Life If Rothschild bloodline was replaced with Tesla's

NSA Doesn’t Need to Spy on Your Calls to Learn Your Secrets!!!

   NSA Doesn’t Need to Spy on Your Calls to Learn Your Secrets

Governments and corporations gather, store and analyze the tremendous amount of data we chuff out as we move through our digitized lives. Often this is without our knowledge, and typically without our consent. Based on this data, they draw conclusions about us that we might disagree with or object to and that can impact our lives in profound ways.

    We may not like to admit it, but we are under mass surveillance.

Much of what we know about the NSA’s surveillance comes from Edward Snowden, although people both before and after him also leaked agency secrets. As an NSA contractor, Snowden collected tens of thousands of documents describing many of the NSA’s surveillance activities. Then in 2013 he fled to Hong Kong and gave them to select reporters.

   The first news story to break based on the Snowden documents described how the NSA collects the cell phone call records of every American. One government defense, and a sound bite repeated ever since, is that the data they collected is “only metadata.” The intended point was that the NSA wasn’t collecting the words we said during our phone conversations, only the phone numbers of the two parties, and the date, time and duration of the call. This seemed to mollify many people, but it shouldn’t have.

               Collecting metadata on people means putting them under surveillance.

An easy thought experiment demonstrates this. Imagine that you hired a private detective to eavesdrop on someone. The detective would plant bugs in that person’s home, office and car. He would eavesdrop on that person’s phone and computer. And you would get a report detailing that person’s conversations.

Now imagine that you asked the detective to put that person under surveillance. You would get a different but nevertheless comprehensive report: where he went, what he did, who he spoke to and for how long, who he wrote to, what he read, and what he purchased. That’s metadata.

Eavesdropping gets you the conversations; surveillance gets you everything else.

Phone metadata reveals what and who we’re interested in and what’s important to us, no matter how private.

 
Telephone metadata alone reveals a lot about us. The timing, length, and frequency of our conversations reveal our relationships with each other: our intimate friends, business associates, and everyone in-between. Phone metadata reveals what and who we’re interested in and what’s important to us, no matter how private. It provides a window into our personalities. It provides a detailed summary of what’s happening to us at any point in time.

One experiment from Stanford University examined the phone metadata of about 500 volunteers over several months. The personal nature of what the researchers could deduce from the metadata surprised even them, and the report is worth quoting:

Participant A communicated with multiple local neurology groups, a specialty pharmacy, a rare condition management service, and a hotline for a pharmaceutical used solely to treat relapsing multiple sclerosis.

Google knows what kind of porn each of us searches for, which old lovers we still think about, our shames, our concerns, and our secrets.

Participant B spoke at length with cardiologists at a major medical center, talked briefly with a medical laboratory, received calls from a pharmacy, and placed short calls to a home reporting hotline for a medical device used to monitor cardiac arrhythmia.

Participant C made a number of calls to a firearms store that specializes in the AR semiautomatic rifle platform. They also spoke at length with customer service for a firearm manufacturer that produces an AR line.

In a span of three weeks, Participant D contacted a home improvement store, locksmiths, a hydroponics dealer, and a head shop.

Participant E had a long early morning call with her sister. Two days later, she placed a series of calls to the local Planned Parenthood location. She placed brief additional calls two weeks later, and made a final call a month after.

That’s a multiple sclerosis sufferer, a heart attack victim, a semiautomatic weapons owner, a home marijuana grower, and someone who had an abortion, all from a single stream of metadata.

Web search data is another source of intimate information that can be used for surveillance. (You can argue whether this is data or metadata. The NSA claims it’s metadata because your search terms are embedded in the URLs.) We don’t lie to our search engine. We’re more intimate with it than with our friends, lovers, or family members. We always tell it exactly what we’re thinking about, in as clear words as possible.

Google knows what kind of porn each of us searches for, which old lovers we still think about, our shames, our concerns, and our secrets. If Google decided to, it could figure out which of us is worried about our mental health, thinking about tax evasion, or planning to protest a particular government policy. I used to say that Google knows more about what I’m thinking of than my wife does. But that doesn’t go far enough.


Google knows more about what I’m thinking of than I do, because Google remembers all of it perfectly and forever.

I did a quick experiment with Google’s autocomplete feature. This is the feature that offers to complete typing your search queries in real time, based on what other people have typed. When I typed “should I tell my w,” Google suggested “should I tell my wife I had an affair” and “should I tell my work about dui” as the most popular completions. Google knows who clicked on those completions, and everything else they ever searched for. Google’s CEO, Eric Schmidt, admitted as much in 2010:


“We know where you are. We know where you’ve been. We can more or less know what you’re thinking about.”

We kill people based on metadata. Former NSA Director Michael Hayden

If you have a Gmail account, you can check for yourself. You can look at your search history for any time you were logged in. It goes back for as long as you’ve had the account, probably for years. Do it!  you’ll be surprised. It’s more intimate than if you’d sent Google your diary. And while Google lets you see it, you have no rights to delete anything you don’t want there.

There are other sources of intimate data and metadata. Records of your purchasing habits reveal a lot about who you are. Your tweets tell the world what time you wake up in the morning, and what time you go to bed each night. Your buddy lists and address books reveal your political affiliation and sexual orientation. Your email headers reveal who is central to your professional, social, and romantic life.

One way to think about it is that data is content, and metadata is context. Metadata can be much more revealing than data, especially when collected in the aggregate. When you have one person under surveillance, the contents of conversations, text messages, and emails can be more important than the metadata. But when you have an entire population under surveillance, the metadata is far more meaningful, important, and useful. As former NSA General Counsel Stewart Baker said: “Metadata absolutely tells you everything about somebody’s life. If you have enough metadata you don’t really need content.” In 2014, former NSA and CIA director Michael Hayden remarked: “We kill people based on metadata.”

The truth is, though, that the difference is largely illusionary. It’s all data about us.

Excerpted from DATA AND GOLIATH: The Hidden Battles to Collect Your Data and Control Your World by Bruce Schneier. Copyright © 2015 by Bruce Schneier. With permission of the publisher, W.W. Norton & Company, Inc.

http://www.wired.com/2015/03/data-and-goliath-nsa-metadata-spying-your-secrets/

Is a new history of global finance about to be written in gold?

http://alcuinbramerton.blogspot.com/2014/04/the-future-historians-list.html

This Will Melt Your Heart - Smart Little Girl Talks to 911! incredible...

List of interesting links

2015 Agenda for Disclosure

The World Global Settlement Funds

Universal debt forgiveness and the imminent global debt jubilee

The JP Morgan Blue Book. The Secret Book of Redemption.

The Fall of the Pentagram Five. Illuminati illusion dissolves in disarray.

Global banking crisis? What global banking crisis? White Spiritual Boy accounts hold thousands of quadrillions of hidden monies in off-ledger black screen conduits.

The White Spiritual Boy off-ledger black screen accounts - raw data

Corporate evil, artificial intelligence and cyberform spirituality. What is going on inside our computer networks?

Dark Pool Gold. That which glisters returns to haunt the Fed.

The Monaco Colloquium - August 2011

European bloodlines face end-time vortex of exposure

2015 Agenda for Disclosure The opening of Pandora's Suitcase

Friday, March 27, 2015

The opening of Pandora's Suitcase

High-status disclosures of previously suppressed information are likely to bring the following changes in 2015:

The Kissinger-Bush-Clinton-Obama political clique will be removed from American public life permanently. Barack Obama, the 44th President of the United States of America, will leave office before the natural end of his presidential term. Decisive announcements to this effect may be broadcast during February or March 2015. Obama, like President George Bush Jnr before him, was illegally and unconstitutionally elected; he is a controlled agent of European monetary interests. More background can be found here, here, here and here.

The identities of the hidden Khazar Zionist political bosses embedded in corporate America will be disclosed. The use these bosses have made of human clones in American political management will become common knowledge. The use made of human clones in managing European Royal families, international banking, spiritual fascism in religion, industrial militarism and political assassinations will be made clear for all to see. The fact that mind-controlled human clones have been democratically elected into national leaderships, have signed state and religious papers of moment, and have been terminated at will and substituted with others, will be revealed.

Jorge Mario Bergoglio ('Francis'), the present Pope, will be obliged to retire. Like Tenzin Gyatso (the Dalai Lama) and Billy Graham, he is a Western deep-state-controlled PsyOp, who functions within the domain of establishment religious control and disinformation. More about Bergoglio's covert background can be found here (02.02.14).

Queen Elizabeth II of England will abdicate or, at the very least, will begin to withdraw from active personal involvement in Constitutional, Church of England, and international banking affairs. The occult connection between the Vatican in Rome and The Crown Temple in London will be revealed. More here and here.

All around the world, national leaders and régimes which have political, corporate or legal connections with the American governing establishment will be removed from power. Particularly likely to benefit in this regard are Australia, Bahrain, Canada, Congo, France, Georgia, Germany, Iraq, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Mexico, Myanmar, North Korea, South Korea, Saudi Arabia, Spain, the Sudans, Pakistan, Paraguay, Poland, Thailand, UK, Ukraine and Yemen.

The low-vibration AntiChrist energies of lies, deceit and personal greed, as channelled by the American political establishment (Republican and Democrat), will cease to be sustainable. Undetectable manipulation of the Kissinger-Bush-Clinton-Obama kind will become increasingly impossible on Earth as the energetic environment of planetary cleansing and ascension raises the dominant vibrations of light throughout the planet.

Major geopolitical financial changes, previously thought impossible, will become manifest. The internationally-traded US Dollar will come under the ownership and control of Asia, will become a gold-backed currency, will gain in value, and will be systemically separated from the fiat form of US Dollar used domestically within the US. The Swiss Franc will break its peg with the Euro (a fiat currency) and become gold-backed. The US will lose control of the UN, the IMF and the World Bank to the BRICS alliance. A new UN HQ will be built in China. The G7 Bretton Woods money management system of 1944 will be consigned to the dustbin of history.

The NESARA global prosperity programmes will be announced and activated. READ MORE

Fairly well written explaination of the situation we are facing.

emailed to me... Someone sure put some work into this.
by Lee Brobst

PLIGHT OF THE LAND
RETURN TO A REPUBLIC

A TERRITORY VERSUS THE TERRITORY1

The Supreme Court ruling on the property clause of Art. IV. Sect. 3, cl.2 stated: Literally, the word “territory”, as used, signifies property, since the language is not “territory or property”, but “territory or other property.” There arises and evident difference between the words “the territory” and “a territory” of the United States. The former merely designates a particular part or parts of the earth’s surface-the imperially extensive holdings of the Nation; the latter is a governmental subdivision which happened to be called a “territory” but which quite as well could have been called a “colony” . . . “province”. . . “A territory, under the Constitution and laws of United States is an inchoate state’, quoting Ex parte Morgan D.C. 20 Fed 298, 305. O’Donoghue v. United States, 289 US 516 (1933). (Italics in original) The. An article which particularizes the subject spoken of. “Grammatical niceties should not be resorted to without necessity; but it would be extending liberality to an unwarrantable length to confound the articles ‘a’ and ‘the’. The most unlettered persons understand that ‘a’ is indefinite, but ‘the’ refers to a certain object.” Black’s Law Dict. 5th ed. Note: an inchoate state is an incomplete state - - - it has no charter of incorporation, hence no borders defined as it possess no physical reality existing as a governmental subdivision which is considered other property of the United States in the spirit of the law under Art. IV Sec. 3 cl.2. According to Black’s Law Dict. 5th ed., a “governmental subdivision is an agency created to carry out a governmental purpose or function. See also Administrative agency; governmental agency.” It is a well established principle of law that the federal “legislation applies only within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States unless a contrary intent appears Caha v. United States 152 US 211, 215 (1894); American Banana Co. v. United Fruit Co. 213 US 347 (1909);United States v. Bowman 260 US 94, 97 (1922); Blackmer v. United States 284 US 421, 437 (1932). Take note the Court stated: “U.S citizens living abroad are not questions of international law, but of municipal law”; Foley Bros. v. Filardo 336 US 281, 285 (1949); United States v. Spelar 338 US 217, 222, (1949); and United States v. First National City Bank 321 F. 2d 14, 23, 2d Cir., (1963). All these cases deal with “the territory” of United States. These decisions were rendered where there was evidence of a contract, corporate charter, or municipal law that was the subject matter of the cases. In other words, public policy was not involved in those contracts and municipal law. The terms and conditions were spelled out on the documents in a one on one basis. The Court also noted in American Banana Co. v. United Fruit Co that territorial law is only prima facie evidence of law. In other words, all territorial law is voluntary subject to a higher form of evidence to the contrary. A person must be aware that most of the following federal appellate courts decisions fall within “a territorial” jurisdiction. see McKeal v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 722 F.2d "582, 589 (9th Cir., 1983) (holding the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act as territorial); Meredith v. United States, 330 F.2d 9, 11 (9th Cir., 1964) (holding the Federal Torts Claims Act as territorial); United States v. Cotroni, 527 F.2d 708, 711 (2nd Cir., 1975) (holding federal wiretap laws as territorial); Stowe v. Devoy, 588 F.2d 336, 341 (2nd Cir., 1978); Cleary v. United States Lines, Inc., 728 F.2d 607, 609 (3rd Cir., 1984) (holding federal age discrimination laws as territorial); Thomas v. Brown & Root, Inc., 745 F.2d 279, 281 (4th Cir., 1984) (holding same as Cleary, supra): United States v. Mitchell, 553 F. 2d 996, 1002 (5th Cir., 1977) (holding marine mammals protection act as territorial): Pfeiffer v. William Wrigley. Jr., Co., 755 F.2d 554, 557 (7th Cir., 1985) (holding age discrimination laws as territorial); Airline Stewards & Stewardesses Assn. v. Northwest Airlines, Inc., 267 F.2d 170, 175 (8th Cir., 1959) (holding Railway Labor Act as territorial); Zahourek v. Arthur Young and Co., 750 F.2d 827, 829 (10th Cir., 1984) (holding age discrimination laws as territorial); Commodities Futures Trading Comm. v. Nahas, 738 F.2d 487,493 (D.C.C ir., 1984) (holding commission's subpoena power under federal law as territorial): Reyes v. Secretary of H.E.W., 476 F.2d 910,. 915 (D.C Cir., 1973) (holding administration of Social Security Act as territorial); and Schoenbaum v. Firstbrook, 268 F.Supp. 385, 392 (S.D.N.Y., 1967) (holding securities act as territorial). [Bold emphasis added] There are no physical charters or contracts registered with the secretary of state’s office. Also there are no municipal laws involved in “a territorial” jurisdiction, only a presumption under the Erie RR v. Tompkins 304 US 64 doctrine that a person is subject to diversity of citizenship. Diversity exists when a person resides in one state subject to the jurisdiction of another state. In other words, a person lives in say California, but has volunteered to join a social security trust. That trust is an unincorporated association of federated states or inchoate states or state in “a territory” under Article IV Sec. 3 cl.2. Said situation is also called a “conflict of law” between Article IV Sec. 3 cl.2 (“a territory”) and Article IV Sec. 3 cl.1. (“the territory”) In other words, a conflict of law exists because of diversity. If a “person” wants their sovereignty along with its Constitutional Rights and not civil rights, all that a person has to do is create the evidence in law to destroy the social security trust that that “person” is a member thereof. It’s not easy to accomplish, it takes a lot of dedicated learning, but then anything worthwhile is not easy. “A territorial” jurisdiction falls under private international law where unilateral contracts are the rule as opposed to; “the territorial” law of bilateral contracts (Article IV Sec. 3 cl.1) that is the rule of law. The Social Security Act is the target of this writing because social security is an unincorporated association that is not a part of the municipal law of the United States or its headquarters would not be in Baltimore Maryland. The Social Security Administration comes under private international law and not municipal law therefore, within “a territorial” jurisdiction. i.e., Article IV Sec. 3 cl.2, and the (J)udicial (p)ower of amendment 11. The Verlinden case is a good example of how not to mix case law as evidenced above such as decisions describing “the territory” jurisdiction with decisions describing “a territory”. In Verlinden v. Bank of Nigeria, 461 U.S. 480, 491 (1983), the court discussed the distinction between “jurisdictional statutes” and “the federal law under which an action arises for (j)udical (P)ower for Art. III purposes.” The Court recognized that pure jurisdictional statutes which seek to do nothing more than grant jurisdiction over a particular class of cases cannot support Art. III “arising under” jurisdiction. Particular class of cases meaning members of the social security trust, an unincorporated association. The words “arising under … laws of the United States” have chiefly been construed in cases involving not Article III directly, but the statutory grant of federal question jurisdiction in 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and its predecessors, which is cast in the same language. It is universally acknowledged, however, that the statutory grant does not exhaust the constitutional power, Romero v. International Terminal Operating Co., 358 U.S. 354, 379 n.51 (1959); Powell v. McCormack, 395 U.S. 486, 515 (1969); see National Mutual Ins. Co. v. Tidewater Transfer Co., 337 U.S. 582, 613-14 (1949) (Rutledge, J., concurring); Mishkin supra, at 160-63; Note on the effect of the Statutory Adoption of the Constitutional Language, Hart & Wechsler, supra, at 870; Wright, Miller & Cooper, Federal Practice and Procedure: Jurisdiction § 3562 (1975). From Article III –Arising Under Jurisdiction 76 L.Ed 2d 831. It should be remembered when raising or defending against the assertion that a particular action is not within the scope of the "arising under" clause of Article III § 2, clause 1 that the question is not whether the "arising under" clause authorizes the action to be brought in the federal courts, but whether Congress is authorized by that clause to allow by statute for such a claim to be brought there. This distinction is particularly important when a suit is brought under the authority of the general federal question jurisdictional statute (28 USCS § 1331), since the jurisdiction provided by § 1331 is narrower than the jurisdiction Congress is empowered to give by the "arising under" clause. In Verlinden B. V. v. Central Bank of Nigeria 76 L Ed 2d 81; 461 U.S. 480, 491 (1983), the court made note that the Court of Appeals decision it reversed concerning the scope of the "arising under" clause relied heavily on decisions construing § 1331, placing particular emphasis on the so called "well-pleaded complaint" rule, which provides for purposes of statutory "arising under" jurisdiction, that the federal question must appear on the face of a well-pleaded complaint and may not enter in anticipation of a defense. According to the Supreme Court, “the reliance on those decisions was misplaced. Thus, the case is a good example of the caution one should use in making sure that the cases being relied upon to answer jurisdictional questions are not discussing statutory jurisdiction when the question concerns Article III jurisdiction, or vice versa.” The reason given for this distinction is that there exists policy consideration i.e., an unincorporated association under Erie RR underlying the purpose of the jurisdictional statute that limit its application and which do not enter into the picture when construing the constitutional authorization for statutory federal question jurisdiction.” In other words, 14th amendment “persons” come within the preview of “a territorial” jurisdiction under Article IV Sec. 3 cl.2 that is governed by Article 1 legislative courts with its decisions based upon a public trust. Court decisions based upon a public trust cannot be used in a case that involves cases where the subject matter of the case involves a written contract, physical charter or municipal law or direct constitutional issues that involves Article III courts. The same is true in the reverse. Article III decisions cannot be used in cases involving the public trust. In other words, Article I legislative courts espouse rules and regulations that encompasses public policy under Erie RR v. Tompkins 304 US 64. Article I courts have jurisdiction over “citizen persons” of the unincorporated association under Article IV Sec. 3 cl.2, and Article I Sec. 8 cls. 3 and 9 to the Constitution to wit: 3. To regulate Commerce … among the several States … . [Bold emphasis added: 9. To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court, Are you beginning to see why the courts react like they do to the Gobbledegook that is entered into the courts. As noted in Article IV Sec. 3 cl.2, there is no charter of incorporation by HJR 192 of the newly created several federal states and just what its duties are, i.e., its intents and purposes; instead there is a resulting or implied (charitable) trust is formed by operation of law.2 In other words, Congress created the conditions for a resulting or implied trust with HJR 192. Under HJR 192, and Article IV Sec. 3 cl.2, public policy determined there is no separation of powers doctrine thus the Union of several states is nonexistent; instead there is a federation of inchoate states under private international law3 termed “a territory”. The courts take judicial notice of HJR 192, and the above Erie RR, and O’Donoghue cases and public policies view of the several states as a federation of states under the Constitution. “The Constitution does not protect the sovereignty of States for the benefit of States, or state governments as abstract political entities, or even for the benefit of public officials governing the States. To the contrary, the Constitution divides authority between the federal and state governments for the ‘protection’ of individuals.” New York v. U.S.,505 U.S. 144. (1992) When it comes to 14th amendment “persons”, there is a presumption that diversity of citizenship exists because that person is a beneficiary of the social security trust, thus “subject to” Article IV Sec. 3 cl.2 to create a “conflict of law”. In other words, a “person” is straddling the fence and must make a decision with evidence which law that person is subject to. Silence is consent under private international law, i.e., Article IV Sec. 3 cl.2 “persons” reside in “a territory” thus have no standing to quote the above New York v. U.S. case. The United States has no territorial jurisdiction over non-federally owned areas inside the territorial jurisdiction of the states in the American Union. The question becomes, what territorial jurisdiction are we talking about? When it comes to agencies of the United States government as mentioned above, there is only one territory and that is “a territory” of Article IV Sec. 3 cl.2. There are no states with boundary lines that are comprised of members of a private unincorporated association of 14th amendment “persons” that are beneficiaries to the social security charitable trust. In other words, they are members of the several inchoate states as noted in O’Donoghue that have no definitive borders as has the American Union of states under Article IV Sec. 3 cl.1.

Lee Brobst

Contact: www.orgsites.com/ca/waternow

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 Please take note: When it comes to public policy UNDER ARTICLE IV SECTION 3 CL.2 WITH THE DESTRUCTION OF THE SEPARATION OF POWERS, WITH THE DIFFERENT LAW FORUMS SUCH AS THE COMMON LAW, ADMIRALTY-MARITIME, CIVIL LAW, PRIVATE INTERNATIONAL LAW, THE LAW OF TRUSTS, LAW AS OPPOSED TO EQUITY HAVE BEEN ABOLISHED AND ARE NOW TREATED AS ONE AND THE SAME. THIS IS WHY IT IS SO DIFFICULT IN NOT ONLY UNDERSTANDING WHAT IS HAPPENING TO AMERICA BUT EVEN MORE DIFFICULT ISPUTTING IT ON PAPER. YOU THE READER, WILL NOTICE THAT I KEEP REPEATING ISSUES BECAUSE I WANT THE READER TO VIEW THE ISSUES OF LAW IN A DIFFERENT LIGHT HOPING THE READER WILL FIND A NITCH IN UNDERSTANDING. THE BIGGEST PROBLEM I HAVE IS DE-PROGRAMING PEOPLE FROM BAD MISINFORMATION. 2 Operation of law. This term expresses the manner in which rights, and sometimes liabilities, devolve upon a person by the mere application to the particular transaction of the established rules of law, without the act or co-operation of the party himself. Black’s Law Dict. 5th ed. 3 A State of the United States is not a "state" under international law since by its constitutional status it does not have capacity to conduct foreign relations. United States alone, not any of its constituent States, enjoys international sovereignty and nationhood. "In respect of our foreign relations generally, state lines disappear. As to such purposes the State does not exist." United States v. Belmont, 301 U.S. 324, (1937)

Government Secrecy At All-Time High - THERE IS NO JUSTICE FOR AMERICANS!!!!

Government Secrecy At All-Time High             

Washington’s Blog
March 27, 2015


US Supreme Court Justice Brandeis said:

Publicity is justly commended as a remedy for social and industrial diseases. Sunlight is said to be the best of disinfectants; electric light the most efficient policeman.

But there’s no longer much sunlight to disinfect the corruption of the government or the powers-that-be.
More and more commonly, the government prosecutes cases based upon “secret evidence” that they don’t show to the defendant … or sometimes even the judge hearing the case.
As just one example, government is “laundering” information gained through mass surveillance through other agencies, with an agreement that the agencies will “recreate” the evidence in a “parallel construction” … so the original source of the evidence is kept secret from the defendant, defense attorneys and the judge.   A former top NSA official says that this is the opposite of following the Fourth Amendment, but is a “totalitarian process” which shows that we’re in a “police state”.
The government uses “secret evidence” to spy on Americans, prosecute leaking or terrorism charges (even against U.S. soldiers) and even assassinate people. And see this and this.
Secret witnesses are being used in some cases. And sometimes lawyers are being prevented from reading their own briefs.
Indeed, even the laws themselves are now starting to be kept secret. And it’s about to get a lot worse.
American citizens are also being detained in Guantanamo-like conditions in Chicago … including being held in secret, with the government refusing to tell a suspect’s lawyer whether his client is being held.   And see this, this and this.
The Department of Defense has also made it a secret – even from Congress – as to the identity of the main enemies of the United States.
Today, Glenn Greenwald adds yet another twist to the trend towards secrecy:

A truly stunning debasement of the U.S. justice system just occurred through the joint efforts of the Obama Justice Department and a meek and frightened Obama-appointed federal judge, Edgardo Ramos, all in order to protect an extremist neocon front group from scrutiny and accountability. The details are crucial for understanding the magnitude of the abuse here.
At the center of it is an anti-Iranian group calling itself “United Against Nuclear Iran” (UANI), which is very likely a front for some combination of the Israeli and U.S. intelligence services. When launched, NBC described its mission as waging “economic and psychological warfare” against Iran. The group was founded and is run and guided by aroster of U.S., Israeli and British neocon extremists such as Joe Lieberman, former Bush Homeland Security adviser (and current CNN “analyst”) Fran Townsend, former CIA Director James Woolsey, and former Mossad Director Meir Dagan. One of its key advisers is Olli Heinonen, who just co-authored a Washington Post Op-Ed with former Bush CIA/NSA Director Michael Hayden arguing that Washington is being too soft on Tehran.
This group of neocon extremists was literally just immunized by a federal court from the rule of law. That was based on the claim — advocated by the Obama DOJ and accepted by Judge Ramos — that subjecting them to litigation for their actions would risk disclosure of vital “state secrets.” The court’s ruling was based on assertions made through completely secret proceedings between the court and the U.S. government, with everyone else — including the lawyers for the parties — kept in the dark.
In May 2013, UANI launched a “name and shame” campaign designed to publicly identify — and malign — any individuals or entities enabling trade with Iran. One of the accused was the shipping company of Greek billionaire Victor Restis, who vehemently denies the accusation. He hired an American law firm and sued UANI for defamation in a New York federal court, claiming the “name and shame” campaign destroyed his reputation.
Up until that point, there was nothing unusual about any of this: just a garden-variety defamation case brought in court by someone who claims that public statements made about him are damaging and false. That happens every day. But then something quite extraordinary happened: In September of last year, the U.S. government, which was not a party, formally intervened in the lawsuit, and demanded that the court refuse to hear Restis’s claims and instead dismiss the lawsuit against UANI before it could even start, on the ground that allowing the case to proceed would damage national security.
When the DOJ intervened in this case and asserted the “state secrets privilege,” it confounded almost everyone. The New York Times’s Matt Apuzzo noted at the time that “the group is not affiliated with the government, and lists no government contracts on its tax forms. The government has cited no precedent for using the so­-called state­ secrets privilege to quash a private lawsuit that does not focus on government activity.” He quoted the ACLU’s Ben Wizner as saying: “I have never seen anything like this.” Reuters’s Allison Frankel labeled the DOJ’s involvement a “mystery” and said “the government’s brief is maddeningly opaque about its interest in a private libel case.”
Usually, when the U.S. government asserts the “state secrets privilege,” it is because they are a party to the lawsuit, being sued for their own allegedly illegal acts (such as torture or warrantless surveillance), and they claim that national security would be harmed if they are forced to defend themselves. In rare cases, they do intervene and assert the privilege in lawsuits between private parties, but only where the subject of the litigation is a government program and one of the parties is a government contractor involved in that program — such as when torture victims sued a Boeing subsidiary, Jeppesen, for its role in providing airplanes for the rendition program and the Obama DOJ insisted (successfully) that the case not go forward, and the victim of U.S. torture was thus told that he could not even have a day in court.
But in this case, there is no apparent U.S. government conduct at issue in the lawsuit. At least based on what they claim about themselves, UANI is just “a not-for-profit, non-partisan, advocacy group” that seeks to “educate” the public about the dangers of Iran’s nuclear program. Why would such a group like this even possess “state secrets”? It would be illegal to give them such material. Or could it be that the CIA or some other U.S. government agency has created and controls the group, which would be a form of government-disseminated propaganda, which happens to be illegal?
What else could explain the basis for the U.S. government’s argument that allowing UANI to be sued would risk the disclosure of vital “state secrets” besides a desire to cover up something quite untoward if not illegal? What “state secrets” could possibly be disclosed by suing a nice, little “not-for-profit, non-partisan, advocacy group”?
We don’t know the answers to those questions, nor do the lawyers for the plaintiffs whose lawsuit the DOJ wants dismissed. That’s because, beyond the bizarre DOJ intervention itself, the extreme secrecy that shaped the judicial proceedings is hard to overstate. Usually, when the U.S. government asserts the “state secrets privilege,” at least some information is made public about what they are claiming: which official or department is invoking the privilege, the general nature of the secrets allegedly at risk, the reasons why allowing the claims to be adjudicated would risk disclosure, etc. Someredacted version of the affidavit from the government official making the secrecy claim is made part of the case.
Here, virtually everything has been hidden, even from the plaintiffs’ lawyers. Not only did the U.S. government provide no clue as to what the supposedly endangered “state secrets” are, but they concealed even the identity of the agency making the claim: was it the CIA, the Treasury Department, the State Department, some combination? Nothing is known about any of this, not even who is making the secrecy claim.
Instead, the DOJ’s arguments about why “secrecy” compels dismissal of the entire lawsuit were made in a brief that only Judge Ramos (and not even the parties) gets to read, but even more amazingly, were elaborated on in secret meetings by DOJ lawyers in the judge’s chambers with nobody else present. Were recordings or transcripts of these meetings made? Is there any record of what the U.S. government whispered in the ear of the judge to scare him into believing that National Security Would Be Harmed™ if he allowed the case to proceed? Nobody knows. The whole process is veiled in total secrecy, labeled a “judicial proceeding” but containing none of the transparency, safeguards or adversarial process that characterizes minimally fair courts.
This sham worked. This week, Judge Ramos issued his ruling dismissing the entire lawsuit (see below). As a result of the DOJ’s protection, UANI cannot be sued. Among other things, it means this group of neocon extremists now has a license to defame anyone they want. They can destroy your reputation with false accusations in a highly public campaign, and when you sue them for it, the DOJ will come in and whisper in the judge’s ear that national security will be damaged if — like everyone else in the world — UANI must answer in a court of law for their conduct. And subservient judicial officials like Judge Ramos will obey the U.S. government’s dictates and dismiss your lawsuit before it begins, without your having any idea why that even happened.
Worse, in his written ruling, the judge expressly acknowledges that dismissal of the entire lawsuit at the start on secrecy grounds is what he calls a “harsh sanction,” and also acknowledges that “it is particularly so in this case because Plaintiffs not only do not get their day in court, but cannot be told why” (emphasis added). But he does it anyway, in a perfunctory 18-page opinion that does little other than re-state some basic legal principles, and then just concludes that everything the government whispered in his ear should be accepted. Just read for yourself what Judge Ramos said in defending his dismissal to see how wildly disparate it is from everything we’re propagandized to believe about the U.S. justice system:

What kind of “justice system” allows a neocon “advocacy” group to be immunized from the law, because the U.S. government waltzed into court, met privately with the judge, and whispered in secret that he had better dismiss all claims against that group lest he harm national security? To describe what happened here is to illustrate what a perverse travesty it is. Restis’s lawyer, Abbe Lowell, said in a statement this week:

We are disappointed that some secret relationship between UANI and the government allows UANI to hide from disclosing that association or to defend what has now been proven to be its false and defamatory allegations directed at Mr. Restis and his company. We are mystified that the U.S. government has such a stake in this case that it would take such extraordinary steps to prevent full disclosure of the secret interest it has with UANI or others. And, we are concerned that, in our court system, such a result could occur on the basis of sealed, one-sided filings and meetings in which we were not allowed to participate.

Indeed, the government is going to incredible lengths to keep secrets, including:

• Treating reporters like terrorists. And see this

• Prosecuting and demanding draconian jail sentences for whistleblowers

• Framing whistleblowers with false evidence

Sadly, the sunlight is fading … and America is falling into darkness.

Related posts:

1. Duck Dynasty On Trial
2. The Bush Secrecy Legacy
3. Trial Starts for OC Cop Accused of Murdering Homeless Man
4. Cop Who Killed Kelly Thomas Seen In Restuarant, Americans Make Him Leave
5. Prosecutor claims Iran/Contra whistleblower is a “danger” to society

This article was posted: Friday, March 27, 2015 at 7:01 am


http://www.prisonplanet.com/government-secrecy-at-all-time-high.html

Left-Wing Gawker Finds Jade Helm Exercise “Unsettling"

Even Left-Wing Gawker Finds Jade Helm Exercise “Unsettling” 
     

Media characterizes concern about military drill as “right-wing paranoia”


Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet.com
March 26, 2015

Despite attempts by the mainstream media to characterize concern about the upcoming Jade Helm military exercise as “right wing paranoia,” even left-wing Gawker acknowledges that the drill is “unsettling” and that the logo for the exercise stirs an air of “creeping fascism”.

As we reported earlier today in an article which featured amongst prominent coverage of the issue on the Drudge Report, the nine state exercise, set to take place from July 15-September 15, will involve troops blending in with local communities in an effort to spur residents to report “suspicious activity”.

This infiltration exercise, along with slides for the drill which characterize Texas, Utah, and a part of southern California as “hostile territory,” prompted concerns that the mission was designed around acclimating Americans to accept a state of martial law.

While chiding Infowars as, “the New York Times of right-wing paranoia,” Gawker’s Sam Biddle admits that the exercise is somewhat disconcerting.

“You don’t need to believe in FEMA death domes or an Islamofascist White House to find Jade Helm a little bit unsettling—even if it just a routine exercise meant to simulate a future Middle Eastern war zone inside America,” he writes.

Biddle’s apprehension about the exercise is noteworthy given that Gawker slants significantly left and would normally be expected to join in with the chorus of other media outlets who have echoed Army talking points by demonizing concern about Jade Helm as alarmist paranoia.

Biddle also draws attention to the logo for the exercise - describing it as “creeping fascism copy” which “isn’t helping anything”.

Meanwhile, despite the story going viral nearly a week ago, the Dallas Morning News reports today, “We didn’t know anything about it until Gawker posted this piece earlier this afternoon.”

The article then cites “conspiracy-peddling Info Wars” and quotes our article from earlier today, before joking tongue-in-cheek, “Here’s a rabbit hole. Duck.”

Facebook @ https://www.facebook.com/paul.j.watson.71
FOLLOW Paul Joseph Watson @ https://twitter.com/PrisonPlanet

*********************

Paul Joseph Watson is the editor at large of Infowars.com and Prison Planet.com.

Related posts:

1. Strutting Fascism and swaggering militarism
2. More States Added to ‘Jade Helm’ Military Exercise
3. Kids All Over America Are Being Put On Buses And Sent To Alternate Locations During Terror Drills
4. Jade Helm: Troops to “Operate Undetected Amongst Civilian Population”
5. The Infowars Flu Pandemic Resource

http://www.prisonplanet.com/even-left-wing-gawker-finds-jade-helm-exercise-unsettling.html

Entire Federal Martial Law Plan Exposed

ENTIRE FEDERAL MARTIAL LAW PLAN EXPOSED!!!!

Published on Mar 26, 2015

Alex Jones Responds To MSM Attacks

on purpose of JADE Helm exercise

Alex Jones covers the entire history of the 'Government'  plan to use the Armed Forces to infiltrate and disarm Americans.

From A to Z the entire plan is laid out, from the FEMA camps, to gun confiscation drills and the rise of the police state.

Don't be a pathetic sheep!  Make this video go viral and read the links below.

Mainstream media, your days of lying to American people are numbered!!

ALERT! Police Raid Small Family Farm and seize animals Schenectady County, New York

AMERICA 

OFFICIAL NWO POLICE STATE

Police Raid Small Family Farm, Charge Family, and Seize Animals because they were 'Free Range'!!!!!!

By John Vibes on March 24, 2015



                            Image from Friends of West Wind Acres Facebook Page

Schenectady County, New York – Earlier this month, a family farm in rural New York was raided by police after the owners were cited on a number of trumped up regulatory violations. Joshua Rockwood, the owner of the farm, is being accused of mistreating his animals, and the local government has began confiscating some of them.
Police initially visited Rockwood’s property on February 25th to investigate reports of unlicensed working dogs weeks before the raid. Unfortunately, Rockwood voluntarily showed local police around his property, which he had not yet tended to that day because of their unexpected interruption.  After showing them around, they began to critically assess every aspect of the farm, writing a number of citations for arbitrary offenses.
The very next day, Rockwood had a veterinarian visit the farm to check on the animals to confirm that they were well taken care of and in good health. According to numerous reports, the vet said that the animals were just fine, and did not seem to share the concerns that the officers alleged during their walk-through.
A second veterinarian was also called in to verify the health of the animals and they also found them to be in perfect health.
A week later, police returned again to notify Rockwood that he was to appear in court the next Thursday on a number of charges relating to the animal’s food and shelter. In total, 12 different charges were brought against Rockwood, but he has posted a number of photos to a Facebook support page, which shows the animals with sufficient housing, and plenty of food.

 

Rockwood has been charged with 12 counts of animal neglect and abuse – some of the charges relating to frozen water bowls and tanks – despite the animals still having access to water. His dogs and horses have been seized and taken away.

 

Rockwood treats his animals better than most factory farms do, but since he uses traditional farming methods, his farm will fail regulatory inspections, while factory farms will pass.
Meanwhile, New York is one of many states that are currently considering “ag-gag” laws, which place criminal penalties on activists who expose animal abuse at factory farms.
The controversial ag-gag laws prohibit “recording an image or sound without the operator’s permission; gaining ‘access to an agricultural operation under false pretenses;’ asking for a job at a place for the purpose of making recordings; and making a recording while trespassing.”
The irony here is that the state will lock you in a cage for filming the horrific atrocities at a factory farm while simultaneously trumping up ridiculous and petty violations if you aren’t a factory farm. Just who does the state “protect” by doing these things?





Rockwood has launched a $50,000 gofundme campaign to raise money to post bond for his horses and to pay for the disrupted legal fees and lost business he has incurred and will incur due to the publicity and effort involved in defending himself. He means to go to court to try to fight the charges and to win back his reputation, his rescue dog, and his horses.
Because of his caring and generous customers and supporters, they are almost halfway to that goal.  Please!  If you can donate to Rockwood's campaign, please do so as soon as possible!  As Americans, our land is under siege.  We need to stick together and support each other. Perhaps time for the Militia to show up to protect his farm, and to witness in court. 

Vin Diesel Reveals Haunting Final Conversation With Paul Walker.....

Vin Diesel is currently doing the round promoting Furious 7, the latest instalment to the Fast and Furious franchise. Diesel is also taking this opportunity to both mourn and celebrate the life of his co-star throughout the series Paul Walker, who died during filming. Diesel even recalled his final, haunting conversation with the actor.

During his interview with Variety, Vin Diesel revealed how his final interaction with Walker came just after he’d shot a dangerous and emotional scene for Furious 7.
In this scene, Diesel’s character Dom Toretto had to appear lifeless after he performed a “semi-kamikaze” stunt to save his friends, following which Paul Walker’s Brian O’Conner is one of the many who rushes over to try and revive Dom.
After filming the scene, Diesel immediately started to think about his own mortality and his death, even asking himself, “What would happen to Paul Walker if I died?”
Overcome with these thoughts and feelings, Diesel decided to visit Paul Walker’s trailer so he could talk through them with his pal.
This led Diesel to tell Walker, “If I do die, let them know what kind of brother I’ve been to you.”
At this point, Walker and Diesel shared a hug, and then the Guardians of the Galaxy star exited the trailer, not realizing that this would be the final time he’d ever see Walker alive again.
Just a few days later, on November 30, 2013, Paul Walker died in a car crash. Diesel was shell-shocked and became an emotional wreck after learning of Walker’s untimely passing.
In fact, he’s now admitted that there were times when he wasn’t even sure he could continue making Furious 7 without Paul Walker. Diesel confessed that he wouldn’t even leave his home, and even after the production took a four-week break from Furious 7 to write out Paul Walker’s Brian O’Conner in a respectful manner, Diesel wasn’t sure that he would return to the film.
However, he finally convinced himself to get back to work after considering what Paul Walker would have wanted him to do.
“I thought what Paul would really want me to do was finish it,” Diesel explained. “So that’s what I did.”
Paul Walker’s final scenes in Furious 7 were completed thanks to the help of Weta Studios, CGI, and his two brothers, Caleb and Cody, as well as actor John Brotherton, all of whom were used as his body doubles.
Furious 7 will hit cinemas on April 3, and early reviews suggest that it’s the most powerful, exhilarating, and emotional instalment of the series yet.