpress.com

"Revolt is all we have left. It is our only hope"

Pulitzer journalist Chris Hedges Warns of Threat to Our Liberties Posed by Obama

"Revolt is all we have left. It is our only hope"

NYT best-selling writer Chris Hedges

Saman Mohammadi
Infowars.com
Sept 6, 2012

Pulitzer prize-winning journalist and bestselling author Chris Hedges spoke with Alex Jones on Wednesday, September 5, about the threat posed by President Obama and the corporate oligarchy to the basic liberties of American citizens.

“I think one of the things we have to be clear about is that the assault on civil liberties, which began under the Bush administration, has in fact been accelerated by the Obama administration,” says Hedges, adding, “It’s worse under Obama than under Bush.”

_______________________________________________________________________________

Pulitzer Prize Journalist Warns of Physical Roundups Under Obama

Published on Sep 5, 2012 by TheAlexJonesChannel

Alex talks with Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist and war correspondent Chris Hedges. "Revolt is all we have left. It is our only hope," Hedges recently wrote.

“We have undergone a corporate coup d’état in slow motion, and it’s over… civil disobedience is, I think, all we have left.”

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=jvj0C7Qx9Rc#!

___________________________________________________________________

Chris Hedges

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Christopher Lynn Hedges (born September 18, 1956) is an American Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist, and war correspondent specializing in American and Middle Eastern politics and societies.^[1] His most recent book, written with the cartoonist Joe Sacco, is Days of Destruction, Days of Revolt (2012). The book, a New York Times best seller, shows the consequences of unregulated capitalism by reporting from "sacrifice zones", the poorest pockets of the United States such as Camden New Jersey and the coal fields of southern West Virginia "that have been offered up for exploitation in the name of profit".

Hedges is also known as the best-selling author of several books including War Is a Force That Gives Us Meaning (2002)—a finalist for the National Book Critics Circle Award for Nonfiction—I Don't Believe in Atheists (2008) and Death of the Liberal Class (2010).

Chris Hedges is currently a senior fellow at The Nation Institute in New York City.^[2] He spent nearly two decades as a foreign correspondent in Central America, the Middle East, Africa and the Balkans. He has reported from more than fifty countries, and has worked for The Christian Science Monitor, National Public Radio, The Dallas Morning News, and The New York Times,^[1] where he was a foreign correspondent for fifteen years (1990–2005).

In 2002, Hedges was part of the team of reporters at The New York Times awarded the Pulitzer Prize for the paper's coverage of global terrorism. He also received in 2002 the Amnesty International Global Award for Human Rights Journalism. He has taught at Columbia University, New York University, Princeton University^[1] and The University of Toronto. He writes a weekly column on Mondays for Truthdig and authored what The New York Times described as "a call to arms" for the first issue of The Occupied Wall Street Journal, the newspaper giving voice to the Occupy Wall Street protests in Zuccotti Park, New York City.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chris_Hedges

Audit of NY Fed Reveals Technocrat’s Creation and Cover-Up of Global Financial Crash

By Susanne Posel
theintelhub.com
September 5, 2012

Senator Ron Paul has introduced the Federal Reserve Transparency Act of 2012 ( HR459) much to the upset of Ben Bernanke, Chairman of the Federal Reserve Bank.
In August, the House of Representatives voted 327 – 98 in favor, which exceeded the necessary 2/3rd majority.
Paul, who is pushing for “transparency” in America’s relationship with the Fed, said that Americans are “sick and tired of what happened in the bailout and where the wealthy got bailed out and the poor lost their jobs and they lost their homes.”
The Audit legislation will direct the Government Accountability Office (GAO), which is an independent congressional agency, to oversee a full review of the Fed’s monetary policy while conducting an audit of them.
Their decisions will be turned over to the Federal Open Market Committee.

In July, the first audit of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York (FRBNY) was published by the Government Accountability Office (GAO).

According to Senator Bernie Sanders :

“As a result of this audit, we now know that the Federal Reserve provided more than $16 trillion in total financial assistance to some of the largest financial institutions and corporations in the United States and throughout the world. This is a clear case of socialism for the rich and rugged, you’re-on-your-own individualism for everyone else.”
Between 2007 – 2010, the Federal Reserve banks provided “assistance” of more than a trillion dollars in “emergency loans” to stabilize the financial system.

A source in the Deutsche Bank explained that in 2008 our financial and monetary system completely collapsed and since that time the banking cartels have been “propping up the system” to make it appear as if everything was fine.

In reality our stock market and monetary systems are fake; meaning that there is nothing holding them in place except the illusion that they have been stabilized since the stock market crash nearly 5 years ago.
The Deutsche Bank informant claimed that the cause for the bailout of the banks was a large sum of cash needed to quickly repay China who had purchased large quantities of mortgage-backed securities that went belly-up when the global scam was realized.
When China realized that they had been duped into buying worthless securitized loans which would never be repaid, they demanded the actual property instead. The Chinese were prepared to send their “people” to American shores to seize property as allocated to them through the securitized loan contracts.
To stave this off, the American taxpayers were coerced by former President Bush and former US Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson.

During that incident, the US Senate was told emphatically that they had to approve a $700 billion bailout or else martial law would be implemented immediately. That money was funneled through the Federal Reserve Bank and wired to China, as well as other countries that were demanding repayment for the fraudulent securitizations.

To further avert financial catastrophe, as well as more debt or property seizure threats by the Chinese, the Euro was imploded there by plunging most of the European countries into an insurmountable free-fall for which they were never intended to recover.
All the money that those banks claimed they needed to avert collapse was also sent to the Chinese to add to the trillions of dollars lost during the burst of the housing bubble on the global market.
The GAO audit states that this transfer of funds from the FRBNY to the central Bank of China was an “unusual and exigent circumstance” that warranted the “emergency authority” of the FRBNY.
Sanders points out that the FRBNY gave massive amounts of money to foreign banks and multinational corporations. Sanders said:
“No agency of the United States government should be allowed to bailout a foreign bank or corporation without the direct approval of Congress and the president.”
Under the guise of “emergency loans” waivers of banking employees and private contractors were given kickbacks.

Jamie Dimon , CEO of JPMorgan Chase & Co. and member of the board of directors of the FRBNY, was given an estimated $390 billion in “aid” from the FRBNY. In kind, JPMorgan Chase was used as a money laundering institution during the mortgage-backed securities and derivatives scandal.

Dimon was given his seat on the Fed’s board in 2007. He has enjoyed his position throughout the financial crisis that his and several other mega-banks have caused through irresponsible behavior on the global stock market.

Senator Bernie Sanders, who has been calling for a revision of the Fed, told CNN’s Wolf Blitzer ,

“The conflicts of interest are so apparent that they’re laughable. Here you have the Fed, which is supposed to regulate Wall Street. Then you have the CEO of the largest Wall Street company on the board which [it] is supposed to be regulating. This is the fox guarding the henhouse.”
During the “emergency loans” and special privilages given to JPMorgan Chase with the receipt of trillions of dollars at “near-zero interest rates”, Morgan Stanley was allocated a $108.4 million no-bid contract to assist in the bailout of AIG.

Now, Morgan Stanley is falling apart and is classified as insolvent as stocks become worthless on the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE). They are selling off non-core assets to “reduce European exposure” to hedge funds and failing financial corporations because of their participation in the mortgage-backed securities and derivatives debacle.

According to Rick Wiles : “I’m hearing rumors that another major financial house is going to implode. In fact, the name I’ve been given is Morgan Stanley . . . It’s going to be put on the sacrificial alter by the financial elite.”

Susanne Posel is the Chief Editor of Occupy Corporatism Our alternative news site is dedicated to reporting the news as it actually happens; not as it is spun by the corporate-funded mainstream media. You can find us on our Facebook page.

U.S. Officials Sound Worldwide Alert for Yosemite Hantavirus Risk

John, knowing what they do and how; I think they need to explain more and give proof since all diseases are made from the US GOVERNMENT Labs. I guess they just won't give up. When will they realize THE PEOPLE HAVE A RIGHT TO LIVE WITHOUT THEM.

U.S. Officials Sound Worldwide Alert for Yosemite Hantavirus Risk

Reuters
September 05, 2012
U.S. health officials have sent warnings to 39 other countries that their citizens who stayed in Yosemite National Park tent cabins this summer may have been exposed to a deadly mouse-borne hantavirus, a park service epidemiologist said on Tuesday.
Of the 10,000 people thought to be at risk of contracting hantavirus pulmonary syndrome from their stays in Yosemite between June and August, some 2,500 live outside the United States, Dr. David Wong told Reuters in an interview.
Wong said U.S. Department of Health and Human Services officials notified 39 countries over the weekend, most of them in the European Union, that their residents may have been exposed to the deadly virus.
The lung disease has so far killed two men and sickened four other people, all U.S. citizens, prompting the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to issue a health alert.
Read Entire Article

Sheriff Deputy Pistol Whips 19 Year Old – Gun Discharged

theintelhub.com
September 5, 2012

Ryan Dorms now 20 years old was pistol whipped by police as the gun discharged.
The officer made up false charges on Dorms.
video on this page

Yet Another DHS Worker Files Discrimination Lawsuit Against Big SiS

Award winning ICE agent says he was held down for complaining

By Steve Watson
Infowars.com
Sept 5, 2012

The Department of Homeland Security will face yet another lawsuit alleging that an Immigration and Customs Enforcement agent was discriminated against and punished by superiors for filing previous complaints.
Indian-born Sikh Sunil Walia, who was awarded by for outstanding work in 2007, now says that he was intentionally reassigned and prevented from bettering his position within the government because he had successfully filed two previous discrimination complaints against Janet Napolitano and the DHS.
Walia was assigned to JFK airport to interview people entering the US that had been identified as ‘suspicious’ by the DHS. But in 2010, he says he was reassigned to an office in downtown Manhattan, to focus only on “administrative immigration matters.”

Seeking $2.5 million in damages for discrimination and retaliation, Walia alleges that the agency’s actions killed any chances he had of working a higher post with The Joint Terrorism Task force.

DHS agents must complete at least two years in an assignment before being eligible for consideration for such posts.
Big Sis has faced a slew of discrimination lawsuits recently, most notably involving allegations of sexual harassment.

The charges culminated in the resignation this week of ICE Chief of Staff Suzanne Barr, who called the allegations “unfounded” but said she resigned to preserve the reputation of the agency.

ICE employees complained that Barr created and encouraged a “frat-house type atmosphere that is targeted to humiliate and intimidate male employees.”
Specifically, the lawsuit alleges that Barr demanded a male ICE Special Agent engage in oral sex with her and that she relocated three top male ICE agents’ offices to the men’s bathroom at ICE headquarters.
One of the defendants, James T. Hayes Jr., also alleges discrimination and retaliation at the hands of Napolitano, who he claims hired Dora Schriro to incrementally take over his position as a special agent in charge of New York City investigations, because of a “long standing relationship” Schriro had “with the Secretary.”

The affidavit (PDF) summarizes that Hayes “was being replaced in his duties because of this relationship and because he was not female.”

“Schriro was not as qualified for the position plaintiff had because of lack of federal law-enforcement experience,” Hayes claimed in his suit. “

The New York Post reported that the number of non-sexual harassment claims filed against ICE workers jumped by 44 between 2009 and 2011, and the number of sexual harassment claims jumped by eight in the same time period.

The Post also noted that the data it obtained revealed that agency-wide claims of retaliation from supervisors after employees acted as whistleblowers jumped from 43 in 2009 to 63 in 2010, before spiking to 103 claims in 2011.

More details of the lurid allegations are covered in our report from the weekend and the Infowars coverage below:

Steve Watson is the London based writer and editor for Alex Jones’ Infowars.com, and Prisonplanet.com. He has a Masters Degree in International Relations from the School of Politics at The University of Nottingham in England.

2 videos on this page

Obama Prepares Huge Bailout for Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt

Obama Prepares Huge Bailout for Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt

Written by  Alex Newman

Wednesday, 05 September 2012 11:50

“It appears that once again, American taxpayers will be financing tyranny in the Middle East.”

          Egyptian President Mohamed Mursi

    Long-time member of the Muslim Brotherhood

The Obama administration is close to finalizing a massive $1-billion bailout for the increasingly totalitarian Muslim Brotherhood regime ruling over Egypt, according to U.S. government officials cited in news reports.

The move is already drawing fierce criticism from opponents arguing that bailing out the new Islamist ruler, who is already working to bolster Egyptian ties with the communist Chinese dictatorship while becoming increasingly despotic at home, would be a mistake on multiple levels.  

In addition to forgiving the $1 billion in Egyptian government debt, almost a third of its total burden, the administration is also working with the International Monetary Fund (IMF) — largely funded by American taxpayers — to secure a $5-billion loan for the regime. On top of that, U.S. officials are in the process of creating multiple funds and programs worth almost $500 million to help politically connected U.S. and Egyptian businesses.

All of that taxpayer money — presumably to be printed by the Federal Reserve or borrowed from the communist Chinese dictatorship — would be in addition to the regular “security” and “foreign aid” packages. The long-standing U.S. government assistance to Egypt’s rulers, set to continue indefinitely, has amounted to around $1.5 billion annually for the past several decades under the deposed dictatorship of Hosni Mubarak.

The plan to bail out the new Egyptian regime was originally announced over a year ago. However, opposition on Capitol Hill and the prosecution of U.S. government-funded “democracy activists” operating in Egypt had temporarily soured relations between the two governments. It seems the scheme is now back on track.

According to U.S. officials, the massive unconstitutional flows of taxpayer money are meant to encourage the new regime to act how the U.S. federal government wants it to. "Progress will only be possible if the talents of all citizens are drawn upon and all have a voice — men and women, all religious groups, and all parts of the country," U.S. Undersecretary of State Robert Hormats was quoted as saying without specifically noting the worsening plight of Coptic Christians under the new regime.

The security of Israel is also said to be a factor, with supporters of the bailout claiming it will help keep the new Islamist government in check and prevent a potential violation of the Camp David accords. Critics of the move, meanwhile, say it could put the Jewish state in greater danger as the Egyptian government becomes more hostile to its neighbor in line with popular Islamic sentiment within the nation. The Israeli government has reportedly expressed its support for continued U.S. government aid to the Islamist regime.

Proponents of the latest bailout within the administration also claim that the packages are aimed at bolstering Egypt’s fragile economy. Since the Western-backed “revolution” that toppled the former U.S.-backed tyrant, the economic situation has continued to deteriorate, with massive unemployment, surging inflation, and more trouble almost certainly imminent.

Tourists and foreign investors have largely stayed away from Egypt since the unrest began, too. But now, the State Department is preparing to lead a delegation of dozens of politically connected U.S. companies — Boeing, General Electric, Google, Citigroup, and more — to encourage investment in Egypt.

“The United States is working to help relieve Egypt of part of its immediate fiscal and balance-of-payments pressure in support of the Egyptian government’s own, home-grown reform plan,” said Hormats after meeting with Egyptian officials last week. He also noted that the Obama administration was offering almost $500 million in loans and guarantees to Egyptian businesses.

Other bailout supporters believe it could help keep the new Islamist regime within the U.S. government’s sphere of foreign policy-influence. However, newly elected Egyptian President Mohammed Mursi — a radical Islamist from the socialist-oriented Muslim Brotherhood who is under fire for cracking down on the press and his opponents, seizing vast powers for himself, and purging Muslim Brotherhood critics from power — has already shown signs of gravitating away from the West.

Mursi’s first official foreign visit outside of the Middle East, for example, was to Beijing, seeking and obtaining broad support for his government from the brutal communist dictatorship ruling over mainland China. His controversial and increasingly tyrannical administration is also reportedly warming up to the Iranian regime despite the growing hostilities between the U.S. government and Tehran. An assortment of wealthy Islamic dictatorships is also backing Egypt’s new ruler. 

Advocates of the bailout scheme, however, said they expected Mursi and his new government to behave more responsibly going forward — at least if the regime manages to stay on the Obama administration’s payroll. But critics say that is a naïve notion that is bound to result in more problems or potentially even a disaster.

“This view could hardly be more misguided,” observed retired D.C. attorney Paul Mirengoff in an analysis for Power Line. “Arab extremists don’t ‘grow in office’ by becoming more solicitous of the peoples’ welfare. They grow in office by crushing those who oppose them. This reality binds together Arab leaders as otherwise diverse as Saddam Hussein, the Iranian [Persian] mullahs, and the Assads.”

Other critics slammed the notion that the aid was somehow intended to promote “democracy” after the landslide victory for Islamists. “Talk of ‘bolstering the transition to democracy’ are weasel words, because what is really meant here is helping the Brotherhood, the beneficiaries of democracy, stay in power,” noted analyst Daniel Greenfield in FrontPage magazine, blasting the administration’s efforts to prod big American businesses into deals with Egypt as well.

Comparing the latest bailout to U.S. government aid that helped keep the mass-murdering Soviet regime in power, Greenfield also suggested that the Obama administration was hoping to perpetuate the radical Muslim Brotherhood’s domination in Egypt. The Islamist group, of course, is also known for its socialist roots despite its Muslim character.

“Just like the USSR, the Brotherhood expects the West to bail out its regime and stabilize it, while promising stability and a friendly environment,” Greenfield added, pointing out that the looming economic crisis might bring down the Egyptian regime without continued U.S. government assistance. “And then the hammer comes down. History is repeating itself once again.” 

It was not immediately clear where in the Constitution the administration believed it found the authority to bail out foreign governments, or which federal statute purported to authorize the massive wealth transfers. U.S. officials said at least some of the money would be coming from unused funds previously allocated as “foreign aid” to assorted Middle Eastern regimes. 

Of course, as with the vast majority of federal activities today, showering American taxpayer dollars on foreign governments and businesses is not authorized anywhere in the Constitution — in other words, the Obama administration does not have any legitimate power to hand out the people’s money. There are also pragmatic issues cited by opponents of the scheme.

The U.S government, for instance, is borrowing over $1 trillion per year, hardly placing it in a position to continue squandering money propping up and taking down various regimes around the world. Meanwhile, countless studies show foreign aid hurts the people in receiving countries while benefiting only the ruling elite. And numerous factions within Egypt are opposed to continued U.S. government aid as well as the “strings” that come attached to it.

Then there is blowback. It appears that once again, American taxpayers will be financing tyranny in the Middle East. And, as always, there will be consequences. Christians in particular are already facing grave threats in Egypt.

If history is any guide, the U.S. government will be creating even more problems by unconstitutionally meddling in the affairs of foreign nations against the advice of the Founding Fathers – not just for Egyptians, but also for the American people and perhaps the world.

http://thenewamerican.com/usnews/foreign-policy/item/12720-obama-prepares-huge-bailout-for-muslim-brotherhood-in-egypt

Supreme's Court docket income tax challenge

Supremes docket income tax challenge

Colorado man's challenge to IRS says wages don't count

 by Bob UnruhEmail | Archive

Bob Unruh joined WND in 2006 after spending nearly three decades writing on a wide range of issues for several Upper Midwest newspapers and the Associated Press. Sports, tornadoes, homicidal survivalists, and legislative battles all fell within his bailiwick. His scenic photography has been used commercially, and he sometimes plays in a church worship band.More ↓Less ↑

inShare24

The government calls those who argue the income tax has no legal foundation “tax protesters” and labels their arguments “frivolous.” And usually judges toss their arguments out of court, assess them court costs on top of taxes, interest and penalties, and sometimes even threaten them if they file further cases.
But now the U.S. Supreme Court – the nine judges who sit on the bench in Washington by virtue of their selection by presidents and confirmation by the U.S. Senate – has docketed exactly that type of case.

The results? Who knows, considering the radical arguments offered by the pro se plaintiff, Jeffrey Thomas Maehr, a Colorado chiropractor who has been involved in a number of business ventures, including PureHealthSystems.com.
Among Maehr’s contentions is that while the government has the legal authority to tax, the Internal Revenue Service has used “unlawful, unconstitutional, unfair and biased” manipulations to assess income taxes on that which is not income – essentially salaries and wages.
Basing his argument on 10 years’ worth of research into tax law, he concludes that salaries and wages are the result of the mutual agreement among participants to exchange labor for money – and that’s not income.
Income, he said, is the increased value of an asset, such as interest on money in a bank account, which can be subjected to income tax.
He told WND his arguments repeatedly have been tossed from courthouses – in his case, nine times over the years – and he’s anxious to see what the Supreme Court justices may decide.
In his petition to the court, he said, “The gravity of these fundamental law questions have never been properly adjudicated, and the evidence in fact available proves without a doubt that the taxation scheme being implemented against petitioner, and all Americans, is fundamentally and profoundly unlawful, unconstitutional, unfair and biased, and is evidence of ongoing, willful, deliberate, and unconscionable fraud.”
WND contacted the office of the U.S. Solicitor General, listed on the Supreme Court website as the defense counsel for the IRS, and office staff who answered the phone refused to comment. WND was transferred to an office for the U.S. attorney general, where officials also declined to comment.
Maehr says information about the case is at the Foundation for Truth in Law.
Officials with the Supreme Court said while the case has been docketed, and a response from the IRS already has been scheduled, the justices still must hold a conference on the case to determine whether, in fact, they will review the arguments.
Maehr wrote in his petition for judicial review that he’s been the victim of administrative bludgeoning used by the IRS to quell citizens with objections as well as questions.
“Petitioner was denied due process, over and over again. Petitioner’s evidence was dismissed without consideration. Petitioner was unlawfully assessed outside lawful means. Petitioner’s evidence that ‘income’ is not wages or payment for labor is clearly supported by court precedent. Petition was mistreated, and the courts unlawfully ruled without regard to respondent’s standing to be acting against him,” he said.
“Respondent is taxing outside clear constitutional parameters, presumptively labeling he, and all Americans as ‘taxpayers,’ apart from any mechanism of law. Respondent is wantonly promoting the mandatory filing of the 1040 form which is clearly in violation of the Paperwork Reduction Act. Respondent has not produced the law with the IR Code which makes petitioner or any American ‘personally’ liable for filing the 1040 form, let alone other ‘requirements.’”
A copy of a ruling from the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver, before judges Michael Murphy, Bobby Baldock and Harris Hartz, was included in Maehr’s filing. It appears to support Maehr’s argument, because the judges, without responding to his questions and challenges to the constitutionality of the issue, labeled the claims “frivolous” and claimed Maehr’s petition “contains no valid challenges.”
Maehr’s arguments cite a wide range of historical court and congressional statements regarding taxes. For example, Blacks Law Dictionary calls income tax “a tax on the yearly profits arising from property, professions, trades and offices.”
Maehr argues wages are not “profits”; they are simply the result of an exchange of labor for money. Pointing out that businesses routinely pay taxes on “profits,” he noted taxes are not assessed on the expenses of the business.

Simply, the labor of an individual is the “expense” required to obtain the money, so it is not “profit.” To determine otherwise would be to subject corporations such as Wal-Mart to “income taxes” on 100 percent of their cash register receipts, he argues.
The court itself said an 1883 case, “It has been well said that, the property which every man has in his own labor, as it is the original foundation of all other property, so it is the most sacred and inviolable.”
In 1969, the court ruled: “Whatever may constitute income, therefore, must have the essential feature of gain to the recipient. This was true when the 16th amendment became effective. … If there is no gain, there is no income. … [Income] is not synonymous with receipts.”
And a 1946 case stated, “Reasonable compensation for labor or services rendered is not profit.”
“The elements of this case involve respondent/IRS administrative functions being implemented under color of law,” Maehr wrote. “In 2003, petitioner began requesting answers to constitutional questions regarding respondent’s positions in application of its taxation process, but which, since 2003, have been completely ignored and labeled as ‘frivolous’ and he was told that if he wanted any answers, it would have to be found ‘in the courts.’
“The essential, foundational, original intent of Congress regarding ‘income’ taxation and tax authority has been slowly perverted over the decades with actions under color of law,” Maehr continued. “The original intent was known long ago, and supported by this honorable court, but which have been twisted to mean something completely different today. Despite the quoted cases by respondent in response to petition, claiming arguments were only ‘frivolous,’ none of these cited court cases have ever had evidence in fact entered into the record, or presented as evidence to refute petitioner’s, or anyone else’s, lawful challenges to ‘prove’ them ‘frivolous’ outside hearsay and presumption.”
Among the specific questions raised: Is income tax a direct or indirect tax? What defined “income” when the income tax was adopted? What is the constitutional status of the IRS, and when do the IRS administrative procedures violate due process?
“The logical question to ask is, if petitioner is violating any laws … why is he NOT charged with criminal actions? Why is respondent taking the circuitous route using ‘administrative’ ploys, summons, and alleged ‘deficiency’ notices? The answer is because it has deceived the courts, and knows it has accomplices in committing this easy fraud using them, and it knows it cannot bring criminal charges against petition due to the record created by petition proving no such ‘failure’ would stand up in court, but would expose the ‘income’ taxation scam.”
The Supreme Court said the government’s response is due Oct. 11.
Maehr told WND that the IRS bases its existence on the “premise that the 16th Amendment allows direct unapportioned taxes on people, which it does not.”
The fight is over the fact that when one individual exchanges a $10 bill for two $5 bills from another person, there is no “profit.” Substituting labor for either side of that agreement also does not create “profit,” he said.
It’s actually not the first time the challenge has been in court. WND reported in 2007 when the Internal Revenue Service lost a lawyer’s challenge in front of a jury to prove a constitutional foundation for the nation’s income tax.
At the time, lawyer Tom Cryer told WND after a jury acquitted him of two criminal tax counts that the IRS was a “fraud, backed up by intimidation and extortion and by the sheer force of taking peoples property and hard-earned money without any lawful authorization whatsoever.”
Cryer, who has since died, told WND that the simple truth is income is not necessarily any money that comes to a person, but a rather category such as profit and interest.
He said the free exchange of labor for compensation has been upheld as a right by the Supreme Court, but that doesn’t necessarily make the compensation income.
He said at the time if ever such an argument were to be presented widely, there could be huge changes required in the way the federal government operates.
“The Founding Fathers intentionally restricted the taxing powers of the new federal government as a measure of restraint on its size. By exceeding that limited taxing authority the federal government has been able to obtain resources beyond its intended reach, and that money has enabled the federal government to exceed its authority,” he said.
The jury in U.S. District Court in Louisiana voted 12-0 to find Cryer, of Shreveport, not guilty of failure to file income taxes for two years. He had been indicted in 2006 on charges of failing to pay $73,000 to the IRS in 2000 and 2001.
At the time, spokesman Robert Marvin in Washington’s IRS office told WND the Internal Revenue Code provides for taxation on salaries or wages, but when pressed for a specific citation or constitutional provision, he said, “I can’t comment.”

Real Unemployment Reaches 20% In 7 Colorado Counties

The Rumor Mill News Reading Room 

Real Unemployment Reaches 20% In 7 Colorado Counties

Posted By: RumorMail [Send E-Mail]
Date: Monday, 1-Oct-2012 03:40:02

In seven counties in Colorado unemployed individuals are close to or exceeding 20% of the population, a letter from the Chief Economist of CDLE to the U.S. Department of Agriculture says. The letter, obtained through the Colorado Open Records Act, was sent August 29 as required by federal law. According to the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act, the Colorado Labor Department is required to certify counties where the “Not Employed Rate” surpasses 19.5%. The “Not Employed Rate” is defined as “the percentage of individuals over the age of 18 who reside within the community and who are ready, willing and able to be employed but are unable to find employment as determined by the State Department of Labor.” Ranking highest was Costilla County at 23.56 percent. The list runs from larger counties like Pueblo (20.09%), Montrose (20.62%) and Fremont (19.66%) to smaller populations like Huerfano (21.78%), Archuleta (19.97%) and Dolores (19.85%). Whereas the unemployment rate doesn’t include people who are out of work, but have given up looking for a job, the “Not Employed Rate” gives a fuller picture of the dire economic situation many Coloradans are currently facing. http://thecoloradoobserver.com/2012/09/real-unemployment-reaches-20-in-7-colorado-counties/

Cyber Terror — From predictive Programing to Realtime

Cyber Attacks on Utility Companies Now a Reality
By Shepard Ambellas
theintelhub.com
September 29, 2012
Just like a scene out of an old Bruce Willis flick, predictive programing has now caught up with itself as the true orchestrators behind the curtain can profiteer from such crisis.
An excerpt from a 2008 article posted on NationalTerrorAlert.com demonstrates Michael Chertoffs’ insight into such a crime;
Michael Chertoff, the Homeland Security Secretary, said that computer-based attacks had the ability to cripple financial institutions and government networks and that the threat posed by cyber-crime is “on a par” with the attacks of September 11, 2001.
“We take threats to the cyber world as seriously as we take threats to the material world,” Mr Chertoff told a gathering of security industry experts in San Francisco.
Chertoff now owns the Chertoff Group and fights cyber crime amongst other things. Here is a clip from their about us section of the official website;
As Secretary of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Michael Chertoff worked closely with America’s most experienced intelligence experts and security professionals. Now a select group of them have joined him to form The Chertoff Group.
The Chertoff Group provides business and government leaders with the same kind of high-level, strategic thinking and diligent execution that have kept the American homeland and its people safe since 9/11.
Cyber terror started out as a far fetched idea for a popular Bruce Willis movie series “Die Hard”.
In 2007, the film Die Hard 4 - Live Free or Die Hard contained a little predictive programing for future events to come.
In the film terrorists hack the main grid and are able to inflict doom on the population by controlling resources and communications.
Now more recently in Canada a utility company was targeted by cyber terrorists based out of China.
The Daily Star reported;
Canada said on Friday it was aware of an attempt by hackers to target a domestic energy company, the second time in 24 hours Ottawa had acknowledged a cyber security attack against a Canadian firm.
In both cases the Canadian government declined to comment on reports which suggested a Chinese connection.
The news comes at an awkward time for Canada’s Conservative government, which is deciding whether to approve a landmark $15.1 billion bid by China’s CNOOC Ltd to take over Canadian oil producer Nexen Inc.
Some Conservative legislators are wary of the proposed CNOOC takeover, in part because of what they say are China’s unfair business practices.
Ottawa revealed the second case after being asked about a security report from computer manufacturer Dell Inc, which said it had tracked hackers who targeted a number of firms around the world, including an unnamed energy company in Canada. Dell said on its website that the hackers had used a Chinese service provider based in Beijing Province.
Financial cyber crimes are starting to hit home as well.
Paul Rothman reported today;
Yesterday, CNN called it the biggest cyber-attack in history. And chances are, your bank’s website has been affected. In fact, since Sept. 19, coordinated Denial of Service (DoS) attacks have shut down the websites of Bank of America and JPMorgan Chase, while Wells Fargo, U.S. Bank and PNC Bank were crippled just this week.
Rest easy, your financial information is safe. These DoS attacks are designed to cripple the websites themselves — criminal hackers use their multitude of computers and malware to flood the targeted site with massive amounts of traffic until it is overwhelmed and thus shut down. The resulting downtime is damaging in countless ways.
The Islamist group Izz ad-Din al-Qassam Cyber Fighters, a military wing of Hamas, publicly claimed responsibility for the attacks in what it called “Operation Ababil.” The group has launched attacks in the past, albeit far less coordinated than the recent batch; however, the group also claims the attacks will continue until the controversial film “Innocence of Muslims” is completely erased from the Internet.
As the rhetoric ramps up I imagine we will see more cyber attacks in the near future to further usher in a control grid on the (as Henry Kissinger would say) “useless eaters”.

60,000 Drug Samples Compromised in Crime Lab Scandal

By JG Vibes
theintelhub.com
September 29, 2012
Over the past nine years of her career a Massachusetts chemist named Annie Dookhan tested more than 60,000 drug samples which effected the cases of about 34,000 defendants.  According to a police report obtained by the Associated Press she has recently admitted to faking many drug sample results. Governor Deval Patrick has identified 1,141 inmates in MA jails and prisons convicted based on evidence handled by Dookhan, who was also the quality control officer in a drug testing lab.  In addition to this crime lab scandal, Dookhan is also accused ofcreating a forged masters degree in chemistry from the University of Massachusetts, which ultimately got her the high level job in the lab.
Dookhan was arrested by State Police yesterday morning at her home in Franklin, Massachusetts, but is expected to post her $10,000 bail by the end of the week. Once free on bail, she must turn over her passport and wear a GPS monitoring device. She can have no contact with her former colleagues and must be in her house from 6 p.m. to 6 a.m.  She has been charged two counts of obstruction of justice and one count of falsifying her academic records.  Judge Mark Summerville set another hearing for Dec. 3
There were many signs of this misconduct throughout the course of her employment in this particular lab, but nothing was investigated until last year when her coworkers at the Department of Public Health lab told State Police that they would not testify under oath about the results of drug tests she performed. Prior to that in 2004 she whipped through some 9,239 samples while her colleagues averaged only one-third that number. Last year, the Department of Public Health found out about what she was doing, but downplayed it, telling superiors that errors had occurred on only one day and had only affected 90 cases. The department also waited six months before alerting police and prosecutors to the problem.
Assistant Attorney General John Varner said Dookhan later acknowledged to state police that she sometimes would take 15 to 25 samples and instead of testing them all, she would test only five of them, then list them all as positive. She said that sometimes, if a sample tested negative, she would take known cocaine from another sample and add it to the negative sample to make it test positive for cocaine.
The fallout from this case has already started to begin, as the lab has already been shut down and more members of the lab are stating to resign.  Dozens of inmates have already been released, and many more releases are expected to come.  Now with all of the cases that she was responsible for prosecutors must prove that substances seized by police are scientifically proven to be illegal drugs and that they have not been tampered with between arrest and trial, an impossible feat because the samples have now admittedly been tampered with.
J.G. Vibes is the author of an 87 chapter counter culture textbook called Alchemy of the Modern Renaissance and host of a show called Voluntary Hippie Radio.
He is also an artist with an established record label and event promotion company that hosts politically charged electronic dance music events. You can keep up with his work, which includes free podcasts, free e-books & free audiobooks at his website www.aotmr.com