The San Francisco and Silicon Valley Corruption Cartel
What They Have Been Proven To Be:
Intellectual Property Thieves
Tone Deaf Yuppies
Elitist Boys Clubbers
Burning Man Orgy Pros
Real Estate Scammers
Political Bribery Experts
CronyPolitical Scam Operators
Election Rigging Financiers
Who They Are:
Vinod Khosla and Khosla Ventures
Steve and Alison Spinner
The documents in these files were provided by the witnesses,investigators and crowd-sourced peer-to-peer public law enforcement investigators who uncovered materials that were relevant.
This case documents and reveals the evidence that a Cartel comprisedof public officials, many of them elected and located at the highest levels of government, and their Silicon Valley financiers, engaged in crimes against the public (essentially creating a coup against the U.S. Government) in order to steal taxpayer money and resources.
In a key part of the crime, the Obama Administration used the U.S.Department of Energy, under Secretary of Energy Steven Chu, who was protected by USAG Eric Holder, to payoff campaign financiers viacrony kickbacks and stock market “pumps”. The same agency staff sabotaged those campaign financier’s competitors by defrauding themof tens of millions of dollars by telling them to invest their funds in order to get loans and grants that DOE executives never intendedto issue. Government staff also engaged in stone-walling, character assassination and other “dirty tricks” schemes against applicantsand competitors. This portion of the corruption crime was implemented and planned from 2007 through 2016. This was a felony abuse oftaxpayer monies. Russian billionaires, Goldman Sachs, and other investment banks, and U.S. Senators illicitly profited off of thisscheme.
Law enforcement and Congressional evidence now prove the fact thatonly those who payed campaign finance bribes received the funding from State and Federal agencies and they received it in amounts equalto the size of the bribes they paid. Every single other applicant (hundreds of them) who did not pay campaign bribes, and who did notgive stock market warrants to Senators, was stone-walled, de-funded, sabotaged and lost tens of millions of dollars by being defrauded by Energy Department officials who covertly knew that the funding had been hard-wired for their friends, in advance.
The criminal participants sought to manipulate elections and publicopinion in order to place their insiders in government offices. They did this in order to steer government treasury cash, contracts,intelligence resources, government benefits and stock market advantages to their private profiteering accounts, at the expense ofthe public. Historical records and evidence has proven that they, indeed, did engage in these criminal activities.
They abused the operation of the DOJ, FBI, DOE, CIA, SEC, FCC, FTC,DOT and other agencies, in order to operate their scheme.
Via their leaked communications, non-compromised officials, newscoverage and public testimony, their crimes and illicit actions are hereby exposed in order to curtail their corruptions.
These Senators, lobbyists, Silicon Valley billionaire oligarchs and investment-bankers used “party ideology” to seek to whip up a zealot-like frenzy to try to get voters to overlook their sins. Inthe end, the public has finally begun to realize that the issue is not about party politics. It is simply about organized crime and theabuse of public office for out-right theft and stock market fraud by these politicians.
150 criminally corrupt politicians and their Silicon Valley financiers abused hundreds of millions of American voters and the public policy system in order to line their private bank accounts and fulfill their personal needs for power. They operated Congress like an organized crime syndicate. They did this in violation of the lawand in violation of public ethics.
These assertions are proven, via hard facts and evidence, in thefiles contained in this repository. Additional confirming evidence from law enforcement, Congressional and insider sources is alsoavailable upon request.
Why does any of this matter?
Because many of us were lied to by our elected officials who then took our life savings and decades of work and put our money in their own pockets. Because many of us were in the offices of Nancy Pelosi, Debbie Wasserman and Dianne Feinstein and personally saw them engage in crimes to pad their own bank accounts at the expense of theirco-workers and the public. Because many of us knew Seth Rich, Gary D. Conley, Rajeev Motwani and the 45+ other people who had intimate knowledge of these crimes and then suddenly and mysteriously turned up dead. Because many of us saw these crimes committed, first-hand, and know these assertions to be fact. Because the rest of us are American voters and citizens who will never tolerate this kind ofcorruption and will never allow it to disappear from public memory or the history books! Because the arms of the law and public justice are ever lengthening and will eventually bring every criminal involved to justice!
AAA - FORWARD - PREAMBLE - READ FIRST = The top level summation.
AAA - THE SILICON VALLEY FELONY RICO CRIMES = The secondary level overview documents.
FOLDER - ATTACKED BY OBAMA AND HIS DNC MOBSTERS = Evidence relative to attacks and “hit jobs” on the public,reporters, whistle-blowers and competitors ordered and/or operated by the Clinton and Obama administrations as retribution, vendetta,revenge tactics.
FOLDER - CRIMINAL POLITICAL SLUSH FUNDS AT DEPT OF ENERGYAND CALIF AGENCIES = Evidence detailing the core crime effort wherein public officials, and their Silicon Valley politicalfinanciers, ran crony payola scams to acquire unjust gain at the expense of the public.
FOLDER - FAKE NEWS PROPAGANDA SITES, MEDIA ASSASSINS ANDELECTION RIGGING = Evidence detailing the manipulation of public news, social media public information and election results wherein the suspects sought to control political budgets, government expenditures and ideologies to the benefit of their personal profits and power-hungry narcissisms.
FOLDER - GAWKER AND GIZMODO MEDIA WORK AS HIRED ASSASSINSFOR THE DNC AND OBAMA = Evidence relative to attacks on the public, reporters, whistle-blowers and competitors ordered and/or operated by the Clinton and Obama administrations as retribution, vendetta, revenge tactics as deployed in a very specific set ofexample instances via the Gawker/Denton/Omidyar Cartel.
FOLDER - HOW YOU CAN FIGHT CORRUPTION = List and examples of proven counter-measures, in use by public-interest groups, to fight this kind of corruption.
FOLDER - INSTRUCTIONS FOR USERS = Instructions for public and agency members contributing to these evidence sets.
FOLDER - LIST OF OFFICIAL BIASES OF MEDIA ENTITIES = Evidence showing which reporters or media outlets will bias or hide this evidence in order to protect their corrupt owners and investors who may have had a hand in benefiting from this corruption. This will indicate who you can trust to help you and who will try to blockade, stone-wall or “media hit job” you.
FOLDER - NEWS VIDEOS PROVING THE CHARGES AND FACTS = News video evidence confirming the charges.
FOLDER - NEW TOPICS = What are the results of the exposure, interdictions and awareness of this corruption? Whatnew technologies, concepts, methods, social trends and efforts have been caused as secondary effects of this case?
FOLDER - POLITICAL HONEY-TRAPS AND FAKE DATES = Evidence showing the abuse of human interaction services to exploit political agendas. No human can resist the need for a date, flirting or sexual potential and political operatives used this fact forspying, database culling of voters and other mass digital public exploitation via “dating services”. How political operatives takeadvantage of basic human needs and exploit them for election rigging.
FOLDER - SILICON VALLEY CORRUPTION AND ABUSE OF THE PUBLIC = The financiers, technical operators and beneficiaries of these crimes were Silicon Valley oligarchs. What kind of people are they? Why do they all have a similar sociological, fraternity house, sociopath-like profile? What is the social echo-chamber that clones them into these kinds of people? Why are almost every one of themeventually caught in an abuse scandal?
FOLDER - THE ELON MUSK TESLA CORRUPTION CASES = Elon Musk was one of the largest financier, crony corruption beneficiaries of these crimes? Why did he spend hundreds of millions of dollars on self-promotion seeking to make himself an “icon”? How do only a handful of web “trolls” use “bots” and mass social media to hype his image? Which media cover-up his crimes? What are the specific illicit deeds he is charged with in this case?
FOLDER - THE GOOGLE INVESTIGATION = The evidence proving that Google engaged in a digital and White House staff coup in order to control public laws, policy, contracts, state and federal budgets and ideology. The abuse of CIA resources by Google, In-Q-Tel,Crowd Strike, New America Foundation and other rogue spy operations has led to the largest mass public abuse in history. These reports prove those assertions.
FOLDER - THE NEW INTERNET = Because it was Silicon Valley Oligarchs that manifested these crimes, the world has sought to work-around and/or identify their illicit abuses of the individual. These are the latest results of that blow-back.
FOLDER - THE SILICON SEX CULT = Silicon Valley oligarchs and certain major politicians have a “Harvey Weinstein/Anthony Weiner”-like affliction that causes them to have an uncontrollable devotion to deviant sex and the use of sexas a self-affirming abuse tool. They have been caught up in under-age sex scandals and clubs, or networks, devoted to sexual conquest, in a massively escalating series of horrific sex abuses. What is it about their social group that causes the interaction of Hollywood andSilicon Valley “elites” to adopt moral degradations and support politicians who are also drawn to such deviancies?
Join A Public Forensics Group and Help With The Peer-to-Peer LawEnforcement and Crowd-Sourced Sleuthing To Fight These Crimes. Please visit our peers at:
… or many more. To find a group to join use these keywords in www.duckduckgo.com: Armchair detective, citizen sleuths, P2P law, crowd sourced investigation, amateur detective, howto be a detective, investigative research, forensic text books, criminal investigation, forensic tips, peer to peer investigation orsimilar terms.
Demands for indictment, arrest and prosecution of the suspects havebeen sent to:
- The FBI
- The FEC
- The GAO
- The SEC
- The FTC
- The U.S. Auditor General
- The U.S. Inspector General
- The California Attorney General
- The New York Attorney General
- The San Francisco Police Department
- The New York Police Department
- The Palo Alto Police Department
- The U.S. Treasury Department Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN)
- The U.S. Senate Ethics Committee
- The U.S. Senate Intelligence Committee
- The U.S. Senate Judiciary subcommittee on Crime and Terrorism
- The Office of the Special Council
- The National Archives
This crime has been widely covered in the main stream news, in major TV documentaries (ie: 60Minutes: THE CLEANTECH CRASH) and hundreds of books, so it is not possible for any law enforcement entity to state that they do nowknow about it. Each entity has been informed that each other entity has been notified since 2007. These notices have been copied to the press and P2P groups in order to reduce cover-ups and denials and provide historical transparency.
Please help by-pass the cover-ups and corrupt media entity black-outsby re-posting and sending links to the files to other sites.
Please help make sure that every member of the public has thisinformation.
Please use torrent files, drawstring files, segmented zip files, mesh networks, P2P systems and other broad distribution technologies to re-post these files globally in order to inform the public.
Congress Gets Silicon Valley Cartel To Admit That They Rig Elections
By Jay Warner
Google, Twitter, Facebook and Congress had it out in Washington today. What the world heard is that these companies have built hundreds of tools that actually do affect billions of people.
We learned that Russian lobbyists only spent a few hundred thousand dollars buying ads but that the DNC and Hillary Clinton spent hundreds of millions of dollars buying ads and “media impressions” from them in order to manipulate public perceptions.
The Silicon Valley companies were cagey and evasive.
Sen. Al Franken (D-Minn.) took aim at Facebook.
“How did Facebook, which prides itself on being able to process billions of data points and instantly transform them into personal connections for its user[s] somehow not make the connection that electoral ads — paid for in rubles — were coming from Russia?" he said. "Those are two data points: American political ads and Russian money, rubles. How could you not connect those two dots?”
Franken, in his inquiry, exposed the fact that the Silicon Valley companies know exactly what all of of their data is doing but they hide the facts for the sake of profiteering.
The question that Google, Twitter, Facebook and Silicon Valley must now answer is:
“How much did Hillary Clinton, Elon Musk, Debbie Wasserman Schultz’s DNC and Barack Obama pay you each to rig election news and public perceptions?”
Facebook also wasn’t willing to offer much in the form of a definitive answer when Sen. Mazie Hirono (D-Hawaii) asked the company if it felt like content on its platform had an effect on the election. “In an election where a total of about 115,000 votes would have changed the outcome, can you say that the false and misleading propaganda people saw on your Facebook didn’t have an impact on the election?” Hirono asked. Stretch dodged in response. “We’re not well-positioned to judge why any one person or an entire electorate voted as it did,” he said, purposefully avoiding answering the question.
Facebook won’t say no to accepting election-related foreign money said Facebook’s executive. Facebook admitted that it can be bought by anybody, anywhere.
Not a single one of the three tech giants would commit to supporting Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.), Mark Warner (D-Va.) and John McCain (R-Ariz.)’s Honest Ads Act, which would require disclosures about political advertising on their platforms
By Brian Fung at the same time, exposed that Google opens, reads and studies every single document you post on Google Docs, no matter how personal or confidential it is.
Imagine you're working on a Google Doc when, seemingly out of nowhere, your ability to edit the online file gets revoked. What you see instead is an error message indicating that you've violated Google's terms of service.
For anyone who stores work in the cloud, suddenly being unable to access your data — especially due to a terms of service violation — may sound scary. And it's really happening to some people, according to reports on Twitter. Rachael Bale, a wildlife crime reporter for National Geographic, said Tuesday that a draft of her story was "frozen" by Google.
Has anyone had @googledocs lock you out of a doc before? My draft of a story about wildlife crime was just frozen for violating their TOS.
— Rachael Bale (@Rachael_Bale) October 31, 2017
Others have reported similar errors.
Tfw your finalizing a piece on E. Europe post-socialist parties in Google Drive and Google removes it because it's in violation of its ToS??
— Bhaskar Sunkara (@sunraysunray) October 31, 2017
In response to some of these reports, a Google employee tweeted that the team handling Google Docs was looking into the matter. Later Tuesday, Google said in a statement that it had "made a code push that incorrectly flagged a small percentage of Google Docs as abusive, which caused those documents to be automatically blocked. A fix is in place and all users should have full access to their docs."
Although the error appeared to be a technical glitch, the fact that Google is capable of identifying "bad" Google Docs at all is a reminder: Much of what you upload, receive or type to Google is monitored. While many people may be aware that Gmail scans your emails — for instance, so that its smart-reply feature can figure out what responses to suggest — this policy extends to other Google products, too.
"We collect information about the services that you use and how you use them, like when you watch a video on YouTube, visit a website that uses our advertising services, or view and interact with our ads and content," it says.
What does it mean when Google says "collect information"? This page says more:
"This includes information like your usage data and preferences, Gmail messages, G+ profile, photos, videos, browsing history, map searches, docs, or other Google-hosted content. Our automated systems analyze this information as it is sent and received and when it is stored."
Google explicitly refers to docs — albeit in a lower-case fashion — as an example of the type of content from which Google extracts information. I've asked Google for clarification on whether they actually read the contents of a person's Google Docs and will update if I get a response.
"This kind of monitoring is creepy," Bale tweeted. Google, clearly, loves to spy on the voters.
Could Google, Facebook and Twitter be any bigger liars?
Tech Giants Are Biggest Threat Facing Trump Supporters
By Hal Lambert|
Illustration by Ben Garrison
After tech giants testified before Congress on Tuesday, Americans should realize the richest and most powerful U.S. companies wield power and influence in a way not seen since the railroad tycoons and John D. Rockefeller’s Standard Oil. Their ability to affect society and crush any potential competitors is unchallenged.
Facebook, Amazon, Google, and Apple have a combined market value of $2.6 trillion, which is larger than the entire economy of the United Kingdom. Executives and employees of those companies are also very large donors to the Democrat Party and left-wing causes. They all have vocal Democrats at the helm.
Today’s tech companies are even more powerful than their historical monopoly predecessors because of one key component: data. The information derived from our data is now king in everything from selling a product to shaping the news to—as we are now seeing—electing a president.
The Left is well aware of this power. After losing to President Trump, they are determined to shut down conservatives and not lose again.
Google just announced it would partner with the George Soros-backed Poynter Institute to provide “fact-checking” for its search functions. In other words, Google and Soros (by proxy) will determine what is factual and whether it will appear in search results. This suppression of views is occurring even as Google is being sued by conservative radio host Dennis Prager over censorship of his Prager University educational videos.
In other not-fake news:
Apple recently removed a pro-life prayer app from its App Store after left-wing bloggers complained about it.
Amazon admitted to taking down negative reviews of Hillary Clinton’s book.
Former Facebook employees admitted they were instructed to remove positive news stories that were trending about conservatives to reduce their reach.
And let’s not forget Twitter, which has now openly set itself up as the arbiter of acceptable speech. Twitter recently removed U.S. Rep. Marsha Blackburn’s video announcing her candidacy for the U.S. Senate because it expressed her pro-life position. After considerable backlash, Twitter relented and reinstated the Tennessee Republican’s ad.
These companies are so big and powerful that they have no fear of blatantly censoring conservative speech—they will even censor Blackburn, who chairs the communications and technology subcommittee in the House of Representatives! Just imagine how they can use opaque computer algorithms and terabytes of data to exploit the views of the average person.
It is important to recognize that these companies can do this because they have special protections not afforded other industries. In 1996, to spur growth during the early years of the Internet, Congress passed Section 230 of the Communication Decency Act to protect “interactive computer services” from lawsuits based on what users say or do on their systems. Section 230 also immunizes Internet companies from liability for removing content they deem “objectionable,” even if it is constitutionally protected content.
With the protections of Section 230 of the Community Decency Act, Silicon Valley executives can undermine the First Amendment rights of all Americans with no accountability.
Helping foster the growth and economic development of the Internet with particular—and extraordinary—legal protections might have made sense in the 1990s. In 2017, however, extraordinarily wealthy and powerful companies are abusing those particular provisions. Congress never intended to give a handful of Silicon Valley executives the keys to the First Amendment when it adopted Section 230.
Technology companies cannot simultaneously claim special legal status and pose as speech arbiters censoring conservative views. They are run by some of the most vocal left-wing executives that are actively pushing their ideology on the country. Allowing these same companies to silence opposing views is dangerous.
The most immediate legislative solution would be to remove the legal protections of Section 230 should an “interactive computer service” be found to practice viewpoint discrimination. Opening these companies to full legal liability for censorship is essential to ensure Americans keep free speech rights.
It is time for Congress to act to protect the First Amendment and the values fundamental to the republic.
If you've been paying attention the last week or so there's been some pretty convincingHookTube real world examples of facebook's atrocious data mining activities. The way that they may be able to use this data has is raising some serious red flags for me and I think it warrants an investigation of massive proportions.
It's pretty clear that at some point along the assembly line real people are coming in contact with raw data. Who specifically has access to this data and to what extent are they personally allowed to analyze it? What makes them qualified to handle it? Are they able to access it on demand? Do advertisers have access to raw data or just compiled statistics? Are they being compiled by people or computers? Are these people's financials being monitored for compliance with federal law?
If real people do have access to data on demand, is access being administered through a secure facility? aka Can a fresh college grad walk out with a thumb drive full of intel to the highest bidder?
Picture this: Mr. ______ - CEO of [insert dod contractor] might be smart enough not to have facebook on his phone but his daughter might not be. Visitors to his home might not be.
Depending on the volume of an individuals voice, facebook could have access to some seriously sensitive information. If someone was able to analyze enough of the data that they fully admit to gathering, and they learned information that they believed to be sensitive in nature what happens? Does it go in some vault at the bottom of silicon valley or was our national security just breached?
Anticompetitive practices by Google and Facebook made foreign election interferencepossible.
Illustration: Chad Crowe
This week some of America’s most beloved internet companies will followthe footsteps of Big Tobacco and Wall Street in a dreaded rite of passage: the Capitol Hill perp walk. The top lawyers for Google,Facebook and Twitter will try their best to explain to the Senate Intelligence Committeehow misinformation spread through their platforms in the months leading up to the 2016 election.
They are also likely to argue that the best response to their platforms’negligence is not government regulation. If Google and Facebook are lucky, the result will be the passage of the bipartisan Honest AdsAct, which would merely require buyers of online political advertisements to reveal their identities. This is a necessary moveto increase transparency, but it is not sufficient to protect the electorate from manipulation.
Focusing on the narrow question of online advertising will only distractlawmakers from the true problem: In the absence of rigorous antitrust enforcement, the consumer internet has become too concentrated in afew dominant companies, creating easy targets for bad actors.
There is a reason Congress did not have to investigate foreign meddlingafter the 2008 or 2012 elections. Back then the internet was still a diverse, decentralized network. Anyone could create a website or blogto satisfy the demand for popular or niche content. This older form of online community building has largely been supplanted by toolsprovided by the dominant players. Facebook Groups allows people to create communities without requiring much technical skill. It does,however, require a Facebook account, meaning participants have no choice but to share their identity and their data. Today, manyinternet services are inaccessible unless you have joined Facebook’s “community” of two billion users.
Google used to be the engine that drove the open web. In a 2004 interview,co-founder Larry Page denounced powerful intermediaries on the internet, saying that “we want you to come to Google and quicklyfind what you want. Then we’re happy to send you to the other sites. In fact, that’s the point. The portal strategy tries to ownall of the information.”
Over time, Google’s philosophy shifted in the opposite direction, makingthe internet less open and pluralistic than even a few years ago. Now people are nudged to stay on Google.com. The company has committed topresenting a single “answer” to every inquiry, even ones that are subjective opinions based on sparse Google-owned content, like “bestpediatrician NYC.” The result has been a decline of traffic to swaths of the web.
Facebook’s walled garden is even more stringent, requiring all third-partycontent accessed from its app to run through its frame. As web activity is drawn within the confines of these two tech giants, so isthe revenue that follows.
Of every new dollar spent in online advertising last year, Google andFacebook captured 99 cents. Yet neither company has ever faced serious antitrust scrutiny in the U.S. A fleeting opportunity tofoster competition came in 2011, when the Federal Trade Commission opened an investigation into Google’s conduct. But the FTC closedthe case in 2013 without taking meaningful action.
Regulators ostensibly decided to settle after being persuaded the marketplacewas adequately competitive, but the assumptions baked into their conclusion have not aged well. When the investigation was begun in2011, smartphones were a nascent product and Google’s market share of internet search was 66%. Today, most search traffic has migrated to smartphones—nearly 4 in5 Americans own one—where Google has 97% market share.
The economics have also changed for internet startups hoping to reinventthe web. Early-stage capital has dried up, dropping more than 40% since 2015, as investors have become pessimistic that any new Googlesand Facebooks will ever be capable of disrupting the deeply entrenched incumbents.
The internet has turned into a pair of walled gardens, offering economiesof scale for attackers. Ad dollars from Google products like YouTube and AdSense provide economic incentives to “content farms” thatpeddle misleading or outright false news. Russia Today, Moscow’s official English-language television network, is a “premiumpartner” on YouTube, entitling it to higher shares of revenue from advertisements sold by Google. A quick estimate—multiplyingstandard rates of revenue-sharing by RT’s view counts—suggests Google could be sending the Russians seven-figure annual payouts.Facebook has already identified at least $100,000 spent by Russians on its platform to influence voters. Paid ads have the ability toamplify the virality of the fake content. This suggests a feedback loop optimized for mischief: monetize on Google, and spend theproceeds to propagandize on Facebook.
Policy makers can solve this problem by compelling large information firmsto embrace interoperability. Instead of trying to own everything, Google could power its local searches with services like TripAdvisor , ZocDoc and Yelp . This would dilute Google’s position as an advertising monopolyand help smaller players to compete. Facebook could allow users to export their full social graph, which would allow them to bargain forbetter terms from new social startups. Such efforts would diffuse information once again across the web, ensuring that future attemptsat malfeasance cannot scale.
For the most egregious examples of anticompetitive conduct by a dominantinternet firm, antitrust enforcers should fight to spin off newer business lines that leverage the legacy platform. If regulators findthat Facebook is using its social data to foreclose competing messaging apps, they should consider structurally separating thecompany’s social and messaging functions. Instead of steering users to its house products, Google should rely on its merit-basedalgorithms to power services like local search.
Requiring transparency for political advertising online is a good step, but itisn’t enough. Until the structural problems in the technology markets are addressed, American voters will continue to consumeinformation from a pair of barrels—Google and Facebook—in which we are much easier to shoot.
E&E Legal Forced to Sue California Attorney General for Failureto Release Public Records Already Shared with Green Activists Involving Their Inappropriate Lobbying Practices
Sacramento, CA – The Energy & Environment Legal Institute (E&ELegal) has filed suit under California's Public Records Act (PRA) against the state's Attorney General Xavier Becerraa for withholdingall but one email showing or mentioning its work with partisan and environmentalist activists to use law enforcement in going afteropponents of the "climate" political agenda". Under Kamala Harris, California's OAG had participated in thesince-collapsed "Climate-RICO" cabal organized by New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman, but kept its involvementoff-screen. The new AG, Becerra, has since suggested that he has indeed been working with activists, correspondence to, from ordiscussing which E&E Legal sought in its PRA request.
Specifically, in July, E&E Legal requested records "concerningthe Office of Attorney General’s work with private outside parties to pursue, as targets of investigation, perceived opponents of apolitical and policy agenda shared by the Attorney General and these outside parties." The complaint specifies the public recordssought, in the form of correspondence that was sent to, or received from, the Attorney General, or members of his Executive Office, andcertain named parties or entities of interest because of their involvement in the AG Climate RICO scandal beginning roughlysix-months prior to the request:
"[C]opies of any email correspondence dated between February 1,2017 and the date you process this request, a) which correspondence was sent from or to (including also as cc: or bcc:) Attorney GeneralBecerra at any address, or members of the Executive Unit of the Attorney General’s Office (including also as cc: or bcc:) and b)which correspondence is also to or from (including also as cc: or bcc:), or which uses or mentions, any of the following individuals,entities, or email domains:
Erin Suhr (an employee of Fahr LLC)
Pawa (including but not limited to mentioning in, e.g.,email@example.com)
Frumhoff (including but not limited to mentioning in, e.g.,PFrumhoff@ucsusa.org)
Any email address that includes @fahrllc.com"
The OAG initially delayed its response, and then produced only asingle document with little relevance to what E&E Legal sought. OAG withheld all other potentially responsive records claiming therecords were 'privileged.' On the basis of E&E Legal's experience with other "Climate-RICO" AGs, as well asinformation and belief, E&E asserts this is likely baseless given the request encompasses documents shared with outside parties, andwork with private, third-party political activists. No such privileges should apply to these records, unless AG Becerra willclaim, as has NY's Schneiderman however implausibly, that he has 'deputized' partisan activists, donors and environmental pressuregroups.
"As a California citizen and independent journalist, I haveseen this act many times with the state government and their chosen third-party groups," said investigative journalist Katy Grimes,an E&E Legal Senior Media fellow and co-petitioner on the suit. "We ask the Court to confirm that the blindfold on Lady Justicereflects how our laws are to be applied equally to all citizens and groups, and not a tool for lobbying by those that elected officialsdeem sufficiently politically-correct."
In addition to California, E&E Legal is embroiled in similarlawsuits in New York and Vermont, home of the two co-ringleaders of the AG Climate-RICO scheme. The effort entailed a gathering ofnearly twenty state-attorneys general, who were joined at their public announcement by climate "investor" Al Gore, vowingto use every legal tool at their disposal to shut down dissent on the 'climate change' issue and to seek a tobacco-style global settlementfrom ExxonMobil and other fossil-fuel companies. E&E Legal's public record requests and subsequent litigation in Vermont and NewYork, and other states, exposed this scandal, leading to most of the attorneys general to flee from the climate crusade.
"Once again we find ourselves having to litigate a routinepublic records request with a state's attorney general," said E&E Legal President Craig Richardson. "Apparently whenthese attorney generals are required to follow the same laws they are elected to enforce, they hide behind legal smokescreens andstonewalls."
About E&E Legal
The Energy & Environment Legal Institute (E&E Legal) is a501(c)(3) organization engaged in strategic litigation, policy research, and public education on important energy and environmentalissues. Primarily through its petition litigation and transparency practice areas, E&E Legal seeks to correct onerous federal andstate policies that hinder the economy, increase the cost of energy, eliminate jobs, and do little or nothing to improve the environment.
E&E Legal periodically disseminates press releases, reports, andother important information to those who signed-up or to those we believe would be interested in receiving.
California’s Unholy Trinity Of Political Whores Raped Their Constituents and Rigged The Stock Market For Personal Green Cash Profiteering
By Dawn Brown
Politician’s Kamala Harris, Dianne Feinstein and Nancy Pelosi exchanged emails and phone calls with the New York attorney general’s office, Tom Steyer’s office and various “Green ANTIFA” organizers in order to create a fake news tsunami about a climate crisis which they had manufactured in order to line their own bank vaults.
A lawsuit filed suit under California's Public Records Act (PRA) against the state's Attorney General Xavier Becerraa for withholding all but one email showing or mentioning its work with partisan and environmentalist activists to use law enforcement in going after opponents of the "climate" political agenda". Under Kamala Harris, California's OAG had participated in the since-collapsed "Climate-RICO" cabal organized by New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman, but kept its involvement off-screen. The new AG, Becerra, has since suggested that he has indeed been working with Green ANTIFA activists.
Specifically, in July, E&E Legal requested records "concerning the Office of Attorney General’s work with private outside parties to pursue, as targets of investigation, perceived opponents of a political and policy agenda shared by the Attorney General and these outside parties." The complaint specifies the public records sought, in the form of correspondence that was sent to, or received from, the Attorney General, or members of his Executive Office, and certain named parties or entities of interest because of their involvement in the AG Climate RICO scandal beginning roughly six-months prior to the request:
Requests have included those between Attorney General Becerra at any address, or members of the Executive Unit of the Attorney General’s Office (including also as cc: or bcc:) and b) which correspondence is also to or from (including also as cc: or bcc:), or which uses or mentions, any of the following individuals, entities, or email domains: Richard Graves, Matthew Palevsky, Tom Matzzie, Ethical Electric, Brian Arbogast, Lee Wasserman, RL Miller, Stephen Heintz, Erin Suhr (an employee of Fahr LLC), Pawa (including but not limited to mentioning in, e.g., firstname.lastname@example.org)., Frumhoff (including but not limited to mentioning in, e.g., Pfrumhoff@ucsusa.org),and any email address that includes @fahrllc.com"
The OAG initially delayed its response, and then produced only a single document with little relevance to what E&E Legal sought. OAG withheld all other potentially responsive records claiming the records were 'privileged.' On the basis of E&E Legal's experience with other "Climate-RICO" AGs, as well as information and belief, E&E asserts this is likely baseless given the request encompasses documents shared with outside parties, and work with private, third-party political activists. No such privileges should apply to these records, unless AG Becerra will claim, as has NY's Schneiderman however implausibly, that he has 'deputized' partisan activists, donors and environmental pressure groups.
"As a California citizen and independent journalist, I have seen this act many times with the state government and their chosen third-party groups," said investigative journalist Katy Grimes, an E&E Legal Senior Media fellow and co-petitioner on the suit. "We ask the Court to confirm that the blindfold on Lady Justice reflects how our laws are to be applied equally to all citizens and groups, and not a tool for lobbying by those that elected officials deem sufficiently politically-correct."
In addition to California, E&E Legal is embroiled in similar lawsuits in New York and Vermont, home of the two co-ringleaders of the AG Climate-RICO scheme. The effort entailed a gathering of nearly twenty state-attorneys general, who were joined at their public announcement by climate "investor" Al Gore, vowing to use every legal tool at their disposal to shut down dissent on the 'climate change' issue and to seek a tobacco-style global settlement from ExxonMobil and other fossil-fuel companies. E&E Legal's public record requests and subsequent litigation in Vermont and New York, and other states, exposed this scandal, leading to most of the attorneys general to flee from the climate crusade.
Other lawsuits seek the emails between California State officials and Farallon Capital, Tom Steyer, Margaret Sullivan, John Podesta, Tony Podesta, Eric Schmidt, Vinod Khosla, Larry Page, Steve Westly, Steve Spinner, Alison Spinner, Steven Chu, Matt Rogers, Ken Alex and others who acquired massive profits by exploiting taxpayers.
Politician’s Kamala Harris, Dianne Feinstein and Nancy Pelosi were
“… instrumental, operational managers of the scheme in which they were fully aware of the illegal and illicit nature of their actions...” claims one filing by a citizen’s group. “These politicians were paid in search engine stock and internet news manipulation as well as other unsavory transfers of unjust gain...” the charges go on to detail.
This explains why California politicians hate Trump: Because he is catching them doing crimes!
Published by Judicial Watch
Hosted by the "Taxed Enough Already" Caucus
Original video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FPGfVZLzqXM
BACKGROUND: A Democratic IT staffer named Imran Awan was arrested this past July on charges of bank fraud. He was employed with Debbie Wasserman Shultz and other congressional members. He is also a suspect in a cybersecurity investigation, having been banned from congressional networks in February.
In addition, his relatives, also government IT employees, are currently being investigated for alleged involvement in defrauding the federal government as well as compromising sensitive information from congressional servers.
This event featured:
Congressman Louie Gohmert, TX-01
Congressman Jim Jordan, OH-04
Congressman Scott Perry, PA-04
Congressman Ron DeSantis FL-06
Congressman Steve King IA-04
With special guests:
Tom Fitton, President, Judicial Watch
Luke Rosiak, Reporter, Daily Caller News Foundation
Patrick Sowers, Systems Administrator, House of Representatives
Luke Rosiak, an investigative reporter from "The Daily Caller," broke the story and is continuing to cover any new developments. To get up to speed on the scandal, click here to read his coverage: http://dailycaller.com/author/luke-rosiak/
Keep up with Judicial Watch:
Donate today! ►https://www.judicialwatch.org/donate/thank-youtube/
Sign up for the JWTV Club ► http://subscribe.judicialwatch.org/subscription/join-the-video-club
Check out our website ► http://www.judicialwatch.org
"Like" us on Facebook ► http://www.facebook.com/JudicialWatch
Follow us on Twitter ► http://twitter.com/JudicialWatch
Subscribe to our YouTube channel ►https://www.youtube.com/user/JudicialWatch/featured?view_as=public