In another odd twist-of-fate, and fortuitous timing, the attack tactics, used against Plaintiff, were just disclosed in feature news articles, as those tactics were used, in a “back-at-’ya” to attack one of the Financiers of the government operated attacks on Plaintiff. While it may be difficult for the Court to comprehend complex spy agency attack tactics, as they are not everyday crimes previously heard in court, a marvelous opportunity to explain, via real-world example, has suddenly emerged. This news coverage details the life on one of the kinds of people, like: Patrick George, Adrian Covert, John Hermann, Gabrial Darbyshire, Nick Cook, Nicholas Guido Denton, et al, that were hired to try to “kill” Plaintiff. We hope the Court will comply with the requests to subpoena these people before the Jury, in order to explain who hired and commanded them. Can a handful of people sell their services as “cyber assassins”, “kill” people, and get away with it? Let’s take a look:

Government executives own the companies of Elon Musk and exchange Quid Pro Quo payola. News reports and SEC investigations in the last few days have revealed the following:

Published in REVOLVER MAGAZINE, May 24, 2022:

“… Judging from the critical reactions from journalists, NGOs and Democrat politicians, you’d think the man were attempting to invade Poland rather than remove censorship on a social media platform. Of all the regime scribblers and scribes flooding the internet with glorified blog posts on the awfulness of Elon Musk’s Twitter bid, a piece by Renée DiResta published in the Atlantic stands out from the rest — not because of its force of argument, but because of the largely forgotten scandal behind its author.

Like the now disgraced and jobless Nina Jankowicz, DiResta is a career-girl of the Disinformation Industry — a constellation of NATO and US State Department-funded NGOs and civil society groups that censor inconvenient truths, facts and narratives under the guise of protecting the public from so-called “disinformation.” And like Nina Jankowicz, it turns out that DiResta’s name is closely associated with one of the most explosive and aggressively covered-up influence operations of the century.

Renée DiResta — Disinformation Industry Operative. With that teaser in place, let’s start at the beginning with DiResta’s piece on Musk and Twitter. We invite the impatient reader to scroll down to DiResta’s scandal — but it’s worth the wait for those with more patience. Like most well-trained operatives of the disinformation industry, Renée is smart enough to couch her defense of Twitter’s censorship in layers of obfuscatory verbiage and heavily qualified lip service to the importance of free-expression. We should remember that even the Department of Homeland Security assured us in a hilarious “fact sheet” that its ill-fated Disinformation Governance Board is set up to defend free speech.

But anything more than a cursory look at Diresta’s “concerned” reaction to Musk and his cadre of “free-speech absolutists” completely betrays her true agenda. Here she is scribbling away in the Atlantic (emphasis ours):

The idea of Twitter as the “global town square” was articulated by then-CEO Dick Costolo in 2013. He likened it to something from ancient Athens:

Thousands of years ago in the Greek Agora, that’s where you went to find out what was going on and talk about it, right? You came and talked about what was going on in your part of the village, and I came and talked about what was going on in mine, and the politician was there, and we listened to the issues of the day, and a musician was there and a preacher was there, et cetera, and it was multidirectional and it was unfiltered, and it was inside out, meaning the news was coming from the people it was happening to, not some observer.

The unintended consequences of the platform that Jack Dorsey and his co-founders built, however, came into rather stark relief as it grew; a variety of unfortunate things that happen when humans engage with humans happened. On Twitter, however, these problems reached unprecedented heights via unfettered virality and velocity. The Islamic State made a home on the platform; harassment mobs proliferated; state actors and conspiracy theorists alike recognized that Twitter was a remarkable venue for propagandizing, unmediated, to millions. Public opinion began to shift against the hands-off approach. Government regulators began to pay attention.

How could the company maximize freedom of expression while minimizing the unique harms that the new communication infrastructure had enabled? A content-moderation regime emerged. Over the next seven years, its rules and practices would evolve in response to new and novel challenges: taking down terrorist propaganda, minimizing bad information during a pandemic, handling a litany of rumors and lies about election theft.

Let’s put aside DiResta’s daft use of the passive voice for a moment and take a second to appreciate how radical this passage is. The author just lumped in terrorist propaganda — specifically, ISIS propaganda — with Covid skepticism and skepticism pertaining to election integrity. Given that this is the Regime’s perspective, it is much easier to understand not only why something like the Disinformation Governance Board would exist in the first place, but why it would be housed within the Department of Homeland Security — one of the largest national security bureaucracies set up in the aftermath of 9/11 to protect the nation from terrorism.

If Covid skeptics, election skeptics, and by extension nearly half of America can be lumped in with ISIS on the basis of their political beliefs, it makes sense that the national security bureaucracy would be turned inward in order to crush the ISIS-level national security threat of Americans who oppose vaccine mandates or, God forbid, don’t think the 2020 election was fair. As we pointed out in earlier pieces, the Disinformation Industry is assigned to carry out the information warfare component of this domestic war on terror — to silence important speech on important matters central to democratic deliberation under the guise of “Defending Democracy against Disinformation.”

Renée, in her piece, is desperate to protect the Regime and its disinformation commissars from the supposed ISIS-level threat of free-speech on Twitter. She goes on to attack Musk and his “free speech absolutists” and to reject the notion of a “digital public square” in its entirety (emphasis ours):

Since the advent of more active content moderation on Twitter and other online platforms, the prototypical public square has been retconned—particularly by Musk’s supporters in the United States—into a haven for absolute free speech. This is not accurate. The real public square has always been moderated. Public-nuisance laws and noise ordinances have long placed restrictions on the time, place, and manner of expression protected by the First Amendment. Try to get a group of 100 ideological allies together to follow someone around a public park in the center of town shrieking at them, and see how that plays out.

Of course this is incredibly disingenuous. Noise ordinances and “public nuisance laws” simply do not analogize to narrative-level censorship on Covid, election results, and other such issues on social media.

Tellingly, in an earlier (and less guarded) piece for the Atlantic, DiResta not only encourages narrative-level political censorship on social media, she also claims that there is no political bias to social media censorship practices. DiResta insists that since misinformation overwhelmingly comes from the political right, this gives the false appearance that social media companies are biased against the right when they censor misinformation. Read the following passage and behold the twisted logic of a modern day commissar (emphasis ours):

The distinct behavior of serial spreaders of misinformation should theoretically make them easy for Facebook or Twitter to identify. Platforms that place warning labels on false or misleading content could penalize accounts that repeatedly create it; after an account earned a certain number of strikes, the platform’s algorithms could suspend it or limit users’ ability to share its posts. But platforms also want to appear politically neutral. Inconveniently for them, our research found that although some election-related misinformation circulated on the left, the pattern of the same accounts repeatedly spreading false or misleading claims about voting, or about the legitimacy of the election itself, occurred almost exclusively among pro-Trump influencers, QAnon boosters, and other outlets on the right. We were not the only ones to observe this; researchers at Harvard described the former president and the right-wing media as driving a “disinformation campaign” around mail-in voter fraud during the 2020 election; the researchers’ prior work had meticulously detailed a “propaganda feedback loop” within the closely linked right-wing media ecosystem.

[The Atlantic]

In this piece we see reference to the same narratives, election integrity and Covid skepticism, that DiResta previously lumped in with ISIS and terrorism, perpetrated by vaguely defined alleged malefactors like “QAnon boosters” (whatever that is) and, Heaven forfend, “pro-Trump influencers.” DiResta backs up her shocking claim, that misinformation is essentially a right-wing problem, with a Harvard study. Without wasting too much of our time on it, we dug up the specific Harvard study DiResta references.

Immediately we note that the Harvard study DiResta cites in support of her remarkable claim that misinformation is exclusively a right-wing problem is funded by George Soros’ Open Society Institute, among other similar “philanthropic” organizations. Note the bottom footnote in the first page of the study, titled “Mail-In Voter Fraud: Anatomy of a Disinformation Campaign”:

Apart from the farce of such a study being funded by George Soros, among other similar figures, there’s a very important passage buried in the study that inadvertently exposes the entire ulterior purpose of the Disinformation Industry. Here’s a transcript of the relevant passage:

Our results are based on analyzing over 55 thousand online media stories, five million tweets, and 75 thousand posts on public Facebook pages garnering millions of engagements. They are consistent with our findings about the American political media ecosystem from 2015-2018, published in Network Propaganda, in which we found that Fox News and Donald Trump’s own campaign were far more influential in spreading false beliefs than Russian trolls or Facebook clickbait artists.

Despite all the posturing about “Russia”, we see that the fight against disinformation was never really about addressing an alleged threat of foreign influence. According to the Disinformation Industrial-Complex, Donald Trump is a bigger purveyor of “false beliefs” than Russia, and therefore, by implication, Trump and his supporters deserve to be identified, silenced, and destroyed in much the same way a foreign disinformation threat would be. It is perhaps not surprising then that DiResta would so cavalierly respond to Trump being banned from his main communications platform while a sitting President of the United States:

So many folks spent the last day asking “What if Twitter bans Trump?”

“My prediction was that the obvious happens – on social, he creates a Parler account (I personally think the frog platform is prob still a bridge too far), but that he also just leverages OANN/Newsmax.”

— Renee DiResta (@noUpside) January 8, 2021

Of course, DiResta’s remark about Parler turned out to be insufficiently optimistic from the Disinformation censor’s point of view. Parler went dark just days after Trump’s Twitter ban after Amazon Web Services famously pulled the plug on them.

As we promised the reader in our introduction, the story of Renée DiResta is far more scandalous than a hypocritical disinformation operative calling for mass censorship. Readers will recall that Nina Jankowicz’ name came up in a major leak as an associate of the Integrity Initiative, a NATO, US State Department, UK government-funded influence operation that secretly meddled in the political affairs of NATO Democracies. While we don’t know whether DiResta was associated with the Integrity Initiative, she was involved in something equally if not more scandalous.

DiResta’s Dark Alabama Secret

Before DiResta was complaining about the threat of Elon Musk’s “free speech absolutism” in the pages of the Atlantic, she worked (among other things) as a research director for a cyber security firm called New Knowledge.

New Knowledge’s purpose was to study the spread of disinformation, “malign narratives” and Russian influence operations. In her capacity as Research Director for New Knowledge, DiResta submitted written testimony to the US Senate drawing attention to the danger of such Russian disinformation and influence operations, including the alleged Russian “troll farm” Internet Research Agency — which every self-respecting disinformation operative knows to puff up as the most malign and consequential political influence operation in modern history.

But there is one very important secretive, malign influence operation that Renée DiResta failed to disclose to the Senate. This influence operation was conducted by her own employer, New Knowledge, to influence the outcome of the 2017 Alabama special Senate contest between populist Roy Moore and Doug Jones. The details of the influence operation are even more scandalous. In what even the head of New Knowledge described as a “false flag” operation, New Knowledge conducted a secret influence operation to make it look like populist candidate Roy Moore was the beneficiary of a secret Russian influence operation!

The New York Times of all places broke the story of this remarkable and now-forgotten scandal:

As Russia’s online election machinations came to light last year, a group of Democratic tech experts decided to try out similarly deceptive tactics in the fiercely contested Alabama Senate race, according to people familiar with the effort and a report on its results.

The secret project, carried out on Facebook and Twitter, was likely too small to have a significant effect on the race, in which the Democratic candidate it was designed to help, Doug Jones, edged out the Republican, Roy S. Moore. But it was a sign that American political operatives of both parties have paid close attention to the Russian methods, which some fear may come to taint elections in the United States.

One participant in the Alabama project, Jonathon Morgan, is the chief executive of New Knowledge, a small cyber security firm that wrote a scathing account of Russia’s social media operations in the 2016 election that was released this week by the Senate Intelligence Committee.

An internal report on the Alabama effort, obtained by The New York Times, says explicitly that it “experimented with many of the tactics now understood to have influenced the 2016 elections.”

The project’s operators created a Facebook page on which they posed as conservative Alabamians, using it to try to divide Republicans and even to endorse a write-in candidate to draw votes from Mr. Moore. It involved a scheme to link the Moore campaign to thousands of Russian accounts that suddenly began following the Republican candidate on Twitter, a development that drew national media attention.

“We orchestrated an elaborate ‘false flag’ operation that planted the idea that the Moore campaign was amplified on social media by a Russian botnet,” the report says.

Mr. Morgan said in an interview that the Russian botnet ruse “does not ring a bell,” adding that others had worked on the effort and had written the report. He said he saw the project as “a small experiment” designed to explore how certain online tactics worked, not to affect the election.

Mr. Morgan said he could not account for the claims in the report that the project sought to “enrage and energize Democrats” and “depress turnout” among Republicans, partly by emphasizing accusations that Mr. Moore had pursued teenage girls when he was a prosecutor in his 30s.

“The research project was intended to help us understand how these kind of campaigns operated,” said Mr. Morgan. “We thought it was useful to work in the context of a real election but design it to have almost no impact.”

[New York Times]

The Times obtained a statement from DiResta, who acknowledged her role in the influence operation in a heavily finessed fashion:

Mr. Morgan reached out at the time to Renée DiResta, who would later join New Knowledge and was lead author of the report on Russian social media operations released this week.

“I know there were people who believed the Democrats needed to fight fire with fire,” Ms. DiResta said, adding that she disagreed. “It was absolutely chatter going around the party.”

But she said Mr. Morgan simply asked her for suggestions of online tactics worth testing. “My understanding was that they were going to investigate to what extent they could grow audiences for Facebook pages using sensational news,” she said.

So let’s get this straight: Renée DiResta, who makes a living “researching” so-called Russian disinformation and influence operations, and who testified before the Senate regarding such, was caught red-handed acting as an advisor, if not participant, to an influence operation designed to discredit an American politician by planting false stories that he’s a beneficiary of a Russian influence operation! Rather than bow her head in shame and find a new career (perhaps joining disgraced Nina Jankowicz’s wizard rock band), DiResta shrugs it off and goes on to work in a senior role for the company most closely associated with the influence operation in which she played a part.

What’s still more remarkable is the attempt of not only New Knowledge’s executive director, but the New York Times itself to minimize this scandal on account of the allegedly “minimal” impact it had on the Alabama Senate election (emphasis ours):

“The research project was intended to help us understand how these kind of campaigns operated,” said Mr. Morgan. “We thought it was useful to work in the context of a real election but design it to have almost no impact.”

The project had a budget of just $100,000, in a race that cost approximately $51 million, including the primaries, according to Federal Election Commission records.

Interesting argument. About that infamous Internet Research Agency “Russian troll farm” that was the basis of the entire Mueller report and the entire Democrat party and regime media howling non-stop about Russia — it spent a grand total of $46k on Facebook ads in the 2016 election.

Remarkably, this means that the disinformation group Renée DiResta worked for spent more money on its false flag operation, which involved falsely framing a US senate candidate as a beneficiary of Russian influence operation, than the original Russian troll farm which is the basis for the whole Disinformation Industry scam in the first place!

The exposure of the Alabama influence operation was so egregious that more careful operatives in the Disinformation Industry took notice and began to do damage control.

Two leading figures in the Disinformation Industry directly attacked and condemned the Alabama “false flag” influence operation in which DiResta participated.

In a panel discussion titled “Disinformation in Social Media as a Threat to Democratic Institutions”, Disinformation Industry operative Alina Polyakova brought attention to the Alabama operation as an example of “Russian-style disinformation tactics” being used domestically by US operatives and organizations:

Partial transcript:

This firm, which was actually given a contract by Senate Intelligent Committee to write a major report on IRA (the Russian troll farm)… actually used the same techniques that the Russians used to try to shift the elections in the special senatorial elections in Alabama last year. What they did is they set up fake Russian accounts, fake Russian trolls, fake Russian bots, to make it seem like the Russians were supporting the Republican candidate (Roy Moore)…

Renée DiResta’s Alabama “false flag” was so embarrassing to the Disinformation Industry that Alina Polyakova’s colleague, Ambassador Daniel Fried (also a high-level operative of the Disinformation Industry), felt compelled to pile on the condemnation still more forcefully:

Partial transcript:

That awful example of an American group creating a false example of Russian disinformation campaign in the Alabama election reminds me, should remind us all… the temptation of evil is in front of every person.

I hope that this example has become so scandalous and discredited that no one dares do it again.

Ambassador Daniel Fried and his colleague Alina Polyakova are as high ranked as it gets within the Disinformation Industry hierarchy. Dan Fried is also a former senior level official in the State Department as Assistant Secretary of European and Eurasian affairs. According to his bio at the Atlantic Council (the NATO, US State Department-funded NGO where he is now a Distinguished Fellow), Fried was both a major figure in crafting the policy of NATO expansion and a key architect of US sanctions policy against Russia.

The fact that one of the architects of both NATO expansion and our sanctions policy toward Russia should also be one of the key players in pushing Social Media companies to address the threat of “disinformation” is a remarkable fact in its own right. Leaving that aside, for now, one would think that such strong condemnation of DiResta’s Alabama operation from such a high-level player in the Disinformation Industry would have some consequences for DiResta.

In fact, the opposite is the case. Being a disinformation operative evidently means never having to say you’re sorry.

Despite Ambassador Dan Fried’s performative condemnation of DiResta’s Alabama operation, he saw fit to approvingly cite her as an authority in his 2020 publication (co-authored with Alina Polakova) “Democratic Offense Against Disinformation.”

Perhaps even more remarkable is the fact that DiResta’s work is cited in an official Department of Homeland Security memo on “combatting targeted disinformation campaigns.”

It is not too surprising that the Department of Homeland Security would cite someone like DiResta, who is known to have participated in a targeted disinformation campaign, in a DHS document on targeted disinformation campaigns. As Revolver News recently reported, Nina Jankowicz, the one-time nominee to be the head of the DHS’ ill-fated Disinformation Governance Board, appeared in a major leak of internal documents belonging to the Integrity Initiative, a NATO and US State Department-funded group that conducted covert campaigns on Twitter to meddle in the political affairs of NATO Democracies.

Incidentally, the Integrity Initiative leaks included a list of NGOs and media outlets deemed to be friendly to its operations. One of the organizations deemed to be friendly to and in close collaboration with the Integrity Initiative is a group called the Center for European Policy Analysis (CEPA).

Take a wild guess who is the President and CEO of CEPA? If you guessed Alina Polyakova, you would be correct! Yes… the same Alina Polyakova who in the video clip above performatively condemns DiResta’s Alabama influence operation is the President and CEO of an organization revealed in leaked documents to be “partnering with” the Integrity Initiative, one of the most scandalous influence operations in our nation’s history!

Perhaps this is why Alina Polyakova and her colleague and co-author Ambassador Dan Fried are comfortable citing DiResta’s work in their aforementioned “Democratic Offense Against Disinformation” report.

In fact, CEPA co-sponsored that very same report:

Notice that CEPA co-sponsored the report with the Atlantic Council’s DFR Lab, which is also listed in the leaked Integrity Initiative documents as a friendly organization (see reference to DFR Lab’s “digital sherlocks” in the document below). In fact, the head of the DFR Lab at the time, Ben Nimmo (now a senior employee at Facebook investigating influence operations), appeared alongside Nina Jankowicz, Anne Applebaum and others as members of the Integrity Initiative’s UK “inner cluster.”

When it comes to Alina Polyakova and Ambassador Dan Fried implicitly condemning DiResta for her role in the Alabama operation, it is perhaps appropriate to suggest the following guideline: Let the Disinformation researcher who hasn’t worked for an anti-disinformation group caught red-handed using disinformation as a pretext to conduct secretive influence operations meddling in politics of Western democracies cast the first stone.

Since her role in the Alabama influence op was exposed, Renée DiResta has enjoyed far more accolades than simply being favorably cited by the DHS and fellow Disinformation operatives. Renée DiResta has moved from being lead researcher of New Knowledge (the group involved in the Alabama op) to being research director at Stanford’s Internet Research Laboratory.

A full treatment of the Stanford Internet Research Laboratory would extend beyond the scope of this already rather lengthy report. Suffice it to say that in addition to NGOs such as CEPA and Atlantic Council’s DFR Lab, many major universities now host similar think tanks to engage in “Disinformation” research — and of course it’s all the same scam of using “disinformation” as a pretext to censor and control perfectly legitimate First Amendment-protected speech online. Harvard has the Berkman Klein Center for Internet and Society, as well as the Shorenstein Center for Media, Politics, and Public Policy, while Stanford has the Internet Research Laboratory, where Renée DiResta now works as research director (emphasis ours):

Renée DiResta and Alex Stamos lead research on social media disinformation at the Stanford Internet Observatory. Their current project, The Election Integrity Partnership is a coalition of research entities focused on supporting real-time information exchange between the research community, election officials, government agencies, civil society organizations and social media platforms. Together they aim to detect and mitigate the impact of attempts to prevent or deter people from voting or to delegitimize election results. Stamos, previously the Chief Security Officer at Facebook, is the director of the Observatory, while DiResta serves as research manager.

In an all-too typical example of failing up, Renée DiResta goes from being caught red-handed as involved in a disinformation operation that meddled in a United States Senate election by falsely framing the candidate as a favorite of Russian bots, to overseeing an “Election Integrity Partnership” under the auspices of Stanford University.

In 2021, the Election Integrity Partnership released its final report on the 2020 election, titled “The Long Fuse: Misinformation and the 2020 Election”:

Among the sponsors of this report we note some of the usual suspects: the Atlantic Council’s DFR Lab and Graphika. As noted earlier, the DFR Lab was listed in the Integrity Initiative leak as a friendly org, and was run at the time by Ben Nimmo, who also appeared in the Integrity Initiative leaks as a member of the UK inner cluster. Revolver News has also reported that Nimmo once beclowned himself by accusing a particular internet user of being a Russian troll, when the bot in question turned out to be an elderly British gentleman. Nimmo engaged in this particular piece of false identification while working as Director of Investigations for none other than Graphika, another sponsor of the Election Integrity Partnership’s report listed above.

More: NYT Hit Piece On “Vaccine Cartoon” Backfires and Reveals Plot For New “Russia Disinformation” Scam

And so we have a report on 2020 misinformation conducted by an election integrity partnership that is run by a woman who was caught red-handed in an influence op meddling in Alabama, and that’s sponsored by two organizations that are implicated in the Integrity Initiative leaks, and associated with an Integrity Initiative cluster member who falsely identified an elderly UK man as a Russian troll. And we’re just getting started! Rather than cover the report in its entirety, we will conclude by drawing attention to one particular part of the report that just so happens to deal with Revolver News.

In the months leading up to the 2020 election, Revolver News distinguished itself with a series of reports on so-called “Color Revolutions,” pointing out that many national security professionals who conducted color revolution regime change operations overseas were using the very same tactics domestically in order to derail Donald Trump’s presidency.

Read More: The Curious Case of George Kent: State Department’s Belarus “Color Revolution” Expert And “Never Trump” Impeachment Witness

Related: Meet Norm Eisen: Legal Hatchet Man and Central Operative in the “Color Revolution” Against President Trump

Revolver’s Color Revolution series generated tremendous backlash from the Regime and its various apparatchiks, but disinformation operatives were especially aggrieved. In fact, there is a very tight overlap between the disinformation operatives of the national security state and color revolution operatives, the nature of which must be left to be explored in a later piece.

Nina Jankowicz engaged in an astonishingly dim witted attempt to debunk Revolver News’ color revolution reporting.

You may have seen the term “color revolution” floating around social media the past few days.

Let’s talk about what they are and why the US isn’t a candidate for one ⤵️ pic.twitter.com/dUIOrfg4Lv

— Nina Jankowicz 🇺🇦🇺🇸 (@wiczipedia) September 18, 2020

As did Renée DiResta (skip to 6:18):

While DiResta is too coy to mention Revolver News directly in the link above, the Stanford University Election Integrity Partnership report that DiResta co-authored mentioned Revolver News and Revolver News’s very own Darren Beattie extensively:

The election integrity partnership even put together a graphic to show how news of the color revolution spread from Revolver to the rest of the country.

We can actually commend the Election Integrity Parternship for getting one thing right — Revolver News’ Color Revolution series did have a profound impact on the national conversation leading up to the 2020 election, and we are quite proud of that. So we give them credit and thank them kindly for their slick documentation of this fact.

It is just a shame that for all the time and money spent tracking the evolution of the Color Revolution narrative, they didn’t seem to bother to address our reporting on its merits. The Revolver News pieces on Color Revolution are incredibly detailed, extensively argued, and well-documented — and there isn’t even an attempt by the Election Integrity Partnership to address the substance. Instead, we merely hear that “Color Revolution” is a term that Russians and Chinese sometimes use, and therefore this is clearly an effort of disinformation on the part of conspiracy theorists to discredit the totally legitimate election results of 2020 in advance.

If we scratch just a little beneath the surface, however, we find a major conflict of interest that is even more discrediting to the Election Integrity Partnership’s Color Revolution coverage. The following is from the Stanford Internet Observatory’s two year celebration (The Stanford Internet Observatory, remember, conducted the Election Integrity Partnership study). Note the mention of a certain Michael McFaul as a “faculty lead” (emphasis ours):

Two years ago, we launched the Stanford Internet Observatory as a cross-disciplinary laboratory for the study of abuse in current information technologies, with a focus on the misuse of social media. The Observatory was created to learn about these abuses in real time and to translate our research discoveries into education for the next generation of engineers and entrepreneurs and into policy innovations for the public good. The term “Observatory” was not an accident: for centuries, physicists and astronomers have coordinated resources to build the massive technological infrastructure necessary to research the universe. The internet is similarly an ecosystem constantly in flux as new apps, emerging technologies, and new communities of users transform the space; researchers need innovative capabilities to research this new information frontier.

When we launched, we knew our work would be important because of the extent to which online activity increasingly shapes public perception of our society’s most important issues. We did not anticipate some of the specific forms this activity would take. The global pandemic moved human interaction from substantively online to near-completely online. As our team adapted to working from home, the spread of online information intensified: an organized marketing campaign to launch the conspiratorial “Plandemic” video; manipulation of livestreams to push fear during Black Lives Matter protests; global superpowers using health diplomacy as concerted soft power moves in the global south; and the 2020 US election, culminating in the unprecedented—although perhaps not unanticipated—Capitol insurrection on January 6, 2021.

We would like to extend our gratitude to our faculty leads Nate Persily and Dan Boneh at the Stanford Cyber Policy Center; Michael McFaul, the director of the Freeman Spogli Institute; and our generous supporters including Craig Newmark Philanthropies, the Omidyar Network, the Charles Koch Foundation and Felicis Ventures.

[Stanford Internet Observatory Cyber Policy Center]

In a follow-up piece, we could have a field day addressing the other “generous supporters” of this project such as the Omidyar Network, Newmark Philanthropies, etc. For our Color Revolution point, however, the fact that Mike McFaul is a “faculty lead” to the organization running Renée DiResta’s “Election Integrity” study is particularly outrageous.

Indeed, McFaul himself is directly implicated in Revolver News’ Color Revolution coverage. McFaul served as US Ambassador to Russia during the famous Euromaidan revolution in Ukraine — an event which even the very sympathetic Huffington Post discusses in the context of the Color Revolution framework.

Revolver reported on McFaul in our Color Revolution series as follows:

In this vein we ought to note that the term “democratic backsliding,” as seen in the subtitle of Norm Eisen’s book, and its opposite “democratic breakthrough” are also terms of art in the Color Revolution lexicon. We leave the full exploration of how the term “democratic” is used deceptively in the Color Revolution context (and in names of decidedly anti-democratic/populist institutions) as an exercise to the interested reader. Michael McFaul, another Color Revolution expert and key anti-Trump operative somewhat gives the game away in the following tweet in which the term “democratic breakthrough” makes an appearance as a better sounding alternative to “Color Revolution.”

Most likely as a response to Revolver News’ first Color Revolution article on State Department official George Kent, former Ambassador McFaul issued the following tweet as a matter of damage control:

Autocrats have demonized the phrase, “color revolutions.” (& revolution generally has a negative connotation for many.) Instead, I use the term “democratic breakthroughs.”

— Michael McFaul (@McFaul) August 23, 2020

What on earth then might Color Revolution expert and Obama’s former ambassador to Russia Michael McFaul, who has been a key player agitating for President Trump’s impeachment, mean by “democratic breakthrough?”

Being a rather simple man from a simple background, McFaul perhaps gave too much of this answer away in the following explanation (now deleted).

With this now-deleted tweet we get a clearer picture of the power bases that must be satisfied for a “democratic breakthrough” to occur—and conveniently enough, not one of them is subject to direct democratic control. McFaul, like Eisen, George Kent, and so many others, perfectly embodies Revolver’s thesis regarding the Color Revolution being the same people running the same playbook. Indeed, like most of the star never-Trump impeachment witnesses, McFaul is or has been an ambassador to an Eastern European country. He has supported operations against Trump, including impeachment. And, like Norm Eisen, he has actually written a book on Color Revolutions (more on that later).

As is now evident, McFaul was no minor subject in Revolver News’ Color Revolution series which argued that key color revolution professionals were taking an active role and using many of the same tactics in the effort to destroy Donald Trump’s presidency. What a remarkable conflict of interest then for Renée DiResta’s Election Integrity Partnership to not even mention in its report, which refuses to address the substance of Revolver’s reporting, that one of its own lead faculty advisors was a main subject of that very reporting!

We have far from exhausted the mendacity of Renée DiResta and her fraudulent career, let alone the scandals, lies, crimes, and hypocrisies of the Disinformation Industry generally. Between this report and our earlier report on Nina Jankowicz and the Integrity Initiative, it should be abundantly clear that the “disinformation” scam is actually about silencing and controlling domestic speech under the false pretense of protecting Americans against influence operations. The Disinformation Industry is itself an influence operation against the American people, and represents the information warfare component of the national security apparatus’ broader domestic war on terror.

As we have seen in this report, a tour through DiResta’s scandalous career is not only a confirmation of the scam of “fighting disinformation”, but also a tour through the various institutions and organizations that comprise the ecology of the Disinformation Industry. In order to expose and eliminate the Disinformation Industry, we must not not only understand the industry for the scam that it is, we must also understand the ecology and structure of the Disinformation Industry in full. We’ve only just begun to bring this explosive information to the public. “


How A Modern Character Assassination and Political “Kill Order” Is Executed By the Silicon Valley Oligarchs and their total control of propaganda media.

Patrick George At Jalopnik attacks outsiders under contract with Elon Musk and the DNC. Silicon Valley campaign finance oligarchs hire him to run hatchet jobs on innocent outsiders and then Gawker-Gizmodo-Jalopnik uses their financial partnership with the DNC’s Google to push the character assassination articles to the top of Google web products and searches.

The following are cut-and-paste sections from various reports and articles about how these attackers operate:

—- Patrick George, Adrian Covert, John Hermann and Nick Cook are the sexually degenerate cabin boys that report to boy-loving sleaze-tabloid oligarch Nick Denton. They created the Fake News crisis in the media by flooding the internet with defamation posts and reprisal hatchet job articles designed to damage political enemies of the Socialists. They coordinate a large number of the character assassination efforts at Gawker, Gizmodo, Jalopnik, CNN, New York Times and other propaganda outlets. These Millennial boys are “Media Rapists” and should be treated as abusers. – How and why did a Donald Trump stripper-date named “Stormy” or an Elon Musk sex party or a Kavanaugh drinking incident or the Moonves and Weinstein indiscretions suddenly hit the news at about the same time in news history? – In addition to actual murder, Politicians and Silicon Valley Oligarchs hire operatives to end people’s lives in other creative ways. –— It is all part of the modern trend in vendetta, revenge and political payback when a Senator or a tech oligarch issues a “kill order” on an opponent. – The client does not like to get their hands dirty so the actual social hit job is performed by companies such as: IN-Q-Tel – (DNC); Gawker Media – (DNC); Jalopnik – (DNC); Gizmodo Media – (DNC); K2 Intelligence – (DNC); WikiStrat – (DNC); Podesta Group – (DNC); Fusion GPS – (DNC/GOP); Google – (DNC); YouTube – (DNC); Alphabet – (DNC); Facebook – (DNC); Twitter – (DNC); Think Progress – (DNC); Media Matters – (DNC); Black Cube – (DNC); Mossad – (DNC); Correct The Record – (DNC); Sand Line – (DNC/GOP); Blackwater – (DNC/GOP); Undercover Global Ltd (DNC/GOP) Stratfor – (DNC/GOP); ShareBlue – (DNC); Wikileaks (DNC/GOP); Cambridge Analytica – (DNC/GOP); Sid Blumenthal- (DNC); David Brock – (DNC); PR Firm Sunshine Sachs (DNC); Covington and Burling – (DNC), Buzzfeed – (DNC) Perkins Coie – (DNC); Wilson Sonsini – (DNC) and hundreds of others…These are the people and companies that except cash, revolving door jobs, political appointments, insider trading stock in Silicon Valley tech companies, prostitutes and real estate in exchange for destroying the lives of others. – These attackers deserve to be punished for the rest of their lives for taking away the lives of others in exchange for cash. Any company who is corrupt enough to hire any of these assassins should be forced out of business. —- These attack services are responsible for 90% of the “Fake News” problem in the world because they are the authors of most fake news. Congress must act to make these kinds of companies illegal! – These digital assassination services offer hit-jobs, character assassinations and economic reprisal programs to famous billionaires and corrupt politicians who are seeking revenge, retribution and vendetta executions. – In the case of reporters getting targeted for attacks, President Donald Trump has been accused by the liberal corporate media of whipping up a hateful frenzy against the press. But while CNN’s Jim Acosta grandstands against Trump, real journalists are still reeling from the draconian extrajudicial measures that Barack Obama and his administration used to target them for exposing truth. – This secretive targeting occurred while Obama speechwriter and hate-filled ANTIFA supporter Ben Rhodes was running “Operation Echo Chamber,” which reportedly continues, in which he fed information to willing corporate media scribes. “They literally know nothing,” Rhodes said of the twentysomething journalists he easily manipulated. —- The Freedom of the Press Foundation’s Trevor Timm published documents showing how former attorney general Eric Holder changed the rules to more effectively intimidate and surveil members of the press. – Timm writes: “Today, we are revealing—for the first time—the Justice Department’s rules for targeting journalists with secret FISA court orders. The documents were obtained as part of a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit brought by Freedom of the Press Foundation and Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University.” – Obama is also clearly linked to the plot to obtain fraudulent FISA warrants on President Trump’s team, as evidenced by Peter Strzok and Lisa Page’s texts confirming that Obama was overseeing their fly-by-night operation. – Larry Schweikart reported for Big League Politics: For months pundits and researchers have been pondering the mystery of the FISA approval that led to the illegal and historically titanic scandals to ever hit the U.S. government. —- Some have argued that Assistant Attorney General Rod Rosenstein knew the FISA was bogus when he extended it. Others have wondered if Special Counsel Robert Mueller knew about the fraudulent basis of the FISA when he used it, in part, to indict Michael Flynn. Other still, that Mueller was fooled by the FBI. This is what President Trump calls “SPYGATE”. – It may well be that the surveillance that was conducted began with UK intelligence services and then was fed back to the White House of Barack Obama. Here’s the kicker: President Barack Obama did not need a FISA warrant to authorize spying/electronic surveillance on Trump because Obama all along had legal authorization to by-pass the normal court vetting process. According to 50 U.S. Code 1802, the “Electronic Surveillance Authorization” () “Foreign intelligence in relation to a US person (Trump or his associates) is information that’s necessary for the US to protect against attack, hostile acts, sabotage, . . . as well as other clandestine activities by a foreign power . . . OR . . . information relevant to national defense/security of the US, or the conduct of foreign affairs of the U.S.” Such an authorization by Obama required certification by Attorney General Loretta Lynch that must be logged with the FISC court. (“The [AG]+ shall immediately transmit under seal to the court [FISC] a copy of his certification.”) – In short, the DOJ has this. If we are correct, a copy of that certification is currently under seal at least with the DOJ and the FISC. – This is what they are hiding. – However, the Act requires the AG to keep the Select Committee on Intelligence and the Senate Committee on Intelligence informed of these authorizations and unmaskings therein. See 1803 (a) (1) (C) If indeed this is what happened, did Lynch report—or only selectively report—to the committees in a way that excluded non-friendlies? Can you see why Adam Schiff, Mark Warner, and their ilk are terrified? – These are the playbook tactics that Senators and tech oligarchs most often use to destroy the lives of their political and business enemies: – Government agency bosses sometimes solicit the target victims with false promises of future loans, contracts or grants from their agency and cause the target victims to expend millions of dollars and years of their time for projects which those government bosses had covertly promised to their friends. They use the target victims as a “smokescreen” to cover their illegal government slush-funds for the victims competitors and personal enemies. —- By using this tactic, the attackers can drain the target victims funds and force them into an economic disaster in plain view of everyone without the government bosses fearing any reprisal for their scam.- Every match.com, okcupid.com, Plenty Of Fish, Seeking Arrangements and all other IAC-owned, or similar, dating sites (IAC is managed by Hillary Clinton’s daughter) have had their profiles, texts, and inter-member communications, since those companies were started, hacked or purchased. The attack service providers use Palantir and In-Q-Tel financed data analysis software to analyze every activity in those dating services in order to find honey-trap, blackmail, sextortion and social conflict exploitation opportunities. If you had a bad date with someone, that someone will be hunted down and convinced to help harm, #metoo or “rape charge” the intended target. All dates involve a search for sex, so the likelihood that a sexual disappointment experience will exist in each persons dating history is high. Searching every past dating email and text of a subject is quite easy with modern software and hacking techniques. A synthetically amplified, PR-agency optimized sex scandal can destroy any target. Your dating experiences from the 70’s or 80’s will come back to haunt you decades later. Most dates involve drinking alcohol and taking drugs. If you were unattractive or had bad sexual skills your bad date will be called “date rape”, “drugging your date for sex” and related twisted narratives that are designed to shame you, the target. —- If you try to get a date in the future, your potential date will be contacted by a third party who will slander and libel you to make sure your potential first date gets cancelled. Your social life will, essentially, end. Every photo on every dating site is cross checked with every other photo on the internet in order to cull your Facebook, Linkedin, Snapchat and other social media together to create a total psychological manipulation profile data file on you. A single photo on a dating site can be cross searched on every mugshot archive, photo album and corporate database in the worth within minutes using modern super-computers. Your sex

life will be on public record in a flash.- Social Security, SSI, SDI, Disability and other earned benefits are stone-walled. Applications of targets are “lost”. —- Files in the application process “disappeared”. Lois Lerner hard drive “incidents” are operated in order to seek to hide information and run cover-ups. – Government officials and tech oligarchs contact members of the National Venture Capital association (NVCA) and created national “black-lists” to blockade target victims from ever receiving investor funding. This was also confirmed in a widely published disclosure by Tesla Motors Daryl Siry and in published testimony. If Silicon Valley political campaign finance oligarchs black-list you (see the “AngelGate” Scandal and the “High Tech No Poaching Class Action Lawsuit” cases) you will never get investor funding again. – FOIA requests are hidden, frozen, stone-walled, delayed, lied about and only partially responded to in order to seek to hide information and run cover-ups.- State and federal employees will play an endless game of Catch-22 by arbitrarily determining that deadlines had passed that they, the government officials, had stonewalled and obfuscated applications for, in order to force these deadlines that they set, to appear to be missed. This can bankrupt a target victim.- Some Victims found themselves strangely poisoned, not unlike the Alexander Litvenko case. —- Heavy metals and toxic materials were found right after their work with the Department of Energy weapons and energy facilities. Many wonder if these “targets” were intentionally exposed to toxins in retribution for their testimony. The federal MSDS documents clearly show that a number of these people were exposed to deadly compounds and radiations, via DOE, without being provided with proper HazMat suits which DOE officials knew were required. – Victims employers are called, and faxed, and ordered to fire target victims from their places of employment, in the middle of the day, with no notice, as a retribution tactic. – On orders from Obama White House officials, DNC-financed Google, YouTube, Gawker Media and Gizmodo Media produce attack articles and defamation videos. Google locks this attack media on the internet on the top line, of the front page of all Google searches for a decade in front of 7.5 billion people, around the world. —- This attack-type uses over $40 million dollars in server farms, production costs and internet rigging. The forensic data acquired from tracking some of these attacks proves that Google rigs attacks against individuals on the internet and that all of Google’s “impressions” are manually controlled by Google’s executives who are also the main financiers and policy directors of the Obama Administration. This data was provided to the European Union for it’s ongoing prosecution of Google’s political manipulation of public perceptions. – Victims HR and employment records, on recruiting and hiring databases, are embedded with negative keywords in order to prevent the victim targets from ever gaining future employment. – Gary D. Conley, Seth Rich, Rajeev Motwani and many other whistle-blowers in these matters, turned up dead under strange circumstances. It is very possible that some of these attack services, operated by former CIA operatives, even offer discrete murder-for-sale services using high-tech assassination tools that make murders look like heart attacks and brain failures. —- Disability and VA complaint hearings and benefits are frozen, delayed, denied or subjected to lost records and “missing hard drives” as in the Lois Lerner case.- Paypal (A DNC-biased operation) and other on-line payments for on-line sales are de-platformed, delayed, hidden, or re-directed in order to terminate income potential for target victims who competed with the attackers interests and holdings.- DNS redirection, “website spoofing” sends target victims websites to dead ends where no sales orders or customer inquiries actually get back to the target. These internet revenue activity manipulations are conducted using Google and Amazon servers. All commercial storefronts and on-line sales attempts by target victims, will have had their sites hidden, or search engine de-linked by a massively resourced facility located in Virginia, Texas or Palo Alto, California in order to terminate revenue potentials for the target victims.—- Over 50,000 trolls, shills, botnets and synth-blog deployments are deployed to place defamatory statements and disinformation about victims in front of 7.5 billion people around the world on the internet in order to seek to damage their federal testimony credibility by a massively resourced facility. – Campaign finance dirty tricks contractors are hired by campaign financiers to attack the friends and family members of the target victim in order to create low morale for the target victims psyche and motivation.- Are you getting weird headaches and hearing a “buzzing sound” in your head? The U.S. Government has now acknowledged that the Cuban, Chinese and other embassy “sonic attacks” are from a known microwave beam weapon. Any one of the technical departments of the attack services listed at the top of this article can build such a biological harassment weapon. —- It can be aimed at the target victims office, bedroom or vehicle and, within a week, have caused biological and emotional damage using a weapon that has no visible track of trajectory. It is designed to make the target victim think they are “going crazy” or “hearing sounds in their head”. —- In one case covert political partner: Google, transferred large sums of cash to dirty tricks contractors and then manually locked the media portion of the attacks into the top lines of the top pages of all Google searches globally, for years, with hidden embedded codes in the links and web-pages which multiplied the attacks on Victims by many magnitudes.- Covert Cartel financier: Google, placed Google’s lawyer: Michelle Lee, in charge of the U.S. Patent Office and she, in turn, stacked all of the U.S. Patent Office IPR and ALICE review boards and offices with Google-supporting employees in order to rig the U.S. Patent Office to protect Google from being prosecuted for the vast patent thefts that Google engages in. —- Google has hundreds of patent lawsuits for technology theft and a number of those lawsuits refer to Google’s operations as “Racketeering”, “Monopolistic Cartel” and “Government Coup-like” behaviors. Thousands of articles and investigations detail the fact that Google, “essentially” ran the Obama White House and provided over 80% of the key White House staff. A conflict-of-interest unlike any in American history. Google’s investors personally told Applicant they would “kill him”. Google and the Obama Administration were “the same entity”. Applicant testified in the review that got Michelle Lee terminated and uncovered a tactical political and social warfare group inside Google who were financed by Federal and State funds. —- Honeytraps and moles were employed by the attackers. In this tactic, people who covertly worked for the attackers were employed to approach the “target” in order to spy on and misdirect the subject. – Gawker Media, Gizmodo Media, Snopes, SPLC and other hired media assassins will be retained to produce “hatchet job” character assassination articles about you. Then those articles will be faxed, mailed and emailed to your employer and investors with a note saying: “You don’t want to have anything to do with this person, do you..?” in order to get you fired from your job and get your loans or financing pulled. The attackers will use their round one attack media, that they authored, to create a round two second wave attack designed to end your life via economic warfare.—- Mortgage and rental applications will have had red flags added to them in databases to prevent the targets from getting homes or apartments.- Krebs On Security, Wired, Ars Technica, The Wall Street Journal and most major IT publications have reported that hundreds of spy “back-doors” have been found on every Intel, AMD, Apple, Xfinity, Cisco, Microsoft, Juniper Networks motherboard, chip-set and hardware component set. —- This means that any kid with the “key” code can open any computer, server, router, cloud-network or other network connected device and read every file, photo, video, your calendar and email on your devices at any time from any location on Earth. The key codes have been released to every hacker community in the world for over ten years. There is now no government, corporate or personal data that can’t be hacked, even data from decades ago. Every single one of your darkest secrets can be in the hands of your enemy within 60 minutes, or less. Important meetings you had planned with potential investors, employers, clients, dates, suppliers and others will suddenly get cancelled at the last minute. They will get cancelled because your enemies are reading your calendar remotely and covertly sending slander information to those you had hoped to engage with in order to sabotage your life. —- Nothing you have ever typed on a computer or Smartphone is safe. it WILL be acquired and it WILL be used against you. – McCarthy-Era “Black-lists” are created and employed against target victims who competed with Obama Administration executives and their campaign financiers to prevent them from getting funding and future employment. – Obama Administration targets were very carefully placed in a position of not being able to get jobs, unemployment benefits, disability benefits or acquire any possible sources of income. The retribution tactics were audacious, overt..and quite illegal. – There are thousands of additional Dirty Tricks tactics being used by these Attack Services yet Congress refuses to pass laws out-lawing such attack services. —-

The cost of an attack on a person ranges from $150,000.00 to over $50,000,000.00. While a Silicon Valley billionaire can afford to launch counter-measures to these attacks, any regular taxpayer will be utterly destroyed, and incapable of fighting back, against even the smallest version of one of these “kill orders”. —- A number of modern office shootings are the results of these attacks against an individual who has lost everything because of the attack and has no options left. – Federal law enforcement, the United States Congress and the highest level investigators in the U.S., and abroad, have documented (per the “FISA Memo”, Congressional Reports and federal employee testimony) and proven the fact that the Obama Administration regularly engaged in the operation of retribution, vendetta and reprisal campaigns known as “hit-jobs” against domestic natural born U.S. citizen domestic taxpayers. —- The Federal Court, in at least one previous court case,has ruled that Applicants, in this particular matter, were the victims and target of a number of these attacks designed to inflict permanent medical, emotional, character assassination, brand negation, economic and career damage. The FBI has been asked to interview John Cook, Nicholas Guido Denton, Adrian Covert, Patrick George, Ian Fette and John Hermann of Gawker/Gizmodo re: their financing, payola and hit-job attacks on third parties. —- There are hundreds of millions of people in America. The same 120 of them are all involved in operating the same crimes and corruption including: the Sony Pictures corruption; the Afghanistan rare earth mine scandals operated through The Energy Department political slush fund that involves the lithium battery cover-ups (headed by Elon Musk); the Big Tech Brotopia rape, sex trafficking, bribery, exclusionism, racism and misogyny issues they were taught at Stanford University; The Facebook – Meta – Google – Alphabet – Netflix, et al, coordinated news manipulation and domestic spying that they engage in; the hiring of Fusion GPS – Black Cube – Gizmodo/Gawker assassins; the destruction of the housing market by their mass real estate manipulations; patent theft and industrial espionage; and the bribery of almost every politician all the way up to the Oval Office. —- So, while the categories covered in this investigation may seem diverse. They are connected through an enterprise of criminality and illicit, coordinated operations. We list, by name, the 120 most complicit individuals organizing these crimes, in the evidence documents already submitted to the FBI, FINCEN, DOJ, FTC, SEC, FEC, Congress, InterPol and other authorities. Digital financial tracking of those persons and all of their family members should be assumed to have been under way for some time. Wire-taps and device taps of those persons and all of their family members should be assumed to have been under way for some time.

Public comments, on the internet, ON REVOLVER MAGAZINE, about this sort of business include:

– In order to participate in any of this stuff, including Marx’s critical theories, one has to be willing to lie without conscience or fear of God.

– Abimelech hired “worthless and reckless fellows.” Sounds about right, considering 2000 Mules.

– Everybody elevated to high positions of power by the left is low grade, borderline incompetent, and congenitally dishonest. Scandals and disasters invariably lead to promotions for these criminal imbeciles.They are personally rewarded by “failing upwards” for the trail of ruin they leave in their wake. “Worthless and reckless” is a truly apt description for such people.

– They desperately want us believing in false paradigms, staring blank-faced at puppets but never looking at who pulls the puppet strings.

– Is there a connection between Christine Blasey Ford, who brought false allegations against Brett Kavenaugh and also trains CIA operatives at Stanford University, to these disinformation campaigns like the Stanford Internet Observatory?

– Nope. Check out her background, her father’s background, her brother’s background and the agencies and organizations they worked for. I could tell you but it would be better for you to find out for yourself.

– I loathe these ‘disinformation’ types so bad I can’t even read a journalistic piece exposing them without my blood pressure going through the roof. I never thought this would EVER happen in America. Now I see why Lincoln wanted to disband the democratic party after the Civil War they created… but was assassinated by… a democrat before being able to do so. The democratic party is a criminal organization.

How does one big bunch of venture capitalist investors always accept the same inner-circle set of fraternity buddies to invest in and make sure that their competitors never get any money?

How is it that this same, huge, group of investors always give entrepreneurs the same valuation offer, even though they have all agreed that they “will never discuss anything outside of this room” with the entrepreneur?

Is collusion, market-rigging, technology blockading, good-ole-white-boy privilege clubbing, frat-house bro-biz secret alliance meeting, woman and black discriminating going on in Silicon Valley and Wall Street? You bet it is!

If you web-search the “Angel-Gate Collusion Scandal”, you will read about how a reporter saw, and documented, a Silicon Valley secret meeting where investors were colluding on who would get funding, who wouldn’t and at what rates. The, now famous “Silicon Valley Anti-Poaching Scandal” has overtly proven that these people area classic “Cartel”,

It turns out, if you didn’t go to Stanford and get very hooked in to the VC club, or you are not part of the Indian-Elite sub-mafia, you are not getting funded.

With it’s deep CIA connections, Goldman Sach’s alliances and enough cash to bribe Congress twenty times over, groups like the National Venture Capital Association (NVCA) raise concerns, across the board, about their potentially destructive play in the fall of innovation and the domestic economy in America.

This notoriously elitist, yuppie, privileged frat house crowd does not like anything that they can’t control. They have, in many cases, agreed among themselves, which energy technology will be “allowed” to hit the market; which electric cars will, or won’t, get funded; which video delivery systems get to become dominant on the web; which social networks get all of the media (a large part of said media being owned and controlled by these men); and which other technologies live or die. These are the people involved in the vast number of sex scandals, murders-by-hooker, “sex yacht and sex penthouse” lurid news, rape lawsuits and other twisted perversions on the 6PM news. They are not nice people. One of them: Raj Gupta sits in Prison. Another: White Car Czar Steven Rattner was indicted for Securities Law Rigging. Ray Lane was indicted for massive tax evasion. They are all under investigation for shipping billions of tax dollars to Ireland and other tax hide-away’s. Eric Schmidt practically lives at the White House and is under investigation by hundreds of entities.

The largest private investigation firm of the Elite’s was exposed in WIKI-Leaks calling Peter Thiel: “Fu*cking Nuts”. Tim Draper wanted Silicon Valley to be so elite that he tried to make it into it’s own state. Joe Lonsdale is under lawsuit for rape. Mr. Hayes and Mr. Kumar were killed by Hookers. John Doerr and Vinohd Khosla are called out in national news stories for sex abuse, California Beach take-overs from the public and hundreds of billions of dollars in “Green Energy” kick-backs from their friend Steven Chu. The list of cringe-worthy news stories about these folks goes on and on.

If you are an outsider, or competitor, they can, and do, sabotage your company in no time flat with moles, hack attacks, DDOS attacks, media character assassination attacks, “Merchants of Doubt” (See the movie) aspersions, civic awards blockades, contract terms exclusions, hire-aways, anti-poaching cartel secret deals and a host of weapons that they use daily.

Do the Justice Department, The Securities and Exchange Commission, or other federal forces do anything about this? Not much. These men pay the bribes that keep Washington floating. They have paid hundreds of billions of dollars, in “tribute”, to the current Administration. It isn’t wise to bite the hand that feeds you.

The popular Web Blogs: The Corbett Report and The Alex Jones Show, along with many others, have released a number of documentaries detailing connections between the NVCA and unethical, and somewhat illegal activites.

How does this affect you?

Got an invention? If you are not part of the Frat House club, Fahgettabout it!

Want to start a start-up? If you are not part of the Frat House club, Fahgettabout it!

Are you a woman? If you are not part of the Frat House club, Fahgettabout it!

Did you actually sneak your way past the golden gates and get funded but now find that some of your shareholders are forming a mutiny to toss you out. Did you really think some of those investors weren’t actually part of the VC Cartel just waiting to merge their shares and toss you out after you had gotten the technology to work? Can you push back? If you are not part of the Frat House club, Fahgettabout it!

Are they not a “real” mafia-class Cartel, like the Al Capone and Columbian Cartel’s. because they don’t actually kill people? Do you think those 185+ sudden, mysterious, suspicious deaths that took place in the last 28 months involving bankers, reporters and technologists, who had rubbed these people side-ways, are unconnected? Fahgettabout it!

This kinds of things do affect the average person by creating more discrimination that they have to endure, a worse economy, a less favorable impression of their country, deeper misogyny, less equality, more privilege. If it bothers you, and you have ever paid taxes, call the FBI, SEC, GAO and Congressional phone numbers that you see online and ask them what they are doing about it.

Upcoming venture capitalists collusion meeting! | Startable

Are these people colluding at the 2010 NVCA meeting? That’s right. The National Venture Capital Association. Where will the collusion stop?!?


Use Up/Down Arrow keys to increase or decrease volume.

DC-based fund, Sands Capital, withheld filings that concealed Chinese influence over the White House, Patent Office, Judiciary & Facebook

Contributing Writers | OPINION | AMERICANS FOR INNOVATION  | Updated Mar. 09, 2014 04:45 p.m. ET | Updated PDF (post Scribd censorship)

Beijing Bedfellows

Parker Zhang, became “Chief of Patents” at Baidu in 2012. He worked for Fenwick & West LLP, 2006-2010. Photo: Google+

More News! Jan. 30, 2014—Baidu says attorney Parker Zhang is “Chief of Patents.” It is very unusual for a junior attorney to reach such a position of power. Zhang graduated from Michigan Law in 2005. He was an Associate at Fenwick & West LLP from 2006-2010. After less than a year as “IP Consultant” at Hewlett-Packard, he became “Chief of Patents” at Baidu, in about May 2012. CLICK HERE for a bio.

Marauding Obama Donors: Zhang’s move to Baidu, Inc. coincides with the unreported Sands Capital securities transactions analyzed below. Also during his move, Facebook went public, T. Rowe Price invested $190.5 million in Facebook and $147 million in Baidu. Fenwick & West LLP was Facebook’s securities and patent counsel. The Leader v. Facebook case was on appeal at the Federal Circuit where the judges were heavily invested in Facebook, and the S.E.C. Chair in Baidu (e.g., T. Rowe Price PRGFX)

Why Some People (like the NVCA) Want MORE domestic spying!

There are over 40 different agencies and data harvesters watching and recording everything you do on your phone, computer, car and anything else electronic. That does not include the hackers, foreign governments and stalkers. They analyze you, with that information they try to trick you into purchasing or voting certain ways via subliminal messaging and mood manipulation. When you say, or write, something that makes any of them concerned, they increase their monitoring of you. Everybody now has an analysis file associated with their name. You are ranked by how much trouble you are likely to cause.

Is that George Orwell’s “1984”?

The bigger question is: “Why did so many of the people we hired to run our countries go so overboard with digital manipulation?”

It may have to do with the power of community and the abuse of the public, by a few, finally coming to light.

The power of community brought the Catholic sex abuse catastrophe to light.

The power of community changed the structure of the Middle East forever.

The power of community made the internet the internet.

Those who have chosen careers as dictators, mobsters and corrupt politicians HATE the internet and the power of community.

The biggest push-back has come from the corrupt politicians because they are so well financed, and, they are financed by the tax money from the very community that now has the power. The power of community just became equal to the power of a billionaire’s bank account.

This is the greatest fear of the corrupt.The corrupt can only exist in the shadows. They can only steal tax money when nobody is looking. With the power of community, their schemes are crumbling. Their Solyndra’s are crashing and burning. Their Madoff’s are uncovered. Their Countrywide’s are laid bare.

Some of the corrupt Senators and their campaign backer billionaires are calling for “more surveillance”, more control of access and more limits of free speech. This is because they are scared.

Here is one example of a grand corruption that has recently been “outed” by the power of community:

America was always viewed as the “Great Innovator of the World”. That is no longer the case, thanks to a group called the National Venture Capital Association (NVCA).

They conspire, collude, and coordinate who gets funded and who gets shut-down. If you compete with their boys,they blacklist you. If your new product might threaten their holdings, they use their Gust database and VC-Link and other data mining services to make sure you never get any money for your idea, no matter how great it is.

In a well known scandal called: “AngelGate”,a group of VC’s were documented having one of the weekly collusion meetings they all attend, to decide which insiders get to play the game and who gets rolled over. The founders of the NVCA are the same people involved in the sinister In-Q-Tel organization and the various “public information foundations” that are now under intense scrutiny for public policy manipulation.

Even though they helped fund the internet, the VC’s are not the smartest tools in the shed. They are not the “idea guys”. They move like sheep in a herd. They are the ones that steal the ideas from the actual “idea guys”. They did not have the vision to see that the internet was about to become their biggest enemy.

When a VC see’s an idea guy/gal’s idea pitch they are thinking three things: 1.) “Can I get some free market research from this guy? 2.) Will this product compete with my portfolio and should I kill it? 3.) Is it really a good idea that I can steal and pass over to another NVCA VC so they can copy it and the idea guy will never be able to trace the theft back to me?”

There is a reason they call them “vulture capitalists”. The biggest myth about Silicon Valley venture capital money is that any outsider, who isn’t in the Stanford frat club, will ever see any of that money.

For the very insider, good-ole-boy, money to stay in the tight little insider circle, a facade of “the American Dream for ideas” had to be perpetrated. Now that all of the entrepreneurs can compare notes, valuations, IP thefts, patent protection sabotage and VC lies on the open internet and see that the entrepreneurs are just getting harvested and plucked like chickens.

The VC’s and campaign billionaires want everybody spied on, in their country, so they can get a heads-up on when the game is up, and try to forestall that day with disinformation. Always slow to the table though, the NVCA manipulations have yet to realize that the day has already passed them by.


Investigators say that, Democratic party operatives David Plouffe, Rahm Emanual, Steven Rattner, Bill Daly, David Axelrod and Robert Gibbs arranged with Silicon Valley investors to take over the lithium battery industry in order to monopolize the trillions of dollars of lithium, and related mining deals, in Afghanistan.

They say that they traded federal funding for campaign support assisted by Harry Reid and Dianne Feinstein, who received numerous stock and cash kickbacks in the scheme.

They say they used the money to fund political campaigns. They used the Silicon Valley investors internet companies to manipulate voter perceptions and web searches in favor of their agenda. The Silicon Valley investors received: favorable federal laws, tax gifts, free federal loans, stock bumps and other perks.

The Silicon Valley investors mining resources exploitation companies: Abound, Solyndra, Fisker, Ener1, Tesla, and many, many more, that received the Department of Energy kickback funds, managed by Steven Chu, have all either failed, been raided, been charged with fraud or otherwise turned out to be disasters because they were based on a financial fraud skimming scheme instead of a good business plan.

All of these facts are known, in great detail, by many investigators. Nearly a million pages of evidence exist. A Special Prosecutor is required to perform proper prosecutions.


Zhang had only five years of experience before jumping to the top intellectual property job at Baidu. Baidu is one of the largest technology companies with $23B in revenue and 21,000 employees. This would place the company around 130th on the Fortune 500 list; along with U.S. Bank, Time Warner, and Goodyear. It appears that the Facebook IPO feeding frenzy was orchestrated in both the U.S. and China. This supports the hypothesis that the NASDAQ “glitch” was a smokescreen.

Breaking News! Jan. 29, 2014—S.E.C. Chair Mary L. Schapiro held stock in both Facebook & Baidu (China) before the Facebook IPO via her investment in T. Rowe Price Growth Stock Fund (PRGFX), which was up to $600,000, according to Schapiro’s financial disclosure.

Mary L. Schapiro, Chair, S.E.C.; held stock in Facebook and Baidu before the Facebook IPO, along with Leader v. Facebook judges and Patent Office; ignored whistleblower warnings. Photo: NYTimes.

In addition to warnings about fabricated mobile revenues, her S.E.C. agency also ignored numerous whistleblower warnings of improper “dark pools” activity, including failure to disclose to investors that Facebook had been judged guilty on 11 of 11 federal counts of infringing Columbus innovator Leader Technologies’ U.S. Patent No. 7,139,761 for social networking—the core technology engine running Facebook. Evidently, Schapiro knew about Facebook Chairman James W. Breyer’s intention to exploit Leader’s technology in China also, where his father, John P. Breyer, operates IDG-Accel-China.

Fig. 1—Sands Capital Management, LLC injected Chinese influence into Obamacare. Sands Capital, the 7th largest fund investor in the May 2012 Facebook IPO, secretly acquired over $200 million in Athenahealth holdings just as President Obama moved Todd Y. Park, Athenahealth’s founder, from HHS to the White House, on Mar. 9, 2012..

Gordon K. Davidson, Fenwick & West LLP; current Facebook securities and patent counsel; Leader Technologies former corp. counsel (c.a., 2001-2004). Photo: Fenwick & West.

At the same time, Sands Capital secretly slipped in its holding in Baidu, Inc., sometimes called the Chinese Facebook. Baidu is notoriously controlled by the Chinese Communist Party. Baidu’s CEO, Robin Yangong Li, started his job in Jan. 2004—the same month Mark Zuckerberg started Facebook after stealing Leader Technologies’ source code via attorney firm Fenwick & West LLP, we believe.

Facebook also went public during this same time (with Fenwick & West LLP as their lead securities and intellectual property counsel). Again, Sand Capital did not provide proper notice of its Facebook stock acquisition.

The juxtaposition of these three notice failures, combined with HealthCare.gov’s claim that its software platform running on Facebook and other “open source” software, signals obvious collusion to deprive Leader Technologies of its private property rights—government confiscation of property.

It also proves Chinese meddling in America’s data infrastructure and the Obama White House cabinet.

This picture shows the logo of Baidu on its headquarters. Photo: AFP/Getty Images/Forbes/via @daylife).

(Jan. 28, 2014)―Washington DC-based Sands Capital Management, LLC, the seventh largest fund investor in Facebook, failed to file three critical Facebook, Athenahealth, and Baidu-China (“the Chinese Facebook”) disclosures with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (S.E.C.) during the period of May-August 2012.

These disclosures would have signaled serious conflicts of interests within the Obama administration, especially the complicity of Wall Street and the White House’s Silicon Valley donors with likely undue Chinese influence over Obamacare.

Pres. Obama and Todd Y. Park blatantly violated conflict of interest laws

Todd Y. Park, U.S. CTO; HealthCare.gov architect; Athenahealth, founder; Castlight Health, founder. Photo: White House.

These Sands Capital filing failures occurred just as President Obama moved Todd Y. Park as chief technology officer (CTO) of Health and Human Services to the White House on Mar. 9, 2012. By this time, Park had already embedded his Athenahealth and Castlight Health technology deeply into HealthCare.gov.

Ann H. Lamont, Director of Todd Y. Park’s Castlight Health; former director of Todd Y. Park’s Athenahealth; former director of NVCA with James W. Breyer, Accel Partners, among other Facebook cartel principals; Mng. Prtnr. Oak Investment Partners; husband Edward is grandson of JPMorgan Chase & Co. founder Thomas W. Lamont. Lamont is a heavy investor in Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanely and JPMorgan—Facebook’s underwriters. Photo: Stanford.

However, Todd Y. Park was the founder of both Athenahealth and Castlight Health. His brother, Edward Y. Park, is the chief operating officer of Athenahealth. JPMorgan insider and Obama campaign financier, Ann H. Lamont, was an Athenahealth director with Park and his brother.

NVCA: Cesspool of White Collar Corruption

James W. Breyer, Facebook; Managing Partner. Accel Partners LLP; NVCA Fmr. Chairman (2004). Photo: Der Spiegel.

Ann H. Lamont is also an investing partner with Facebook’s James W. Breyer. She is also a fellow former director with Breyer at the National Venture Capital Association (NVCA).

Reporting new stock acquisitions to the S.E.C. is routine. “Form SC 13G” reports are an essential tool used by investors to know when funds add new stocks to their portfolios. Without those notices, new acquisitions can easily be missed. Independent stock analysts like Morningstar monitor them and create daily alerts of new acquisitions to the market as well as to watchdogs.

Frank M. Sands, Sr., Sands Capital Management, LLC. Failed to file timely notices. Virgina.edu

Frank M. Sands, Jr., Sands Capital Management, LLC. Failed to file timely notices. Virgina.edu

Had Sands Capital filed timely, accountability questions could have been triggered. As it happened, they slipped the holding quietly onto their quarterly reports, thus avoiding transparency.

The activities of these companies impact American healthcare and data security priorities. America was not given the opportunity to scrutinize this activity until now, after the damage has been done.


Fig. 2—Sands Capital Management, LLC ATHENAHEALTH, INC. holdings—Holdings Reports, SEC EDGAR. Yellow highlighted rows show reporting periods in which no notices of acquisitions were filed by compliance officer, Robert C. Hancock. These notices are important filings for fraud watchdogs.

Fig. 3—Sands Capital Management, LLC ATHENAHEALTH, INC. holdings—Value Reports, SEC EDGAR. The yellow highlighted box shows the periods where no acquisition notices and no-fraud certifications were filed. In short, Sands Capital acquired over $200 million in Athenahealth stock without regulatory oversight. S.E.C. Chairman Mary L. Schapiro had financial holdings in funds invested in Athenahealth, e.g., Vanguard Extended Market (VEXMX).

On May 14, 2010, 506,000 shares of Athenahealth appeared out of thin air on the Sands Capital Management, LLC quarterly report. More and more stock just started appearing each quarter, all without acquisition notices.

Then on May 14, 2012, hundreds of millions more shares appeared out of thin air—214 million more. Just a few weeks earlier, President Obama had appointed Todd Y. Park as U.S. chief technology officer. Park had already deeply embedded Athenahealth’s software code into the bowels of HealthCare.gov. In fact, no notices of acquisition were filed for Athenahealth until Feb. 2013.

Why is this S.E.C. irregularity significant?

The public has an interest in insuring that government vendors and officials are trustworthy. HealthCare.gov is making false “open source” intellectual property claims, but since HealthCare.gov is not a transparent development, no public scrutiny is possible.

The federal confiscation of private properties continues unabated. The agenda is very evidently being railroaded.

In addition, the involvement of the Chinese government in U.S. infrastructure raises critical national security questions.

Todd Y. Park’s ethics disclosures are missing

Tellingly, Parks’ ethics disclosure is missing from the U.S. Office of Government Ethics website. By contrast, even Hillary R. Clinton’s is there. Parks’ close relationships with associates of Athenahealth, Castlight Health, Baidu-China and Sands Capital Management, LLC show that any decision he has made involving these players benefits him personally.

Robert Kocher, MD, Director, Castlight Health, founded by U.S. CTO, Todd Y. Park; former member, National Economic Council; special adviser to Barack Obama on Health Policy (chief architect of Obamacare). Photo: Washington.edu.

Hindsight being 20-20, it should be noted that Robert Kocher, MD, President Obama’s chief healthcare policy adviser on Obamacare, had matriculated by 2011 to: (1) Castlight Health as director along with Ann H. Lamont, Todd Y. Parks’ other company, (2) Park’s venture capitalist, Venrock, and (3) McKinsey & Co. and the Brookings Institution, who are both Facebook’s COO, Sheryl K. Sandberg’s former clients.

Lawrence ”Larry” Summers. Director, Square; Adviser, Andreessen-Horowitz; mentor to Facebook’s Sheryl K. Sandberg, Russian oligarchs Yuri Milner and Alisher Usmanov; former director, Barack Obama’s National Economic Council (2008 bailout); believed to be one of the prime movers behind the Facebook cartel. Photo: Life.

Kocher’s other boss at the White House, National Economic Council chairman Lawrence “Larry” Summers, also works for the Brookings Institution. In short, Kocher’s post-administration job hunt appears to have been political revolving door payback.

Events are being coordinated

In addition, the list of funds pouring cash into Athenahealth and Castlight Health is a clone of Facebook’s and Baidu’s lists. Blackrock, Morgan Stanley, T. Rowe Price, Fidelity, Vanguard, Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan, etc. The evidence is clear. These funds are coordinating these events while the U.S. Congress and American people are sidelined.

It appears time for Congress to take control, pass legislation to return confiscated properties, impeach and replace many corrupted judges, change the legal discipline procedures by putting lay people in charge, put wrongdoers in jail, establish a Special Prosecutor, and call a Constitutional Convention to change the elements of our system that let this happen.

Our system of government appears to have been badly damaged by unscrupulous people, mostly lawyers, who no longer respect our laws, and clearly do not intend to follow them.

Silicon Valley Watcher – at the intersection of technology and media: A Top Story..

…the plaintiffs had strengthened and that it was less than a $20m settlement paid by Lucasfilm, Intuit, and Pixar who were also part of the collusion. The National Venture Capital Association (NVCA) and…


National Venture Capital Association (NVCA) collusion

AFI researchers have already proven NVCA connections with James W. Breyer, Accel Partners, LLP, Facebook’s first chairman and largest shareholder, among six of the ten top mutual fund investors in the Facebook IPO, namely (1) Goldman Sachs, (3) Fidelity, (4) T.Rowe Price, (5) Morgan Stanley, (6) Blackrock and (9) Vanguard.

Sands Capital’s association with Todd Y. Park ties Sands Capital to the  NVCA as well through Castlight and Athenahealth director, Ann H. Lamont. This now proves that at least seven out of the ten top institutional investors in Facebook were colluding with James W. Breyer to steal Leader Technologies’ social networking invention. The Baidu association shows that the collusion also incorporates Breyer’s designs for China.


Fig. 4—Sands Capital Management, LLC BAIDU, INC. holdings, SEC EDGAR. Yellow highlighted rows show reporting periods in which no notices of acquisition were filed by compliance officer, Robert C. Hancock. These notices are important filings for fraud watchdogs.

Fig. 5—Sands Capital Management, LLC BAIDU, INC. holdings, SEC EDGAR. The yellow highlighted box shows that no acquisition notices and no-fraud certifications were filed. In short, Sands Capital acquired over $2 billion in Baidu stock without regulatory oversight. These holdings commenced concurrent to the appointment of Todd Y. Park to U.S. CTO on Mar. 9, 2012, after Park had led the development of HealthCare.gov at Health and Human Services, including the embedding of his Athenahealth and Castlight Health software in the HHS infrastructure.

Jim Breyer – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

James W. “Jim” Breyer (born 1961) is an American venture capitalist, founder and CEO of Breyer Capital, an investment and venture philanthropy firm, and a partner at Accel Partners, a venture capital firm.


More results


WHITE HOUSE SCANDAL SPREADS TO LEADER V. FACEBOOK … Collusion (Allegations) Trade Secrets Theft; Market Manipulation … James W. Breyer, Accel Partners LLP; Facebook director; client of Fenwick & West LLP since the 1990’s; …


More results

James Breyer profiles | LinkedIn

View the profiles of professionals named James Breyer on LinkedIn. There are 13 professionals named James Breyer, who use LinkedIn to exchange information, ideas, and opportunities.


More results

The First: Jim Breyer is speaking at Collision 2015 | COLLISION

The First: Jim Breyer is speaking at Collision 2015 Posted by: Hugh Gallagher – Posted at: 4:45 pm on December 4, 2014 Category: News


The next Sands Capital holding to appear out of nowhere is Baidu, Inc. Closely aligned with China’s Communist government, Baidu is sometimes called “the Chinese Facebook.” Facebook is rumored to have partnered with Baidu. Baidu notoriously violates human and intellectual property rights. This alliance was concurrent with James W. Breyer’s movement of tens of billions of venture capital funds out of the United States and into the control of his reclusive father, John P. Breyer, chairman, IDG-Accel-China.

Not only did Sands Capital fail to file a notice of acquisition, but their quarterly report on Aug. 14, 2013 reveals a whopping 12,539% jump in holdings. That is an unregulated $867 million change in value. To our knowledge, neither the market nor regulators even noticed. This destroys the basic principle of transparency.

These risks certainly deserve serious investigation before permitting these people to get access to America’s healthcare and data infrastructure. As Eric Snowden proved, it doesn’t take much to copy millions of files into the hands of one’s adversaries.

Most notable about the sudden appearance of the Baidu Inc. holding is that it occurs just as Athenahealth’s founder, Todd Y. Park, is moving from his position as the chief architect of HealthCare.gov at HHS to Chief Technology Officer for the United States by President Obama, on Mar. 9, 2012. And, it occurred at the same time as Sands Capital’s 214 million unregulated share acquisition.

On Mar. 29, 2012, just 20 days after Pres. Obama’s appointment of Park, Baidu filed a Form 20-F, which is a financial disclosure equivalent to an S-1 public stock prospectus. The timing is six weeks before the Facebook IPO.

On p. 98, Baidu discloses that its three principal shareholders are:

Baillie Gifford and T. Rowe Price were #2 and #3 behind Goldman Sachs in the Facebook IPO just six weeks later.

Fig. 6—Robin “Handsome Reward” Yangong Li was installed as CEO of Baidu in Jan. 2004, the very same month that Mark Zuckerberg claims to have built Facebook “in one to two weeks” Leader Technologies said it took them $10M and 145,000 man-hours to invent social networking. They finished debugging a critical module on Oct. 28, 2003, the same night Zuckerberg hacked the House sites at Harvard. Photo: L’Express.

Evidently, Baidu’s Robin Yanhong Li was self-conscious about his newfound wealth, hence the Freudian name he gave for his stock holding—Handsome Reward. Who was doing the rewarding? The evidence is overwhelming. It is James W. Breyer and the Facebook cartel who made Robin Li their front boy in China, just like they made Mark Zuckerberg their front boy in the U.S.

Big Lies

The world cannot hope to advance when its core infrastructures are founded on these Big Lies. Any engineer worth his salt knows that a good building cannot be built upon a corrupt foundation. This is both a law of physics, and a Law of God.

Baidu and Facebook CEOs started the same month—Jan. 2004

Robin Y. Li, CEO, Baidu, Inc.; appointed Jan. 2004, the same month James W. Breyer, Accel Partners LLP, picked Mark Zuckerberg to start Facebook with stolen code from Columbus innovator Leader Technologies. Photo: RudeButGood.

Robin Y. Li became CEO of Baidu in Jan. 2004. Coincidentally, that is the very same month Mark Zuckerberg claims he started Facebook (“in one to two weeks”) and launched it on Feb. 4, 2004. The name of his British Virgin Islands hide away for his Baidu holdings probably says it all—Handsome Reward.

The common denominator between the Chinese and American Facebooks is James W. Breyer. At that time was chairman of the National Venture Capital Association, managing partner of Accel Partners LLP, soon to be if not already largest Facebook shareholder, and fellow client of Fenwick & West LLP with Columbus innovator Leader Technologies, Inc.—the proven inventor of social networking. Robin Li’s handsome reward is his willingness to be Breyer’s Chinese front face.

Worried about signaling Chinese involvement

Sands Capital appears to have been worried about the appearance of impropriety? Had they disclosed Baidu in a timely way, eyebrows would have been raised about possible Chinese involvement in the Obama cabinet, as well as in American healthcare and data infrastructure. Something is clearly amiss, otherwise, why would the Baidu nondisclosure be such an outlier in Sands Capital Management, LLC’s SEC reporting?

American securities watchdogs were busy chewing on bones Breyer threw their way

Fig. 7—Administration and Judicial Watchdogs were busy chewing on their Facebook cartel bones. The United States top law enforcement officers and regulators, namely Eric H. Holder, Mary L. Schapiro, Rebecca M. Blank and David J. Kappos were silent during Sands Capital’s misconduct. They were busying chewing on the bones that the Facebook cartel had already thrown them.The current Commerce Secretary, Penny S. Pritzker, continues the deafening silence. Graphic: Clker.com.

But lest we wonder where our U.S. securities regulators were during this shell game, the Facebook cartel had that covered too. They had already ensured for S.E.C. Chair Mary L. Schapiro, Commerce Secretary #1 Rebecca M. Blank, Commerce Secretary #2 Penny S. Pritzker, Patent Office Director David J. Kappos, Attorney General Eric H. Holder and Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr. were well cared for.

Among the five Obama administration senior officials alone, they hold at least 177 Facebook “dark pools” funds. In fact, no one in the Obama administration or judiciary had more Facebook cartel dark pool funds than Chairman Schapiro and Secretary Blank. See two previous posts. These dogs won’t hunt. The’re too well fed.

#3: Facebook, INC.

The next Sands Capital holding to appear out of thin air is Facebook, Inc. Again, they did not file a Form SC 13G acquisition notice in their May 14, 2012 reporting, which is just four days before the May 18, 2012 Facebook IPO. We’re taking bets that  Sands Capital will blame it on the NASDAQ “glitch.” The purpose of the glitch appears to us to be a smoke screen for these sorts of shady activities.

Then, without filing the stock acquisition notice Form SC 13G subsequently, like they did on all their other stock purchases (except Athenahealth and Baidu), on Aug. 13, 2012 they simply include their Facebook holding of 11.6 million shares valued at $362 million on their quarterly report.

Why such blatant disregard for SEC disclosure rules? Rules that Sands Capital appears to follow otherwise?

AFI researchers have lived with this cartel conduct for years now, and they believe Sands Capital was determined to get in on the HealthCare.gov “Datapalooza” that Todd Y. Park would bring them via Athenahealth. Datapalooza is the actual name Mr. Park gave to his dubious “open government” giveaways of healthcare data while CTO at HHS.

AFI researchers believe it is likely that Sands Capital kept the Baidu transactions below the radar screen in order to avoid awkward questions about Park’s role in Baidu, Athenahealth and Facebook financings and business activity, especially surrounding Obamacare and HealthCare.gov.

Notices of stock acquisitions are part of America’s securities fraud watchdog infrastructure

Readers should know that independent stock monitoring analysts like Morningstar use automated tools that send alerts/notices when companies file notice of new acquisitions. No such alerts occurred for Athenahealth, Facebook or Baidu because the notices were never filed.

Fig. 8—S.E.C. Certifications are legal evidence. When a fund compliance officer signs an S.E.C. filing, he or she is signing an affidavit that is enforcable as evidence in court. If that person lies or in some other way willfully misrepresents the facts, it is the same as lying under oath in a courtroom.The problem for Sands Capital’s Robert C. Hancock is that intentional withholding of certifications, with the intent to deceive the public, is illegal since the omission misleads the public who must then rely on inaccurate information.

Sands Capital’s compliance officer Robert C. Hancock avoided liability by not signing

Sands Capital’s chief compliance officer, Robert C. Hancock, may have been trying to avoid personal liability by not signing what would otherwise be fraudulent representations of truthfulness. Corporate officers like Hancock can be personally liable if they sign knowingly false certifications under oath. It’s the same thing as knowingly making a false statement in court.

Here’s the SC 13G acquisition certification Hancock avoided signing for initial Athenahealth, Baidu and Facebook stock disclosures:

“Item 10. Certification: By signing below I certify that, to the best of my knowledge and belief, the securities referred to above were acquired and are held in the ordinary course of business and were not acquired and are not held for the purpose of or with the effect of changing or influencing the control of the issuer of the securities and were not acquired and are not held in connection with or as a participant in any transaction having that purpose or effect.

SIGNATURE: After reasonable inquiry and to the best of my knowledge and belief, I certify that the information set forth in this statement is true, complete and correct.”

Here’s an example of a later Athenahealth SC 13g acquisition certification that Hancock did sign on Feb.. 13, 2013, so he knows what to do, he just didn’t do it when Athenahealth stock was first acquired.

Hancock was probably choking on the clause in red above: “… were not acquired and are not held for the purpose of or with the effect of changing or influencing the control of the issuer of the securities and were not acquired and are not held in connection with or as a participant in any transaction having that purpose or effect.”

Hancock may have refused to sign the Athenahealth, Baidu and Facebook certifications because he knew that:

1. Athenahealth was an inside job among selected funds, companies and individuals to control certain markets and global events;

2. Baidu, like Facebook, was a fabrication of James W. Breyer, Accel Partners LLP, and Facebook’s largest shareholder; therefore, everything about these stock maneuvers was designed to manipulate the cartel’s global agenda, which included the creation of a Chinese repository, potentially for exported U.S. healthcare and other data; and

3. Facebook & Baidu were both running on software property stolen from Columbus innovator, Leader Technologies; therefore, these offerings were used to generate funds for the express purpose of misappropriation of patents, copyrights and trade secrets that would cause and effect the manipulation of the U.S. healthcare sector, among others.

Presumably, Hancock would want to stay out of jail by refusing to put his signature on a form where he clearly knew there was an intent to influence business and political events. Tellingly, he signed all of his other certifications during this period.

What U.S. judge or regulator is complaining?

Who would complain about Sands Capital’s failure to file the S.E.C. Form SC 13G notices of acquisition of Facebook, Baidu and Athenahealth stock?

Click Official’s Name to view his or her financial disclosure.

Not S.E.C Chairman Mary L. Schapiro—she held a boatload of “dark pool” Fidelity, Vanguard, AllianceBern, TIAA-CREF and T. Rowe Price funds.

Not Commerce Secretary #1 Rebecca M. Blank—she held TIAA-CREF, Vanguard and Fidelity funds.

Not Commerce Secretary #2 Penny S. Pritzker—she holds up to $23.4 million Morgan Stanley, JPMorgan and Goldman Sachs Facebook dark pools.

Not Attorney General Eric H. Holder—he held T. Rowe Price and Fidelity funds. In fact, Holder held Fidelity Contrafund, the largest single Facebook mutual fund stock holder, valued at $413 million.

Photos: Holder–Huffington Post; Pritzker–White House;Blank–U.S. London Embassy; Schapiro–NY Times.

Who in the judiciary would complain?

Click Judge’s Name to view his or her financial disclosure.

Not Leader v. Facebook  Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr.—he held  Microsoft, T. Rowe Price, Fidelity, Janus, Vanguard and Blackrock funds, including Fidelity Contrafund.

Not Leader v. Facebook  Federal Circuit Judges Alan D. Lourie, Kimberly A. Moore and Evan J. Wallach—they held Fidelity, Vanguard and T. Rowe Price funds, including Fidelity Contrafund.

Not Leader v. Facebook  District Court Judge Leonard P. Stark—he held Vanguard and Fidelity funds.

Not Leader v. Facebook  Patent Office Director David J. Kappos—he held over a million dollars of Vanguard funds.

Photos: Kappos–Politico; Stark–udel.edu; Wallach–Fed. Cir.; Lourie–Fed. Cir.; Moore–mit.edu; Roberts–sltrib.com.

The victims are complaining

On Nov. 19, 2008, Leader Technologies filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Facebook. Leader proved that Facebook stole the engine that runs Facebook, yet were ruled against anyway by the biased judges mentioned above, based on fabricated evidence.

In May 2012, Facebook IPO investors began filing class action lawsuits, claiming they had been defrauded and damaged by the NASDAQ “glitch.”

Complaints have been filed to inspectors general seeking justice.

Others have filed complaints too, like Paul Ceglia and Rembrandt Social Media.

America’s regulatory mechanisms are supposed to help prevent waste, fraud and abuse, not aid and abet it. The latter is called state-sponsored terrorism and totalitarianism.

In the case of the HealthCare.gov debacle, and the theft of Leader Technologies’ social networking invention, the failure of the S.E.C. to police Sands Capital Management LLC enabled them to press their hidden agenda using fraudulent funds.

That agenda has led to a disastrous HealthCare.gov architecture, corrupted by Athenahealth conflicts of interest, using Leader Technologies’ software which has become a mess of hacked pieces and parts. The agenda also threatens America’s healthcare data security since Sands Capital took its Facebook IPO winnings and bought $2.2 billion in the Baidu Inc. sometime between Feb-Aug 2013.

Fig. 9—Robert C. Hancock, Chief Compliance Officer, Sands Capital Management, LLC. Misled the American public by failing to file stock acquisition reports in a timely manner for Facebook, Baidu and Athenahealth. These failings concealed substantial Chinese influences regarding Obamacare and American data infrastructure. Photo: Sands Capital.

Fig. 10—Jonathan Goodman, Chief Counsel, Sands Capital Management, LLC; former partner, Gibson Dunn LLP (Facebook’s Leader v. Facebook law firm, and also counsel to the Federal Circuit and Federal Circuit Bar Association). Photo: Sands Capital.

A solid democratic house cannot be built upon a foundation of regulatory corruption

Questions for Sands Capital’s compliance officer Robert C. Hancock would be why he did not submit the notices of new stock acquisition forms with his signed certifications for Athenahealth, Baidu and Facebook. If he had done this, perhaps over six million Americans would not be struggling to replace their cancelled healthcare plans because the program would never have begun.

Thomas G. Hungar, Gibson Dunn LLP. Failed to disclose conflicts of interest in Leader v. Facebook; counsel to the Federal Circuit and Microsoft (one of Facebook’s largest stockholders); Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr. is a personal mentor.Gibson Dunn LLP also represents the U.S. in U.S. v. Paul Ceglia (Ceglia v. Zuckerberg) where U.S. attorney Preet Bharara was formerly employed by Gibson Dunn—an obvious conflict. Photo: Gibson Dunn LLP.

Hancock’s ethics counsel is none other than another former Gibson Dunn LLP attorney, Jonathan Goodman. Goodman was at Gibson Dunn LLP with Thomas G. Hungar during the Leader v. Facebook case. Goodman’s other former firm, Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP, just received David J. Kappos, former director of the U.S. Patent Office, as a new partner. Kappos only arrived after he had ordered an unprecedented 3rd reexamination of Leader Technologies’ patent. Kappos had purchased more than a million dollars of Vanguard “dark pool” funds, all on Oct. 27, 2009, within weeks of his appointment by President Obama.

Robert C. Hancock’s ethical lapses have damaged millions of Americans

Apparently, Hancock was advised by Goodman/Gibson Dunn LLP that it was ethically acceptable not to file the Athenahealth, Baidu and Facebook stock acquisition notices.

Mr. Goodman’s former firm, Gibson Dunn LLP, swirls at the center of everything that has gone horribly wrong with this Obama administration, including the Leader v. Facebook judicial corruption scandal.

Had Hancock filed in a timely manner, questions about Todd Y. Park’s Athenahealth duplicity could have been raised. Athenahealth’s close associations with Chinese interests could have been scrutinized. Sands Capital’s role in the Facebook pump and dump IPO scheme would have become visible. Hancock’s failure to file and certify did not allow regulatory mechanisms to work.

Fig. 10—Pres. Barack H. Obama. Photo: jeannotramambazafy.overblog.com

Questions for President Obama

Given the suspicious timing of your appointment of Todd Y. Park to oversee America’s healthcare and digital infrastructure:

1. How much do you know about SANDS CAPITAL’S collusion with the Chinese?

2. What are you going to do about it?

3. What assurances can you give us that the tech people you have hand picked are worthy of America’s trust?

4. Will the new systems really protect Americans’ privacy, property and security?

5. Did you know that your Securities Chair held stock in Facebook and Baidu before the Facebook IPO?


Photo: Politico.

Photo: Wikipedia.

Why didn’t your personal White House counsels from Perkins Coie LLP, namely Robert F. Bauer and Anita B. Dunn, husband and wife respectively, submit ethics pledges and financial disclosures? Did you know that Facebook was one of their clients?

7. Where are Todd Y. Park’s financial disclosures and written ethics pledges?

8. Did you know that a Florida judge was ordered to recuse himself from a case where he was Facebook Friends with one of the litigating attorneys? What do your 50 million “likes” say about your appointment of two of the four judges in the Leader v. Facebook case, not even counting all their financial holdings in Facebook, or the Patent Office’s “likes”?

Summary of ethical standards to which the persons above swore solemn public oaths to uphold

Judges— Code of Conduct for U.S. Judges, Canon 2:

“A judge should avoid improprietary and the appearance of impropriety in all activities.”

Judges—U.S. Courts.gov, Guide to Judiciary Policy, Ethics and Judicial Conduct, p. 20-2:

“Canon 3C(3)(c) provides that a financial interest ‘means ownership of a legal or equitable interest, however small,’ with certain exceptions not applicable to this situation. Ownership of even one share of stock by the judge’s spouse would require disqualification.” Many types of mutual fund holdings are not exempt from this policy (p. 106-1 thru 4).

“a judge who chooses to invest in such mutual funds should evaluate whether his or her ‘interest’ in the fund might be affected substantially by the outcome of a particular case, which would require recusal under Canon 3C(1)(c)” (p. 106-3). [If the largest tech IPO in American history—Facebook—does not apply, then this policy is meaningless sophistry.]

Executive Branch Employees—Standards of ethical conduct for employees of the executive branch 5 C.F.R. §2635.501:

“avoid an appearance of loss of impartiality in the performance of his official duties”

Attorneys—Model Rules of Professional Conduct, Preamble [6]:

“a lawyer should further the public’s understanding of and confidence in the rule of law and the justice system because legal institutions in a constitutional democracy depend on popular participation and support to maintain their authority.”

Directors—Business Judgment Rule, Parnes v. Bally Entertainment Corp., at 1246:

“The business judgment rule ‘is a presumption that in making a business decision the directors of a corporation acted on an informed basis, in good faith and in the honest belief that the action taken was in the best interests of the company [and was not based on self-dealing].’”

Background: Funwallz.com

* * *

Posted by K. Craine at1:21 PM

Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to FacebookShare to Pinterest


K. CraineJanuary 29, 2014 at 7:42 AM

You may want to read this LAW360 article about Federal Circuit Judge Michel.

I just checked. Fed. Cir. Judge Paul R. Michel is NOT invested in the Facebook cartel, at least according to his financial disclosure.

He did not, however, police the Federal Circuit’s conflicts of interest in LEADER V. FACEBOOK since Facebook’s attorney, Thomas G. Hungar, Gibson Dunn LLP, had represented the interests of the whole court and the Federal Circuit Bar Association in a 2010 ethics case, ironically.

LAW360 HEADLINE: “Strong Software Patents Crucial, Michel Tells Justices”

“As the U.S. Supreme Court considers how to evaluate when software can be patented, former Federal Circuit Chief Judge Paul Michel warned the justices Monday that adopting a standard that weakens patent protection for software would “cripple, if not destroy, computer-related industries.”


Here’s Judge Michel’s 2008 financial disclosure:




Rain OnyourparadeJanuary 31, 2014 at 12:24 PM

Check out this FLORIDA RULING. It says a judge must disqualify himself for Facebook-friending one of the attorneys in a case before him. This is kid’s play compared to the abuse Leader Technologies has received…

>>>Patent Office’s Facebook site to 10,000+ employees,put up before the trial and reexamination.<<<

>>>Barack Obama’s tens of millions of likes, probably all of the Facebook attorneys.<<<

>>>Barack Obama’s appointment of two of the four judges in LEADER V. FACEBOOK.<<<

>>>HealthCare.gov claiming Leader’s invention is open source.<<<




dave123January 31, 2014 at 5:56 PM


The 2008 finance crisis was not an accident it was caused by an out of control industry and at the wheel was chief economic advisor Larry Summers, Summers who played a MAJOR role in the Deregulation of Derivatives, And became PRESIDENT of HARVARD in 2001 And New that FACEBOOK was stolen, and new of the THEFT OF Leader Technologies’

when the Winklevoss made a complaint to lawrence larry summers PRESIDENT of HARVARD they where tolled to piss of summers wonted THE FACEBOOK CLUB for him self but summers needed that suck up little shit mark zuckerberg to do it, But the IDEA FACEBOOK was not the Winklevoss nor was it Mark Zuckerberg IDEA,


Wayne Chang filed a lawsuit against the Winklevoss brothers knowing that facebook was stolen, Chang said that the Winklevoss brothers merged their company, called ConnectU, with Chang’s web development company to make a new company: The Winklevoss Chang Group (WCG). Chang complained that the Winklevosses “expressly agreed that the litigation between ConnectU and Facebook was an asset of ConnectU and an asset of WCG,” according to BusinessInsider. Chang never got any money when the Winklevosses received $65 million as part of the settlement but the $65 million was just a fuck of from mark zuckerberg Larry Summers and James W. Breyer. Even the “like” button was stolen from the family of the late Dutch inventor, Johannes Van Der Meer

More of Larry Summers friends

chief economic advisor Larry Summers Henry Paulson of Goldman Sachs and Geithner to pay Goldman Sachs 100 cents on the dollar Paulson and Bernanke ask congress for $700 billion to bail out the banks. BUT NO BAILOUT FOR LEHMAN BROTHERS GONE AND THE ORDERS CAME FROM GOLDMAN SACHS TO LARRY SUMMERS NOT TO BAIL THEM OUT?? just so Goldman Sachs can be number ONE? IN 1999, at the urging of Summers and Rubin congress passed the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act and cleared the way for future mergers, in 1998 someone tried to regulate them it was Brooksley Born but Larry Summers kill this, Summers had 13 bankers in his office and directing her to stop Greenspan Rubin and SEC chairman Arthur Levitt issued a joint statement condemning Born. The securities and exchange commission agency conducted no major investigation in to the bank during the bubble and 146 people were gutted from the securities enforcement division?

When David contacted securities and exchange commission about LEHMAN BROTHERS GOLDMAN SACHS AND LARRY SUMMERS AND FACEBOOK there were only four people WORKING THERE and then down to just ONE?? and his job was to turn the lights out

OBAMA picked Mary Schapiro the former CEO of FINRA to run the securities and exchange commission who held stock in both Facebook and Baidu (China) before the Facebook IPO via her investment in T. Rowe Price the securities and exchange commission agency also ignored numerous whistleblower warnings of improper “dark pools” activity, (PAY OF)



dave123February 2, 2014 at 6:47 PM

Larry Summers + President Barack Obama picked Mary Schapiro the former CEO of FINRA to run the securities and exchange commission who held stock in both Facebook and Baidu (China) before the Facebook IPO via her investment in T. Rowe Price the securities and exchange commission agency also ignored numerous whistleblower warnings of improper “dark pools” activity, (PAY OF)

Larry Summers + President Barack Obama (appointed Leonard P. Stark to the judge’s seat in Delaware Federal District Court eight days after Stark’s court allowed Facebook to get away with jury and court manipulation of an on-sale bar verdict which was attained without a single piece of hard evidence; Barack and Michelle Obama were evidently protecting their 47 million “likes” on Facebook)

Larry Summers + President Barack Obama new found friends, Facebook cartel had it all covered, They had it all already S.E.C. Chair Mary L. Schapiro, Commerce Secretary #1 Rebecca M. Blank, Commerce Secretary #2 Penny S. Pritzker, Patent Office Director David J. Kappos, Attorney General Eric H. Holder and Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr. were well cared for.

Larry Summers + President Barack Obama + Baidu(China) All had back door keys to the NSA then add your healthcare (Obamacare), financial (Wall Street), telephone and online data (NSA) to your Dark Profile, and you have the ultimate Big Brother file on every person on the planet and CHINA HAD THE BACK DOOR KEYS TO THE NSA???? with facebook and their repeated breaches of security and their now ubiquitous intrusions on people’s privacy?

Larry Summers + Facebook The 2008 finance crisis was not an accident it was caused by an out of control industry and at the wheel was chief economic advisor Larry Summers, Summers who played a MAJOR role in the Deregulation of Derivatives, And became PRESIDENT of HARVARD in 2001 And New that FACEBOOK was stolen, and new of the THEFT OF Leader Technologies’ when the Winklevoss made a complaint to lawrence larry summers PRESIDENT of HARVARD they where tolled to piss of summers wonted THE FACEBOOK CLUB for him self but summers needed that suck up little shit mark zuckerberg to do it, The 2008 finance crisis was not an accident it was caused by LARRY SUMMERS?



dave123February 2, 2014 at 6:49 PM

Larry Summers + election manipulation on FB Since that data was not equally available to the opposition, use of this data about you amounts to election manipulation. The fact that so many foreigners are associated with Facebook amounts to foreign influence on U.S. elections, which is illegal. This undue influence hurts every American. Ditto for the sovereign elections in Germany, France or any other country, like fucking Germany ASS-HOLE The Facebook Club run by Larry Summers used the promise of wild Facebook IPO returns as the currency for their plans to install Barack Obama as President and press their global data gathering agenda

Larry Summers + FB + Robin Y. Li Robin Y. Li became CEO of Baidu in Jan. 2004. Coincidentally, that is the very same month Mark Zuckerberg claims he started Facebook (“in one to two weeks”) and launched it on Feb. 4, 2004. The name of his British Virgin Islands hide away for his Baidu holdings probably says it all—Handsome Reward. Sands Capital appears to have been worried about the appearance of impropriety? Had they disclosed Baidu in a timely way, eyebrows would have been raised about possible Chinese involvement in the Obama cabinet, as well as in American healthcare and data infrastructure. Something is clearly amiss, Robin Y. Li NEW THAT FB WAS STOLEN and that it was Larry Summers who was running FACEBOOK ow shit?

Larry Summers + friends chief economic advisor Larry Summers Henry Paulson of Goldman Sachs and Geithner to pay Goldman Sachs 100 cents on the dollar Paulson and Bernanke ask congress for $700 billion to bail out the banks. BUT NO BAILOUT FOR LEHMAN BROTHERS GONE AND THE ORDERS CAME FROM GOLDMAN SACHS TO LARRY SUMMERS NOT TO BAIL THEM OUT?? just so Goldman Sachs can be number ONE? Paulson was a dick who did not know how to work out shit if someone stuck a spade up his ass



K. CraineFebruary 3, 2014 at 12:40 PM

President Obama claimed last night that there was “not even a smidgen of corruption” in the IRS scandal. Really now Mr. President? How can any self-respecting person make such a claim about a sprawling government agency with 106,000 employees? Such a claim telegraphs the massive corruption that we have proved exists within this administration. An administration where Yes is No and wrong is right. Given that, a No from Obama means a Yes.

Here’s an excerpt from the New York Times article:


Mr. O’Reilly responded that there were “unanswered questions” and asked again if there was corruption in the I.R.S.

“There were some boneheaded decisions,” the president said.

“But no mass corruption?” Mr. O’Reilly asked.

“Not even mass corruption — not even a smidgen of corruption,” Mr. Obama said.


SOURCE: ”Obama Is Tackled by O’Reilly in Pre-Game Interview” by Peter Baker, Feb. 22, 2014, The New York Times http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/03/us/politics/obama-is-tackled-by-oreilly-before-game.html?_r=0



DarrenFebruary 3, 2014 at 4:22 PM

A couple of additional items to inform your congressperson about along with the overwhelming conflicts of interest already presented here

David Kappos encouraged his employee’s, of whom include the judges that work for the USPTO, to use Facebook. He states on the USPTO website. “I’m confident our Facebook presence will complement the USPTO Web site as a means of communicating and connecting with the public and our stakeholders in the intellectual property community.

On the other hand, Chief Justice Roberts at the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals Annual Conference in 2011 said that he recommends to the law clerks not to use social media, Facebook and Twitter, because a person could gain insight by stray comments and that would not be good. Justice Breyer, who has a Twitter and Facebook account, stated at a House Appropriations Subcommittee, “Judges wear black robes so that they will resist the temptation to publicize themselves,” Breyer said. “Because we speak for the law, and that is to be anonymous. So I wouldn’t want to have followers on the tweeter or the Facebook page but for my children, and I can get in touch with them anyway.”

So the question is, If Chief Justice Roberts discourages law clerks from using Facebook and Justice Breyer is against using it publicly, then why in the world would Kappos open a Facebook account for the USPTO, and encourage the patent office employees, which includes 50-100 patent judges, to use it and then open a Directors reexam at the same time against Leader?

His conduct appears suspect and corrupt!



Rain OnyourparadeFebruary 4, 2014 at 7:31 AM

Check out this Russian (OK, Ukrainian) risk to HealthCare.org.

Belarus link to HealthCare.gov raises concerns over possible cyber attack,


The Ukrainian software official, Valery Tsepkalo told a local radio station in Minsk that U.S. Health & Human Services is “one of our clients” and that “we are helping Obama complete his insurance reform.”

HHS was run by Todd Park, the guy with the Chinese connections also. What’s wrong with American programmers for American healthcare. This breach of U.S. sovereignty by this President is just criminal.



Mark GoeingsFebruary 4, 2014 at 2:10 PM

There is no information missing here. Form 13g is only used when a fund acquires more than 5% of a publicly traded company. That’s why you don’t see these disclosures here. No conspiracy afoot; this is just basic SEC procedure.

And I am pretty shocked that you have explicitly accused Fenwick and West of providing source code to Mr. Zuckerberg? Fenwick is a very well regarded firm and I cannot even begin to imagine something like that ever happened. But in any event I think you are setting yourself up for a very nasty libel lawsuit.




K. CraineFebruary 4, 2014 at 6:30 PM

Mark. The 5% rule is SC 13G/A, 13d-1(a). However, your conclusion is misleading, hopefully not knowingly so. The rule for investment companies is much more strict. The rule (a) you cite mainly applies to corporations and their holders, which can include an investment company’s holdings. But, an investment company has stricter reporting rules for its portfolio investments. It must report everything, not just more than 5% holdings. Rule 13 has four main sections, you cited only (a). It also has Rule 13d-1(b), Rule 13d-1(c) and Rule 13d-1(c). http://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/17/240.13d-1

Easier to follow regarding investment companies is 15 U.S. CODE § 80A–8 – REGISTRATION OF INVESTMENT COMPANIES


We’ll use Sands Capital’s other filings to disprove your statement. Sands Capital has filed many reports for investments of less than 5%.

Here are some examples:

CREE, INC. on Feb. 14, 2012 – 249,600 shares representing ***0.22% ownership***. http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/895419/000102006612000004/cree0212.txt

FMC TECHNOLOGIES, INC. on Feb. 14, 2012 – 11,144,206 shares representing ***4.68% ownership***. http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1020066/000102006612000007/fti0212.txt

VARIAN MEDICAL SYSTEMS, INC. on Feb. 13 – 56,650 shares representing ***0.05% ownership***


We could go on. Bottom line. Investment companies must report “in the public interest or for the protection of investors.” 15 U.S. CODE § 80A–8(b).


10. Reply


K. CraineFebruary 4, 2014 at 4:05 PM

This is an OPINION blog, Mark. It is a citizen’s right to express his or her opinion. Inform yourself of the facts and express your opinion.

We have covered Fenwick’s misconduct thoroughly in past posts. Take note of such things as “Christopher P. King” and his shadow self, “Christopher-Charles King” for starters. The opinion is well founded. Those who have encountered Fenwick’s treachery have another view than your “well regarded” caricature.


K. CraineFebruary 5, 2014 at 7:17 AM

Almost forgot to mention. Feb. 4 (yesterday) was the 10th anniversary of Mark Zuckerberg’s, James W. Breyer’s, Accel Partners LLP’s, Fenwick & West LLP’s theft of Leader Technologies’ U.S. Patent No. 7,139,761 invention.




“Lithium ion batteries, when they burn, cause brain cancer, liver cancer and other, potentially lethal, toxic poisoning. Certain regulators are told to “ignore these issues” because certain lithium ion investors donated cash to certain campaigns. The chemicals for lithium ion batteries come from countries which needed to be invaded in order to monopolize the mining of those chemicals. Certain politicians are told to “ignore these issues” because certain lithium ion investors engaged in war profiteering in order to control those minerals.

The FAA has issued numerous warnings and videos showing that lithium ion batteries do spontaneously self-ignite and crash airplanes. Numerous people have been killed in lithium ion plane crashes. Certain regulators are told to “ignore these issues” because certain lithium ion investors donated cash to certain campaigns. Flight MH370 was carrying tons of lithium ion batteries in it’s cargo hold.

Lithium ion batteries have self-ignited and set numerous children and senior citizens on fire. They have set homes on fire. They have set offices on fire. They have set Apple Stores on fire. You constantly hear about passenger airlines being forced to land because passengers “smell smoke in the cabin”. This is almost always a lithium ion battery going off in the cabin and exposing all of the passengers to it’s carcinogenic ignition vapors. There have been multiple recalls of Tesla for fires including the battery charger cord setting homes on fire and the need for an entire titanium add-on plate to cover the whole underside of the Tesla. Tesla’s have now been involved in many deaths.

Silicon Valley investors took over the lithium ion battery market, along with Goldman Sachs (recently called before Congress for this very same “commodity manipulation”), because they knew they were getting large government hand-outs from the Department of Energy in exchange for campaign contributions.

Lithium ion batteries lose their power and memory over a relatively short time. Lithium ion batteries blow up when they get wet or bumped. Fisker Motors went out of business when millions of dollars of Fisker cars, using lithium ion batteries, got wet and all blew up. Tesla battery packs have blown up, on multiple occasions, from simply hitting bumps in the road. Manufacturing these kinds of batteries is so toxic that even China, a country known for the most minimal regulations, has closed a huge number of battery factories because of the massive numbers of deaths they caused to workers and nearby residents.

Journalists have published a glut of articles exposing cover-ups about the dangers and corruption involved with lithium ion batteries. The U.S. Government and numerous groups have filed charges against Panasonic, and similar battery companies for bribery, corruption, dumping, price fixing and other unethical tactics.

Every key investor in lithium ion was also a campaign donor who also received huge federal cash from the Department of Energy in the same funding cycle in which they paid campaign contributions. By driving a Tesla, in addition to the common public perception that it is a “douche-bag car”, there is something far worse about driving it. You are making a public statement to the world that you support organized crime by driving this car. Here is why: Investigators say that, political operatives David Plouffe, Rahm Emanual, Steven Rattner, Bill Daly, David Axelrod and Robert Gibbs arranged with Silicon Valley investors to take over the lithium battery industry in order to monopolize the trillions of dollars of lithium, and related mining deals, in Afghanistan. The Afghan war has now cost American’s over 6 trillion dollars, with almost nothing to show for it.

They say that they traded federal funding for campaign support assisted by Harry Reid and Dianne Feinstein, who received numerous stock and cash kickbacks in the scheme. They say they used the money to fund political campaigns. They used the Silicon Valley investors internet companies, (mostly Google), to manipulate voter perceptions and web searches in favor of their agenda. The Silicon Valley investors received favorable federal laws, tax gifts, free federal loans, stock bumps and other perks. The Silicon Valley investors companies that used the Afghan minerals: Abound, Solyndra, Fisker, Ener1, Tesla, and many, many more, that received the Department of Energy kickback funds, managed by Steven Chu, have all either failed, been raided, been charged with fraud or otherwise turned out to be disasters because they were based on a financial fraud skimming scheme instead of a good business plan. Anyone who spoke out about details of the scam, particularly journalists, had a character assassination hit-job ordered on them by Axelrod, Gibbs and Carney; using tabloid fronts that they controlled.

All of these facts are known, in great detail, by many investigators. Nearly a million pages of evidence exist. A Special Prosecutor is required to perform proper prosecutions. No matter what political party you belong to: This is organized crime against the public and you are supporting it if you drive a Tesla. All of this information can now be validated, and confirmed, on any law enforcement or investigative news database.”


Rain OnyourparadeFebruary 5, 2014 at 9:35 AM

By my tally, these Facebook loving criminals, sorry attorneys, only know how to misquote the law. The jig is up boys and girls. How do you know an attorney is lying?

His/her lips are moving.

Our beloved Harvard-bred President brags about teaching Constitutional law for a decade. Hmmmm

Google Bankrolled By The CIA | Conscious Ape

Google, Facebook, eBay, PayPaL – Evidence is mounting that these internet giants could all be CIA fronts funded by the spy agency’s Silicon Valley venture capital arm…


More results

Facebook, the CIA, DARPA, and the tanking IPO – NaturalNews.com

Facebook, the CIA, DARPA, and the tanking IPO. Español Mobile Site. Home Subscribe (free) … (NVCA). The chairman of NVCA? Jim Breyer. Gilman Louie happened to be the first CEO of the important CIA start-up, In-Q-Tel.


More results

PDF Jim Breyer of Accel Partners Elected Chairman Of National …

Jim Breyer of Accel Partners Elected Chairman Of National Venture Capital Association SECTION: FINANCIAL NEWS LENGTH: 694 words … Central Intelligence Agency \(CIA\) Kleiner Perkins Caufield Byers; and Chad Waite, OVP Venture Partners.


More results

internet – Does the CIA own part of Facebook? – Skeptics …

Does the CIA own part of Facebook? That is the Internet rumor, and it is gaining believers as Facebook plays a role in destabilizing regimes from Libya to China.


More results

Facebook, the CIA, DARPA, and the Tanking IPO

Facebook, the CIA, DARPA, and the Tanking IPO. … a man named Gilman Louie joined the board of the National Venture Capital Association of America (NVCA). The chairman of NVCA? Jim Breyer. Gilman Louie happened to be the first CEO of the important CIA start-up, In-Q-Tel.


More results

Facebook and the CIA | ZDNet

One of Greylock’s senior partners is called Howard Cox, another former chairman of the NVCA, who is also on the board of In-Q-Tel. What’s In-Q-Tel? Well, believe it or not (and check out their website), this is the venture-capital wing of the CIA.


More results

Facebook, the CIA, DARPA, and the tanking IPO – Prison Planet.com

Facebook, the CIA, DARPA, and the tanking IPO. Jon Rappoport Prisonplanet.com … a man named Gilman Louie joined the board of the National Venture Capital Association of America (NVCA). The chairman of NVCA? Jim Breyer. Gilman Louie happened to be the first CEO of the important CIA start-up, …


More results

Facebook data mining for CIA and US Defense? – snopes.com

Facebook data mining for CIA and US Defense? Spook Central snopes.com > Urban Legends > Spook Central: Facebook data mining … May 13, 2004 – San Francisco, CA – The National Venture Capital Association’s (NVCA) …


More results

AnonymousLegionOps™ : Google Bankrolled By The CIA

“Google, Facebook, eBay, PayPaL – Evidence is mounting that these internet giants could all be CIA fronts funded by the spy agency’s Silicon Valley venture capital arm…”


More results

Gilman Louie – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Gilman Louie (born 1960) is a technology venture capitalist who got his start as a video game designer and then ran the CIA venture capital fund In-Q-Tel He graduated in 1983 from San Francisco State University.


More results

The CIA and NSA Want You to Be Their Friend on … – Infowars

The CIA and NSA Want You to Be Their Friend on Facebook. 0 1 0. … he is also a former chairman of the National Venture Capital Association … “identifies and partners with companies developing cutting-edge technologies to help deliver these solutions to the Central Intelligence Agency and …


The dark side of venture capital: Five things startups need to know

By Conner Forrest connerforrest FOR TECH REPUBLIC

 Image: iStockphoto/darak77

Nearly $27 billion dollars was invested by venture capitalists in 2012. That $27 billion was invested across 3,723 deals, making the average deal hover at a little over $7 million.

While that number may seem staggering to many people, it’s about average for VC investments made since the dot com bubble burst between 2000 and 2001, according to the National Venture Capital Association (NVCA). Yes, the economic impact of the dot com bubble was horrendous, but it did spawn a renewed sense of innovation in startup development.

Companies are running leaner than ever, and because of that VCs are more willing to invest in companies who don’t pride themselves on their burn rate. Still, raising venture capital funding can be a risky business if you aren’t realistic about what to expect.

Here are some things to think about if you are considering raising your first round.

1. Statistically, you will fail

The venture capital investment process is a complicated one and potential companies are vetted thoroughly before they are committed to. With that being said, just because your company is backed by a major VC you aren’t guaranteed success.

Think about those 3,723 deals that happened in 2012. In that same year there were only 49 IPOs and 449 mergers and acquisitions (M&A) deals. Granted, those exits came from companies that were invested in probably a decade ago, it is still an interesting ratio to consider.

Micah Rosenbloom, a venture partner at Founders Collective, said that historically, only one out of every 10 companies that a firm invests in with a given fund will be successful. That’s not to say that all of the remaining companies will fail, though. According to Tomasz Tunguz, a partner at Redpoint Ventures, “Typical portfolio company failure rates across the industry defined as either shutdowns or returning capital are roughly 40%-50%.”

This isn’t to discourage hopeful founders that are seeking capital, but to ground your expectations in reality. Besides, entrepreneurship is about having the courage to fail, right? The fact that you are more likely to fail is a fact of life for venture-backed companies, it is not an expectation for the VCs making the investment.

“You never invest in a company thinking that it will fail,” Tunguz said.

A VC investment in your company does not guarantee success, but it does mean you have someone in your corner who believes you have what it takes to make this thing work. Once you have a VC in your corner, you have to make sure you are in sync on what it will take to make this a worthy investment. More importantly, you have to know how long it will take for this investment to pay off.

2. There is a timeframe for ROI

“Typical venture funds are structured as 10 year commitments for the limited partners who invest in the fund,” Tunguz said.

Venture capital firms are ten-year vehicles for investors, but that doesn’t mean that all companies will be ten years old when they return on the investment. Rosenbloom mentioned that initial investments are made in the first three years. After the portfolio has been establish, a firm will typically make follow-on investments over the remainder of the fund’s lifecycle.

Ten years may sounds like a long time, but you have to consider how long companies like Coca-Cola have been around (since 1892) and some companies that were started in the 2000s have a comparable valuation to Coke. Founders Collective is usually the first institutional round in a company, and Rosenbloom said that they aren’t looking for the next cool invention.

“As a venture capital firm, we are not in the business of funding inventors or inventions, we are in the business of funding fast-growing companies,” Rosenbloom said.

Considering the first three years as initial investments, a company could only have seven years to “make it.” Some VCs, like Rosenbloom, consider seven years the average age for ROI, and the data from NVCA supports that claim.

The NVCA reported in their 2013 Yearbook that, of the 49 IPOs that happened in 2012, the median age for IPO was 7 years old and the mean age for a company to IPO was 8 years old. While some have argued that it is taking longer for startups to mature, Tunguz argues, “The gestation period will likely fall some because of the tremendous exit activity in M&A and IPOs in the last 24 months.”

To help you make it through the whirlwind of growth that can happen after an investment, you have to know how much capital you need and when you need it.

3. You can take too much funding

“All too often, entrepreneurs will think of raising a Series A round from a reputable VC as the end goal and don’t think they can be successful unless they do so. So they reprioritize raising capital over building a valuable product or service and usually end up asking for too much money too soon which ends up in a failed fundraising attempt or a raise on bad terms for the entrepreneur,” said Hrach Simonian, a principal at Canaan Partners.

As I mentioned in a previous article, knowing how much money you need can make all the difference in your venture capital experience. It starts by understanding how much money you need and only raising that much money. Raising too much money can force entrepreneurs to make decisions they aren’t ready to make.

“If you raise too much money, you have to swing for the fences,” Rosenbloom said.

You want the amount of money you raise to coincide with the benchmark you are trying to hit. If you don’t have a specific benchmark in mind (which you really should), a good rule of thumb is to consider the amount of capital it takes to sustain your operations for 18 months, then add 25-50 percent for added flexibility and seek to raise that amount of money.

Tunguz said that raising too much capital is far from the gravest sin to be committed by an entrepreneur, “But having a huge sum of money in the bank can entice founders to dramatically increasing burn rate or diffuse the company’s energy among many projects. It can be challenging to maintain the same execution discipline created by the scarcity of capital when the bank account is overflowing.”

Another risk of raising too much capital is setting the bar too high for your exit. By doing so you will run the risk of not being able to grow into the expectation that was set by raising a large amount of money.

Remember to raise enough to get yourself to the next stage where you can assess whether or not you need to raise more money. Keep in mind that once you choose a firm and raise those funds, that VC will probably get a permanent seat on your board of advisors. Choose carefully, because you are usually stuck with that investor for good.

4. You can’t fire your VC

Too many founders abdicate their due diligence when it comes to the firms they end up pitching. Each venture capital firm has its own general focus on specific sectors or verticals. Taking that to a more granular scale, each partner within each specific firm maintains investments in a focused area of expertise.

Founders typically don’t appreciate the incentive structure on the side of the fund, which is based on the size and the dynamics of that fund. Understand how the fund makes money to determine if it is a good fit for you. The size of the fund will be a good determinant for whether or not your company will present a quality investment opportunity for the partners.

You have to think of your VC firm as another partner in your business.  This leads to one of the single most important aspects of your startup/VC relationship: Make sure your goals for your company line up with your VC’s goals for his or her investment. By aligning your goals with those of your VC, you can help potentially avoid a disaster scenario.

“The disaster scenario is that the founding team wants to do something different than the board,” Tunguz said.

The risk/reward curves are different for entrepreneurs than they are for VCs, and board members (including your VC) have a legal responsibility to take into account the goals of the investors. So, if your company is losing steam and an acquisition opportunity comes along that is in the best interest of your investors, they might push you to take it, even if it means you don’t get paid.

But, of course, you can avoid all that potential heartache by not taking funding to begin with.

5. Failure isn’t death

Micah Rosenbloom describes venture capital as jet fuel. If you want to drive somewhere 100 miles away, you’ll probably drive there. If you want to get from New York to Los Angeles, you’re going to have to fly, and you will need fuel to power that jet.

Venture capital gives you potential—the potential for major success and the potential to fail spectacularly. The good news here—the gospel of venture capital if you will—is that failure is not the end of the story if you play your cards right. Despite stereotypes, most VCs are actually looking to build relationships with entrepreneurs, not just make money off of them.

“The Valley is small, and life is long,” Tunguz said.

According to Tunguz, when it comes to his work at Redpoint Venture, great relationships are the motivation, because even if you fail it’s not the end of the world. What is much more important is how you fail and how transparent you are throughout the process. If you keep people informed when you hit a snag and ask for help with a problem, you can build trust with your investors.

Venture capital investors want to know that you will be a good steward of the funds they placed under your control. If you can prove yourself a highly competent entrepreneur and someone who will push as hard as they can to make an idea work, failure will not mean the end of your career as an entrepreneur. At that point, even if you fail, past investors and people involved with your company will be far more likely to fund your next project if they trust the way you work.

As an entrepreneur, burning bridges is unwise. Treat people with respect to build social capital, but don’t see them as just a resource either. Other than that, always remember that if you’re going to fail, fail big and go down swinging. Conner Forrest is a Staff Writer for TechRepublic. He covers Google and startups and is passionate about the convergence of technology and culture. This news coverage, again, proves that you can hire a few people to have them use the entire internet, via a few companies in Silicon Valley, to end the life of anyone..from Putin, to your neighborhood paper-boy! The attackers never have to face the law! Is that right that these “CYBER ASSASSIN” companies get to sell “KILL SERVICES” inside the USA?

In Summation: Imagine that you are one American citizen. You work for no political party, no covert organization. You simply invented some products that worked better than your competitors and, when your competitors, try to blockade your product, you called the cops! In reprisal, your competitors used the entire multi-trillion dollar resources of the United States Government, including EVERYTHING described above, to try to end your life.

That’s “The American Dream”, right?